Question: Now that they do not do this for a full month, if a Rosh Chodesh of a full month falls on Shabbos people will say that it is a month that is not full. The reason they did not do this on Motzei Shabbos is due to forced circumstances.

Answer: If they would generally use torches whether the month was full or not, if they would not use them one time people would think it was due to forced circumstances. However, now that they sometimes do and sometimes do not, when they do not do so people will not think it is because of forced circumstances but rather because of a normal reason.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that there is no Rosh Hashanah that the people outside Eretz Yisrael do not stop working for two days, whether it is a full month or not. However, when they make Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day, they know that it is then and they will do work on the next day (according to Torah law).

Explanation #2: Rashi did not have to explain that this was specifically regarding Rosh Hashanah, as this is really relative to every Rosh Chodesh. This is because they did not used to do Melachah on Rosh Chodesh.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah in Megilah (22b) states that an example of days where a longer reading of the Torah does not stop the people from working is Rosh Chodesh or Chol ha'Moed. This is why there are four Aliyos on these days (instead of three).

Observation: It is commonly said that Hash-m added a Yom Tov for woman on Rosh Chodesh as a reward for their not having agreed to participate in the Sin of the Golden Calf when Aharon stated, "Take off the golden earrings that are in the ears of your wives etc." The Torah states, "And all of the nation took out... that were in their ears," implying that the woman would not give their earrings to this sinful cause.

Question: This is difficult, as Rav Yehudah says in Sukah (37a) that a Sukah may only be made from the four species used in the Mitzvah of Lulav. The Gemara asks that Rebbi Yehudah allows cedar planks to be used as Sechach if they are not four by four Tefachim. The Gemara answers that he does not mean "cedar" but rather "myrtle." This is as Rabah bar Rav Huna said that there are ten types of cedars.

Question (cont.): Now, according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav who says that there are only four types of cedar (and myrtle is not one of the four), what is there to say?

Answer: Perhaps here they argue regarding buying and selling, but everyone agrees that there are ten types in general. The Yerushalmi says there are twenty four types.

Observation: When the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (14a) says, "What is an Itzroblin? It is a Toranisa," it is not referring to the Toranisa mentioned in our Gemara.

Proof #1: The Toranisa in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) does not have a root. The Toranisa in our Gemara, which is a type of cedar, clearly has a root.

Proof #2: Additionally, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) is stating that the Toranisa is not sold (to Nochrim), implying that other trees are sold. However, the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (19b) states that one may not sell anything to them that is connected to the ground. A similar deduction is made from the Mishnah regarding selling a good palm tree.

Explanation: It therefore seems that the case there is regarding a type of ground like Kuvrisa that is mentioned in Shabbos (90a) and Nidah (62a). All of these Gemaros quote the law regarding whatever does not have a root.

Implied Question: The Pasuk states, "And he made Keruvin from Eitz Shemen," and the Targum translates this to mean olive wood. (Our Gemara says it means persimmon.)

Answer: There are two types of Eitz Shemen. Persimmon is clearly not the same as olive wood, as the Pasuk says in Ezra, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of Eitz Shemen." In Tamid (2:3), the Mishnah states that an olive tree is unfit for the wood used on the Mizbe'ach, while Eitz Shemen is fit.

Explanation: Rashi explains that these are "Kastinier."

Question: This is difficult, as in Sukah regarding the discussion of branches covering most of it, the Gemara asks, "Perhaps it is a Dulva." However, we see that this is not the way of a Kastinier (to have its leaves cover its stem).

Observation: Yet, there too Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to a Kastinier.

Observation: The Gemara implies that this is part of Eretz Yisrael.

Observation (cont.): Rabeinu Tam in Kidushin (72a) also explains this regarding the Gemara's statement, "The ones with good lineage in Pumbedisa marry people from Biram."

Question: This is difficult. When the Beis Hamikdash was extant they were also very far away, as is apparent from the Gemara in Tanis (10a) that says the trip took fifteen days from Yerushalayim until the end of all of Eretz Yisrael. This is stated there (ibid.) when it says that they wait to ask for rain until the last person in Eretz Yisrael would reach the Peras River which was near Babylon.

Observation: One cannot differentiate between the first and second Batei Mikdash, as implied in Bava Metzia (28a).

Answer: It must be that a strip went out from one side of Eretz Yisrael until Peras outside of Babylon.

Question: There is a difficulty. How is it possible that Yerushalayim is the middle of Eretz Yisrael which is four hundred Parsah by four hundred Parsah? Even going two hundred Parsah to each side is a twenty day journey if he travels ten Parsah a day!

Question #2: Additionally, one can travel to the Jordan River on the east of Yerushalayim from Yerushalayim in one day, and the Jordan River is considered a tip of Eretz Yisrael!

Explanation: This is because whoever goes out of the Techum only has four cubits, and the entire yard is considered like four cubits, as the Mishnah states in Eruvin (41b) that if they put him in a barn or jail etc.

Implied Question: The Gemara implies (47b) in Eruvin regarding the rams that were brought to Meverchasa that the entire city is considered like four cubits. (Why weren't the witnesses able to move throughout all of Yerushalayim?)

Answer: This is regarding a city that is surrounded by walls. Our Gemara is referring to Yerushalayim after the Greeks made holes in the walls, as this made it into a public domain, as stated in Eruvin (101a).

Question #1: However, we find a city that is considered like four cubits even if it does not have walls. This is as the Mishnah states in Eruvin (57a) that we give a Karfef to a city.

Question #2: The Mishnah also states (60a) that if someone puts his Eruv in the extension of the city, he did nothing. If regarding going out of the Techum he is given the entire city including the extension as if it were four cubits, it should even be considered four cubits without it having walls!

Implied Question: The Gemara in Beitzah (11b) does not list this as one of the things that they were lenient in because otherwise people would not do what they were originally supposed to do. (Why isn't this in the list?)

Answer: This is because there is no question regarding this law, as it is an explicit Mishnah. Regarding all of the items in the list (ibid.), the Gemara asks that we already know these laws and it answers why they needed to be stated in a list.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is because it is as if they are tied up in chains, as they cannot move from there the entire day. This is before Rabban Gamliel instituted that they can go two thousand cubits in any direction.

Question: This is difficult. What is the proof from the big meals? This was obviously before the decree of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the question is whether the place where they were was narrow or spacious. The Gemara proves that it was spacious.

Question: Since they had to minimize traveling due to the law of Techumin on Shabbos, how could they go from one yard to the next?

Answer: Since before they had holes in the wall they were able to go in the whole city, they were able to do so now as well. However, there were many alleyways and yards that were open to the yard in which they were able to travel as if they were included in the four cubits of the yard. (The language of Tosfos here is seemingly contradictory, see Maharsha. The Aruch Laner changes the text of Tosfos.)