1)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "va'Haveisem Gazul v'es ha'Pise'ach"?
(b)Why would one not be Yotzei if he brought a stolen Korban from which the owner had ...
1. ... not yet been Meya'esh (despaired)?
2. ... already been Meya'esh?
(c)What parable does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, give to explain the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ki Ani Hash-m ... Sonei Gezel b'Olah"?
(d)What do we learn from there?
1)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "va'Haveisem Gazul v'es ha'Pisei'ach" - that, just as a lame animal cannot be cured (and is permanently disqualified from being brought on the Mizbe'ach), so too, is a stolen animal permanently disqualified - even after 'Yi'ush'.
(b)One would not be Yotzei if he brought a stolen Korban from which the owner had ...
1. ... not yet been Meya'esh (despaired) - because it is not his, and the Torah writes in Vayikra "Adam Ki Yakriv Mikem".
2. ... already been Meya'esh - because it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah'.
(c)To explain the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ki Ani Hash-m ... Sonei Gezel b'Olah", Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai - compares it to a King, who upon reaching the customs control post at the border, insisted on paying taxes on all his taxable belongings (despite the fact that all the taxes belong to him anyway) in order that his subjects should take their cue from him, and pay their taxes, too.
(d)We learn from here that although logically, Hash-m ought to accept stolen sacrifices, seeing as they belong to Him anyway - He declines to do so - because people will then learn not to steal (to teach us how much Hash-m detests theft).
2)
(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Nachmeini quoting Shmuel, disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan. What does he say about taking a stolen Lulav on the second day of Sukos?
(b)What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak infer from our Mishnah: 'Lulav ha'Gazul v'ha'Yavesh Pasul'? Why can this not refer to the first day of Yom-Tov?
(c)What then, is the problem from there?
2)
(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Nachmeini quoting Shmuel, disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan - according to him, since on the second day of Sukos, one is Yotzei with a borrowed Lulav (because "Lachem" does not apply on the second day), one is also Yotzei with a stolen one (see Tosfos DH 'mi'Toch').
(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak infers from our Mishnah: 'Lulav ha'Gazul v'ha'Yavesh Pasul' - that a borrowed Lulav is Kasher. The Mishnah can only be speaking on the second day, because, on the first, why would a borrowed Lulav be Kasher?!
(c)The problem is - that Shmuel just declare a stolen Lulav Kasher on the second day.
3)
(a)We resolve the problem by establishing the Mishnah on the first day of Sukos. How do we then explain the Tana's omission of a borrowed Lulav?
(b)Why would we otherwise have thought that a stolen Lulav is better than a borrowed one?
3)
(a)We resolve the problem by establishing the Mishnah on the first day of Sukos - and when the Tana disqualifies a stolen Lulav he is coming (not to preclude a borrowed one, but) to teach us that even a stolen one is Pasul.
(b)We would we otherwise have thought that a stolen Lulav is better than a borrowed one - because whereas the latter is not his, the former is, (since due to 'Stam Gezeilah Yi'ush Be'alim', the Gazlan acquires it).
30b----------------------------------------30b
4)
(a)What does 'Karka Einah Nigzeles' mean?
(b)Why did Rav Huna then instruct the Hadas merchants that, whenever they purchased their Hadasim from Nochrim, they should make sure to let the owners cut the Hadasim themselves. What would have been wrong in allowing the merchants to cut the Hadasim themselves?
(c)And what was the advantage of letting Nochrim cut the Hadasim?
(d)Why would that not be necessary with regard to the Hadasim that the merchants intended to sell? To which Hadasim then, was Rav Huna referring?
4)
(a)'Karka Einah Nigzeles' means - that land can never be stolen (it never becomes the property of the Gazlan, because it always remains in the possession of the owner)!
(b)Rav Huna instructed the Hadas merchants that, whenever they purchased their Hadasim from Nochrim, they should make sure to let the owners cut the Hadasim themselves. It would have been wrong to allow the merchants to cut the Hadasim themselves - because generally, the land had been stolen from Yisre'elim, and as we just explained, they would not have acquired it (and because it would have been a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah').
(c)By letting Nochrim cut the Hadasim, they would acquire it a. because Yi'ush would then take place at the hands of the gentiles (and Yi'ush plus change of ownership is acquires), and b. because it is no longer 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' (since it is not they who performed the Aveirah, but the gentiles from whom they acquired them).
(d)Rav Huna was referring to the Hadasim that the merchants wanted to use for themselves - but as far as the Hadasim that they subsequently sold was concerned, their clients would have acquired them anyway, for exactly the same reason as the merchants acquired them in our case.
5)
(a)We ask why they did not acquire the Hadasim with 'Shinuy Ma'aseh' (which acquires even without Yi'ush). What is 'Shinuy Ma'aseh'? To which Shinuy Ma'aseh is the Gemara referring?
(b)To which the Gemara answers that Lulav does not require binding. How does this answer the question?
(c)How do we then answer the Kashya even if it does?
5)
(a)We ask why they did not acquire the Hadasim with 'Shinuy Ma'aseh' - with reference to the binding of the four species together.
(b)And we answer that Lulav does not require binding - in which case, binding it is not a proper Ma'aseh.
(c)In any case, we conclude, even if it would require binding, it would not acquire - because a Ma'aseh that can easily be undone, is not considered a Ma'aseh.
6)
(a)We ask why they did not anyway acquire the Hadasim with Yi'ush and Shinuy Hash-m. How does Shinuy Hash-m apply here?
(b)Why did they call a Hadas, 'a Hoshana'?
(c)How do we answer the Kashya?
6)
(a)We ask why they did not anyway acquire the Hadasim with Yi'ush and Shinuy Hash-m - since before it is cut from the tree, it is called an 'Asa' (the Aramaic word for Hadas), whereas now, it becomes known as a 'Hoshanah'.
(b)They tended to call a Hadas, 'a Hoshana' - because of the Minhag to use it for the Mitzvah on Hoshana Rabah, instead of the Lulav.
(c)We answer - by pointing out that one tends to call a Hadas a 'Hoshana', even before it has been cut.