Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer invalidates a stolen Sukah and one that is built in the street.
Why is the latter Pasul?

(b) The Rabbanan disagree.
What is their reason?

(c) For which of two possible reasons does Rebbi Eliezer invalidate them?

(d) Rebbi Eliezer really holds that land *can* be stolen and the Rabbanan hold that it *cannot*.
Why then, does Rav Nachman suggest the other alternative?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue in a case when someone throws the owner out of his Sukah and sits in it.
How do we know that?

(b) Rebbi Eliezer agrees that a stolen Sukah is Kasher if the thief stole wood and contructed a Sukah with it.
Why is that?

(c) And the Rabbanan agree that if someone stole a ready-made Sukah on a wagon or on a ship that the Sukah is Pasul.
Why?

(d) What did that woman do, when the Resh Galusa's servants stole her wood, and Rav Nachman ruled that she was only entitled to receive payment for the stolen goods, but had no claim on the wood itself? How did Rav Nachman describe her?

(a) Why is there reason to believe that Takanas Marish (or ha'Shavin) should not apply to a large beam of wood?

(b) When *will* 'Takanas Marish' apply by a Sukah even after the termination of Sukos, and when will it *not*?

(a) In a Beraisa, the Tana Kama invalidates a dry Lulav, whereas Rebbi Yehudah validates it.
How does Rava explain their Machlokes? On what authority does Rebbi Yehudah argue with a Hekesh?

(b) If Rebbi Yehudah does not require 'Hadar' by a Lulav, why does he rule ...

1. ... in our Mishnah, that a Lulav whose leaves have come away from the spine must be tied?
2. ... in a Mishnah later, that the Lulav must be tied together with the Hadasim and the Aravos?

(c) Why can Rebbi Yehudah's reason there not possibly be due to 'Hadar'?

(d) Why, on the other hand, does he forbid tying them with any other species?

(a) If one does not have an Esrog, may one use a quince or a pomegranate in its place?

(b) Is an Esrog Kasher if it is ...

1. ... withered?
2. ... dry?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah prove from the people who used to bequeath their Lulavin to their grandchildren?

(b) How do we initially understand Rebbi Yehudah, and how does his statement here appear to contradict Rava, who said earlier that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that an Esrog must be 'Hadar'?

(c) What is Rebbi Yehudah *really* referring to, according to Rava?

7)

(a) The opening words of the Beraisa that we just quoted were that just as it is forbidden to *detract* from the four species, so too, is it forbidden to *add* to them.
How do we answer the Kashya 'Peshita'? ('This is obvious')?

(b) Why is it also not so obvious that one cannot use a quince or a pomegranate in lieu of an Esrog? What might we have thought?

(c) Then why is it in fact, forbidden?

(a) What do we prove from the Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah specifically permits an old Esrog? Does Rava (who said above that Rebbi Yehudah holds of 'Hadar' by Esrog) have an answer to that?

(b) Seeing as Rebbi Yehudah does not hold of 'Hadar' even by an Esrog, why does he invalidate an Esrog that is ...

1. ... as green as leek?
2. ... smaller than an egg?
3. ... too large for a person to hold two of them in one hand?

(c) How large may an Esrog be, according to Rebbi Yossi?

(d) How does Rebbi Yehudah interpret "Hadar" that the Torah writes by Esrog?

(a) Rava validates a Lulav of Avodah-Zarah.
What are the two possible meanings of 'an Esrog of Avodah-Zarah'?

(b) Why is it not forbidden to use such an Esrog, since it is 'Asur be'Hana'ah'?

(c) How will Rava explain our Mishnah, which invalidates a Lulav of an Asheirah (an idol-worship tree)? How do we prove that?