Clarification of Sugya in Bava Kama: And the Gemara in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Bava Kama, Daf 97b & 98a) in connection with money of Ma'aser Sheini, in answer to the Kashya - 'Of what use is money of Bavel in Bavel?' answers 'To purchase an animal with it' ...

Clarification of Sugya in Bava Kama (cont.): And the Gemara there concludes that this goes according to Rebbi Meir, who permits it even Lechatchilah;or even according to the Rabanan, who permit it there since there is no other option.

Introduction to Refutation of Rashi: According to what Tosfos just wrote, that Rebbi Meir permits even Lechatchilah, it is incorrect what Rashi writes in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 55b) in connection with (Ma'aser Sheini of) D'mai ...

Introduction to Refutation of Rashi (cont.): That 'One may redeem it with copper coins, and the copper coins, in turn, with fruit, and he then redeems the fruit' ...

Introduction to Refutation of Rashi (concl.): That he must do it in this order, and not take it (the Ma'aser Sheini) to Yerushalayim ...

Refutation: Whereas we find here that Rebbi Meir permits redeeming D'mai on fruit even Lechatchilah, provided he takes it to Yerushalayim and eats it there ...

Refutation (cont.): And this is preferable to then redeeming the fruit?

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi at the end of the eighth Perek of Shevi'is specifically states that the shopkeeper says to him 'The Sela is given to you as a gift'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): And there is no other way of doing it.

Implied Question: And it points out there that this is not an act of redeeming ...

Answer: Since the shopkeeper did not redeem the owner's Sela on to his fruit, not by way of a sale.

Implied Question: Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted many Takanos ...

Answer: Only these two he instituted at eth same time, which is why the Tana here mentions 'Yom Henef' together with Lulav.

Question #1: In Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 68a) the Tana does not mention the Takanah of Lulav together with 'Yom Henef'?

Question #2: Whereas in the last Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 30a) the Beraisa mentions them both together with many other Takanos that he instituted?

Implied Question: Even according to Rebbi Yehoshua, who said, in the first Perek of Megilsah (Daf 10a) 'I heard that one may offer sacrifices even when there is no Beis ha'Mikdash' ...

Answer: That is only when the MIzbe'ach is erected, but not without the Mizbe'ach ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Kodshei Kodshim (Zevachim, Daf 60a & 60b), where it says that 'If the Mizbe'ach is damaged, all Kodshim that were Shechted there are Pasul, and one may not eat on account of it the remains of Menachos or Kodshei Kodshim, or even Kodshim Kalim.

Explanation #1: Since they would not be able to deal with the Omer with the onset of night, and they would therefore not manage to bring it before midday of the following day.

Explanation #2: Others explain that it refers to close to sunset of Erev Yom-Tov, and they would not be able, on Yom-Tov, to search from where to cut the Omer and to prepare the scythes, the boxes, the thirteen sieves and the K'lei Shareis ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): All of which are needed for the Omer, as we learned in the Mishnah in Menachos (Perek Rebbi Yishmael, Daf 66a) ...

Rejection of first explanation: Because if it was referring to close to sunset of the fifteenth, which is Yom-Tov, building the Beis-ha'Mikdash does not override Yom-Tov, as the Gemara says in the second Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 15b)?

Refutation: This is not a Kashya however, because by the same token, one could ask on the Gemara's first answer 'No, it must be speaking when it was built at nighttime' - whereas the Gemara also says there that 'One cannot build the Beis-h'Mikdash by night' ...

Source: Because the Torah writes "And on the day that he set up the Mishkan" - 'One sets it up by day, but not by night'.

Conclusion: One is therefore forced to differentiate, as Rashi explains - that that speaks regarding a building that is carried out by human beings

Conclusion (cont.): But the future Beis-ha'Mikdash will be revealed and will come already built and established from Heaven ...

Source: As the Pasuk writes (in Beshalach) "The Mikdash which Your Hands, Hash-m, established".

Clarification: Since it does not say "ve'Lakachta" in the singular (See Mesores ha'Shas) ...

Clarification (cont.): Sukah, on the other hand, does not require a Pasuk, since the Torah writes "Kol ha'Ezrach".

Halachah: One is also not Yotzei with an Esrog belonging to partners ...

Source: As is evident in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 137b & 138a) in connection with 'Brothers who bought an Esrog from the kitty' ...

Reason: It is not considered his, seeing as it does not belong to him specifically, but borrowed, and he is not Yotzei with it.

Implied Question: And as for the Minhag for the community to purchase a communal Esrog ...

Answer: One trains them that each member gives his portion to his friend (i.e. whoever is being Yotzei with it) on condition that he returns it.

Answer (cont.): And one can rely on this - because, since they purchased it in order to be Yotzei, even though they did not specify, it is S'tam considered as if they did ...

Reason: Since there is no other way of being Yotzei.

Implied Question: On no occasion is the Gemara particular to mention the T'nai before th act, to repeat the T'nai or to state the positive side prior to the negative side, even though that is always the case ...

Answer: Only the Gemara speaks briefly, since that is not what it is coming to teach us.

Implied Question: Nor is this a case of the T'nai and the act on the same issue ..

Clarification: Meaning that they contradict one another ...

Example: Such as the case in Perek Mi she'Achzo (Gitin, Daf 75a & 75b) - 'On condition that you return the paper (on which the Get is written) to me'.

Question: Since he stipulated on condition that he returns the Esrog, if he (the recipient) were to declare it Hekdesh, it would not be valid ...

Source: As is evident at the end of 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 137b) in the case of - 'This ox is yours as a gift on condition that you return it to me', where, since he stated 'to me', he meant that it must be fit for him (when it is returned to him) ...

Question (cont.): In that case, how can he be Yotzei? Did we not learn in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Shutfin (Nedarim (Daf 48a) in the case of 'The gift of Beis Choron', that any gift that is not valid, in that if he declares it Hekdesh it is not valid, is not considered a gift'?

Answer #1: Here as well, he has the right to declare it Hekdesh for as long as he has it, until he returns it.

Answer #2: Moreover, there too, the criterion of the gift being valid is not the validity of the Hekdesh, as is evident in the Yerushalmi (the end of Perek 5) ...

Source: Where Rebbi Yirmiyah asks on 'Matanah' 'In that case, one can never give someone a gift on condition that he may not declare it Hekdesh'?

Source (cont.): And the Gemara answers that what the Mishnah means is that any gift that, like that of Beis Choron, is given as a trick, forbidding him to declare it Hekdesh, is not a gift ...

Source (concl.): In other words, that it was not given for the recipient to derive any benefit from it, but only so that the father of the donor should be permitted to enter it ...

Answer #2 (cont.): That is for sure merely a trick and is not called a Matanah ...

Reason: Seeing as he (the recipient) did not acquire it for his own personal use in any way, so what did he give him? ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas here, where he gave him the Lulav to benefit from, it is called a Matanah.

Implied Question: And it only mentioned Hekdesh there ...

Answer: Because the incident involved Hekdesh.

Proof #1: Also the Lashon 'Kol Matanah she'Einah', which implies that it is not a Matanah at all, proves that.

Proof #2: And the party too, indicated that he had no intention of giving him the Chatzer for his own use, only so that his father could come and eat there, as the Gemara there explains.

I do not know what Tosfos is saying with this (the Tosfos ha'Rosh does not insert it).

Conclusion: But generally, it is a Matanah, even though he is not able to be Makdish it ...

Proof #1: As the Mishnah states in the last Perek of Nedarim (Daf 88a) 'that he gives to his daughter (only) what she places into her mouth'.

Proof #2: And in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 23b & 24a) 'that he gives (money) to an Eved on condition that he uses it to go free'.

Implied Question: The reason that Rebbi Yehoshua did not give it back to Raban Gamliel, but handed it over to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah to Rebbi Akiva is ...

Answer: Because Raban Gamliel intended them all to be Yotzei before returning it to him.

Clarification: Shmuel saw fit to mention this, so that one should not say that it is specifically Tefilin and a Seifer-Torah (that one may not hold) ...

Reason: Because, due to the tremendous shame should they fall, one is more distracted by them, and one canot concentrate on one's Tefilah.

Reference: See also Tosfos, Kidushin (6b, DH 'Divrei), Bava Basra (137b DH 'Lo'), 'Gitin (75a, DH 'La'afukei' & 'Ela Eima') & Ibid. (75b DH 'di'Tana'i').