Answer: It speaks where he picked it up with the intention of not acquiring it ... [cont. from previous page]).

Proof: Seeing as by a shoe that is not his, the Mishnah (in Yevamos, Ibid.) rules that the Chalitzah is Kasher (See Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).

Clarification: And the case of Lulav speaks on the second day of Yom-Tov (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Implied Question: The Gemara here could actually have answered that the Mishnah is speaking on the first day of Yom-Tov, in which it would have been necessary to establish by 'Asheirah de'Moshe' ...

Answer: Only it establishes it even on the second day, because the Tana mentioned it together with 'Ir ha'Nidachas'.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that all the Sugyos are speaking about the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri, only one speaks before Bitul, and the other, after Bitul ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And even after Bitul one may not take it Lechatchila, because from the point of view of the Mitzvah, it is disgusting since it once bore the label of Avodah Zarah, and for the same reason one may not the shoe for Chalitzah Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: And even if one suggests that one is permitted to cover with the earth of Avodah Zarah - as one is that of an Ir ha'Nidachas ...

Answer: Covering (with the earth) is not comparable to Chalitzah (with the shoe).

Implied Question: And the reason the Gemara here establishes the case by Asheirah de'Moshe and not by that of a Nochri before Bitul ...

Answer: Because the moment the Lulav is cut from the palm-tree, it becomes Bateil.

Implied Question: And as for the Gemara in 'Mitzvas Chalitzah' (Yevamos, Daf 103b), which draws a distinction between a Sandal of Avodah Zarah and one that was sacrificed to Avodah Zarah, to which Bitul does not apply ...

Implied Question (cont.): And does not differentiate between by Avodah Zarah itself, between before Bitul and after Bitul ...

Answer: Because it is teaching us by the way that a sacrifice of Avodah Zarah is not subject to Bitul.

Question: However the Gemara in 'Ra'uhu Beis Din is more problematic - where Rava differentiates between the Shofar of Avodah Zarah and one of Ir ha'Nidachas, inasmuch as in the case of the former he could have drawn a distinction between before Bitul and after Bitul? ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as in any case, we are forced to establish it after Bitul according to R Rabeinu Tam - according to the text 'Rav Yehudah' (and not Rava) that appears in most Sefarim there? ...

Proof: Because, if it was before Bitul, Rav Yehudah states there that 'One is not Yotzei with a Shofar of Shelamim, since Mitzvos are given for one's benefit' ...

Answer: One is forced to say however, that the correct text is 'Rava' and not Rav Yehudah ...

Reason: Since the Gemara there explains that one is not Yotzei with a Shofar from an IOr ha'Nidachas because of 'Kitusei Mechtas Shi'ureih' ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas according to Rav Yehudah, it ought to have given the reason as 'Mitzvos Lehanos Nitnu'.

Question: In Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah Zarah, Daf 47a) Resh Lakish asked what the Din will be regarding a Lulav from a date-palm to which someone bowed down ...

Question (cont.): Which, Rav Dimi concludes, refers to an Asheirah which became Bateil, and the She'eilah is whether there is Dichuy by Mitzvos or not ...

Question (cont.): And it is clear that no Amora resolves the She'eilah - since the Gemara tries to resolve it from Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Papa, but rebuts that inasmuch as Rav Papa himself has the same She'eilah - and the Gemara remains with 'Teiku' ...

Question (concl.): Now according to Rabeinu Tam, we have Rava who says here 'Im Natal Yatza' - from which we see that 'Ein Dichuy' even le'Kula?

Answer: One can however, answer that when Rava says that he is Yotzei, he is speaking where the Nochri declared it Bateil on Erev Yom-Tov, whereas the She'eilah as to whether there is Dichu is speaking when he was Mevateil it on Yom-Tov, when Dichuy is applicable ...

Source: As is evident later in the Perek (Daf 33a) when Rebbi Yirmiyah asks regarding where 'the top (of the Aravah) was cut off on Erev Yom-Tov and a berry grew on it on Yom-Tov ...

Source: Implying that, if the berry grew on it on Erev Yom-Tov, itis not considered Dichuy ...

Answer (cont.): And the same will apply if the Nochri declared it Bateil on Erev Yom-Tov.

Question: According to the first Lashon however, where Tosfos explained that the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri is permitted even without Bitul - on the second day Yom-Tov, when "Lachem" is not required, there is a problem ...

Question: In that there by an Asheirah of a Nochri, it speaks where there is Bitul, yet the implication is that one is not Yotzei, since it is considered Dichuy?

Refuted Answer: And if you will answer that on Yom-Tov Rishon that the Gemara considers it Dichuy, seeing as it did not belong to him before the Bitul ...

Refutation: Then someone who receives a Lulav on Yom-Tov ought not to be Yotzei? ...

Refuted Answer: Even though they are not really so comparable - since there is no way to rectify a Lulav of Avodah Zarah ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, since it does not become Pasul on account of the Isur of Avodah Zarah, we should not consider it Dichuy simply because it is not his.

Answer: It therefore seems that Rava permits even the Avodah Zarah of a Yisrael - in the case of a tree that was first planted and then worshipped ...

Answer (cont.): Like the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah Zarah, Daf 48a), who permit it to a Hedyot, unless one planted it initially for that purpose ...

Answer (cont.): Because they Darshen "Their gods are underneath every leafy tree", 'But not when the leafy tree is their god' - and even if one takes it on the first day Yom-Tov, one is Yotzei, since it is permitted to a Hedyot, and is considered "Lachem".

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Beraisa which declares Pasul the Lulav of an Asheirah speaks where one planted it initially for that purpose - which is in fact 'the Asheirah of Moshe ...

Answer (cont.): By which the Rabanan establish the Pasuk "va'Ashereihem Tisr'fun ba'Eish" (Devarim, 12), to forbid it even to a Hedyot.

Answer (concl.): And the She'eilah in 'Kol ha'Tzelamim refers to the Asheirah of a Nochri who planted it initially for that purpose and who was then Mevateil it - whether Dichuy applies or not.

Introduction to Question: But according to the first Lashon there, which establishes the She'eilah by a tree which one first planted and then worshipped, and according to the Rabanan who permit it to a Hedyot - 'What will be the Din regarding a Mitzvah, is it disgusting like it is for (a Korban for) Hash-m or not?' ...

Implied Question: The Gemara could indeed have resolved it from Rava, from the fact that he says 'If he took it, he is Yotzei' ...

Answer: Only Ravaa holds like Rav Dimi, who concludes that the She'eilah is whether there is Dichuy, but here it is obvious to him that he is Yotzei.

Introduction to Question: Why can one not conclude that there is no Dichuy - from the Mishnah, which rules that in a case where there are more berries than leaves if one removed some, one is Yotzei, but that may not do so on Yom-Tov' ...

Introduction to Question:: And the Gemara adds that, if he did, it is Kasher - there where they turned black the day before, since that is when we invalidate more berries than leaves, but not when they are green ...

Question: And if they did, the initial Dichuy at the beginning of Yom-Tov is not considered Dichuy, so we see that there is no Dichuy by Mitzvos?

Answer: It is different there, since it is possible to rectify it, because even though it is forbidden to remove them on Yom-Tov, one nevertheless has the ability to do so ...

Answer (cont.): As opposed to Avodah-Zarah which one cannot be Mevateil (Avodah Zarah, 42a), since a Yisrael cannot be Mevateil the Avodah Zarah of a Nochri (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Reference: Tosfos already explained this at the beginning of the Perek.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that prickles that resemble thorns protrude from the stem of the Lulav.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to the Aruch, it is a form of withering.

Reference: Tosfos already explained this in the Mishnah.

Refuted Explanation: This is not speaking where the top of the leaves that are on top of the stem have split, since all Lulavim are like that ...

Explanation #1: Only as Rashi explains - 'The two top middle leaves, where the stem ends have separated from one another, and the stem has split as far down as the next leaves.

Explanation #2: Whereas the B'hag explains 'Nechl'kah ha'Tiyomes' - the back of the leaf where the two halves are joined together, turning them into one ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): If they have split to the extent of "Nifr'tzu Alav", the Lulav is Pasul; "Nifr'du Alav", it is Kasher'.

Clarification: Rava was not there, which will explain why the Gemara does not quote the Pasuk "ha'Emes ve'ha'Shalom", as he does later (on Amud Beis).

Clarification: This statement is unanimous ... due to the principle 'Yesh Eim le'Masores' (The way it is written is prominent' - as opposed to the way it is read.

Question: However, this requires clarification (See Tosfos' explanation in Pesachim, Daf 6a, DH 'Oni Karinan beih ... ', and Tosfos earlier (on Daf 6b, DH 've'Rebbi Shimon').

Proof: The Beraisa cited in Perek ha'Mapeles (Nidah, Daf 26a & 26b) by Oshaya the youngest of the group supports Rebbi Parnach - 'There are five things that have the Shi'ur of a Tefach', and it includes the stem of the Lulav.

Refutation: Shmuel is not perturbed however, since the Beraisa was not learned in the Beis-ha'Medrash of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya.

Clarification: 'The fourth which you added on to the Lulav', Rashi explains, 'is a large Tefach like these'.

Support: There are some Sefarim that actually have the text 'and a Tefach for the Lulav' ...

Problem: Irrespective of how we explain it however, the Beraisa cited in Nidah (Daf 26a) 'There are five things that have a Shi'ur Tefach' cannot go like Rebbi Tarfon ...

Reason: Since the Tefach of the Lulav is not the same as the others (See Tosfos there).

Clarification: A chestnut tree - 'chastenier' - which is 'plaited' (Rashi).

Introduction to Refutation: However, in Perek 'Im Einan Makirin' (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 23a & 23b) it lists it together with the ten species of cedars.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam explains that this is not a 'chastenier' (See Maharam), which is not plaited.

Explanation: Since this (the Hirdof) pricks the hands like thorns, because the tips of its leaves are sharp as a needle.

Explanation #1: And this is neither 'Emes' nor 'Shalom', since it is used as a poison (Rashi).

Refutation: In vain does he see fit to give an independent reason (I have use the text of the Tosfos ha'Rosh), since the same reason applies to both opinions.

Explanation (cont.): From his explanation it appears that 'Hirduf' is synonymous with 'Hirdufni' in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 58b) - 'Achuzas Dam, ve'ha'Me'ushenes ve'she'Achlah Hirdufni' - which is poison to animals ...

Refutation:This is not correct however, as is evident in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 39a), with regard to 'Maror', where the Tana reckons Hirdufni among the vegetables that are eligible for Maror on Pesach ...

Refutation (cont.): Whereas it invalidates Hirduf there because - 'Just as Matzah is a kind of seed, so too is Maror a kind of seed.

Explanation #2: Only the reason that it is considered neither 'No'am' nor Shalom' is - because the tips of its leaves are pointed and prick the hands ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): A reason that is not applicable to Maror - since one has the option of grinding it or of removing its points and then eating it ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): This is not possible here however, since all the species must remain the way that they grew.

Explanation #1: Three leaves on one 'Kan' that grow from one point (Rashi) -

Explanation #1 (cont.): And that is how he explains 'two and one' - 'Two leaves from one point, and one, below it that rises and "rides" on the two'.

Refutation: This is a big Chumra, since it is not commonly found.

Explanation #2: Perhaps 'one point' means when they are close and 'cleave' to one another, even though each one grows from its own point ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And likewise 'The three that are growing from one point', mentioned in Perek ha'Koneis (Bava Kama, Daf 58a) refers to three palm-trees that grow from the same root ...

Precedent: Similarly, the three leaves do not come out from the same point (See Mesores ha'Shas).