Reference: There is no Kashya on this from Shofar, as Tosfos explaind earlier (Daf 43a DH 'Inhu').

Clarification: The Gemara might also have mentioned 'Peru'ei Rosh' (Kohanim with uncut hair), since both would be forbidden, were it not for 'Aravah' ...

Source: As the Mishnah states in the first Perek of Keilim (Mishnah 9) 'Between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach is more Kadosh than it, since Ba'alei Mumin and Peru'ei Rosh may not enter there'.

Clarification: The Gemara thought that he meant to ask who said that it is a Chiyuv 'd'Oraysa, and it therefore comes and overrides Ma'alos de'Rabanan (See Mesores ha'Shas)?

Clarification: Perhaps it is just de'Rabanan, and we do not push aside Ma'alos d'Rabanan because of a Takanah de'Rabanan.

Clarification (cont.): Therefore the Gemara asks 'He himself said it!'

Clarification (concl.): And the Gemara answers (what he meant to ask was) 'Who said that one takes it? Maybe one 'sticks' it (on the Mizbe'ach)?'

Explanation #1: And since one does go round the Mizbe'ch but merely 'sticks' it, one Kohen can 'stick' it on behalf on all of them?

Explanation #2: Alternatively, Ba'alei-Mumin can stick it on the other sides, without entering between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach?

Explanation #3: And even if one says that one takes it, as the Gemara took on earlier, since the Gemara refutes the opinion that holds 'that one sticks it', who said that it is talking about Ba'alei Mumin ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Maybe the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai refers specifically to Kohanim without blemish, who are fit to perform the Avodah ...

Support: Just as it refers, not to Zarim, but to Kohanim ...

Support (cont.): A point with which you (Resh Lakish) agrees, seeing as you did not say that 'Zarim enter'.

Question: According to this opinion - that interprets the Kashya in that it is a Ma'alah de'Rabanan ...

Question (cont.): The question arises, according to Aba Shaul (above, on Daf 34a) who learns Aravah of the Mizbe'ach from "Arvei", why specifically Kohanim, why not even Yisrael - like the Aravah of the Lulav?

Answer: Perhaps going round the Mizbe'ach is performed by Kohanim, whilst the rest of Yisrael take it in the Azarah, without going round.

Explanation (Text) #1: Rava Kahana, a Talmid of Rav, fled from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael to sit before Rebbi Yochanan due to the fact that he killed someone, as the Gemara explains in the last Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 117a & 117b).

Explanation (Text) #1 (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan, who needed him to resolve a number of doubts, said to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael 'I thought the Torah was yours', because, since you were not exiled from your land, you did not suffer from confusion ...

Explanation (Text) #1 (cont.): But I now see that it belongs to the B'nei Bavel, who, although they were exiled, they have retained the wisdom of the 'Cheresh and the Masger' (the Talmidei-Chachamim) who were exiled with Yechonyah, as the Pasuk writes (in Melachim) "All of them mighty men who waged war" ...

Explanation (Text) #1 (cont.): And we learned in the Beraisa in Seider Olam (Perek 25) 'What sort of might can people who are placed in chains display? It must therefore refer to the battle of Torah'.

Explanation (Text) #1 (concl.): So we see that, according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Torah was not forgotten in Galus Bavel (Rashi).

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam queried this however; firstly, the Gemara in Perek ha'Boneh (Shabbos, Daf 104a & 104b, where the Gemara states that ' They forgot "Menaptzech", yet the Gemara does not ask the same question there?

Question #2: Just because they were B'nei Torah that they could not forget the law of Aravah?

Text #2: Rabeinu Chananel has the text 'di'L'chon Amar, di'L'hon hi' ...

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that Rebbi Yochanan was telling his Talmidim who were from Bavel - 'One of you', Rav Kahana, who came up from Bavel, says that Aravah is from them' ...

Explanation #2: Meaning that it is a Minhag Nevi'im, who used to teach Talmidim from Bavel, and likewise the Talmidei-Chachamim from Bavel would teach Talmidim from Eretz Yisrael ...

Example #1: As we find later (on Daf 48a) 'Rav Chiya bar Rav (or bar Rav Ashi), who was from Bavel, who said that one should break four Tefachim (in the Sukah) - and he was speaking to B'nei Eretz Yisrael (as the Gemara explains there).

Examples #2 #3: Whereas Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who was from Eretz Yisrael and who says (there) that one should kindle a lamp (in the Sukah), was speaking to B'nei Bavel.

Explanation #2 (cont.): According to this, the Gemara's Kashya here, fits nicely - since it is asking from Rebbi Yochanan on to Rebbi Yochanan, who said 'Y'sod Nevi'im', whereas 'di'Lehon Hi' implies that it is a Minhag Nevi'im, and not a Y'sod.

Explanation of Sugya in Gitin: And so does the Gemara in Perek ha'Megaresh (Gitin, Daf 84b), when, in connection with the Mishnah 'What should he do? He takes it (the Get) from her, and gives it to her again', Chizkiyah established the author as Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who requires this procedure in Perek ha'Zorek (Ibid., Daf 78a) in connection with 'Take this Sh'tar-Chov'.

Explanation of Sugya in Gitin (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yochanan says 'It can even go like Rebbi - Yors' say it is different here, since she acquires it to become Pasul (to Kehunah).

Rashi: And Rashi explains there that Rebbi Chiya and his sons came up from Bavel, as the Gemara stated above in the first Perek (Daf 20a) - and Chizkiyah was a son of Rebbi Chiya ...

Rashi (cont.): And Rebbi Yochanan said to him (Chizkiyah) 'One of you - Rav Kahana who came up from Bavel like he did, says that it can go even ike Rebbi.

Question: Chizkiyah was Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbe, as is evident in Perek Eilu Kesharim (Shabbos, Daf 112b), and when Rav Kahana arrived in Eretz Yisrael, Rebbi Yochanan's was the Rosh Yeshivah, as is evident in 'ha'Gozel Basra (Bava Kama, Daf 117a), and he was extremely old, as his eyelashes drooped excessively (Ibid.) ...

Question: And presumably, Rebbi Yochanan did not become Rosh Yeshivah as long as his Rebbe Chizkiyah was still alive?

Refuted Answer: And even though we find, in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Mnachos, Daf 23b & 24a) that, when Rav Kahana went up to Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rebbi Chiya, asking what the Din would be in a case where 'One divided an Isaron into two and after placing it into a Bisa (a receptacle), a T'vul Yom touched one of them' ...

Refutation: Perhaps he went to Eretz Yisrael twice, once in the time of Chizkiyah and once in the time of Rebbi Yochanan - when the latter asked him all the doubts that he had.

Authentic Explanation: According to Rabeinu Tam, however, it goes nicely in that Rebbi Yochanan was telling his Talmidim from Bavel 'Yours said that it can even go according to Rebbi'.

Precedent: In similar fashion, we find in Perek Ein Ma'amidin in the Yerushalmi (See Mesores ha'Shas), where Rebbi Yochanan said to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba 'These three things came from yours'.

Clarification: In the Beis ha'Mikdash, it is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, outside, it is a Machlokes - According to Rebbi Yochanan , it is a Takanah (an institution) of the Nevi'im, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that it is a Minhag Nevi'im.

Ramifications: Rashi explains that that the difference is whether it requires a B'rachah (Takanah) or not (Minhag) ...

Reason: Since over a Minhag that people initiate, one cannot recite a B'rachah; nor is it even included in a (the La'av of) "Lo Sasur".

Support: And so the Gemara will say shortly - 'He shook it without reciting a B'rachah, because he holds that it is a Minhag Nevi'im'.

Opinion #1: There are some who extrapolate from here not to recite a B'rachah over Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, which is only a Minhag ...

Proof: As is evident in the last Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 28b & 29a) - 'Rav arrived in Bavel, and seeing that they recited Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, he wanted to stop them; but when he heard that they skipped out parts, he concluded that they were merely practicing the Minhag of their fathers.

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Yochanan says there 'On eighteen days one completes Hallel, and in Chutz la'Aretz, on twenty-one', this does not mean that on the other days it is a Takanah to recite 'half-Hallel' ...

Answer: Only 'Yachid Gomer' means that the Yachid recites, as that is the way the Gemara speaks ...

Support: As the Beraisa states in the first Perek of B'rachs (Daf 9b & 10a) 'The Vasikin would finish it as the sun rose'.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam however, maintains that there is no proof from Aravah on to Hallel ...

Reason: Since Aravah is merely Tiltul (taking it), and since it is not a Takanah, only a Minhag, it is not sufficiently Chashuv to fix a B'rachah over it; whereas reciting Hallel is not worse than reading the Torah (over which one recites a B'rachah).

Proof #1: And similarly, we recite a B'rachah over the two days of Yom-Tov shel Galuyos, even though they are only a Minhag, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 4b [See Hagahos ha'Bach]).

Refutation: There is no proof from there however.

Reason: Since the reason that we do not recite a B'rachah over the Aravah, according to the opinion that holds 'Minhag Nevi'im' is because one cannot say 've'Tzivanu', whereas on the two days of Yom-Tov 've'Tzivanu' is not applicable, only Kidush, and mentioning the day in Tefilah and in Benching.

Implied Question: And as for the B'rachah over blowing the Shofar on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah ...

Answer: That is a Takanah, and is therefore more stringent than the second day of Yom-Tov regarding 'Beitzah', since the two days comprise one Kedushah.

Source: As is evident in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 4b) - 'Adhere to the Minhag of your fathers'.

Introduction to Proof #1, Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam then brings a proof from Perek Hayah Korei (B'rachos, Daf 14a), where the Gemara (tries to) cite a proof that one may not interrupt in the middle of Hallel from Rav bar Sh'va, who arrived at the house of Ravina on a day when a Yachid does not complete Hallel and for whom he (Ravina) did not interrupt ...

Introduction to Proof #1 (cont.): And it rejects the proof on the grounds that 'Rav bar Sh'va is different, inasmuch as Ravina did not hold him in high esteem'.

Proof #1: Now if one does not recite a B'rachah over it, how does 'interrupt' apply to it?

Introduction to Proof #2: And he brings a second proof from the case in Ta'anis (Daf 28b & 29a) where Rav wanted to stop them (from reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh), again implying that they recited a B'rachah ...

Proof #2: Otherwise he ought to have known that it was merely a traditional Minhag ...

Rejected Refutation #1: And presumably he did not arrive in the middle of Hallel ...

Rejection: Since the Gemara says that 'Rav arrived in Bavel' and not that he arrived 'in Shul'.

Rejected Refutation #2: And if one suggests that he ought to have known anyway that they are going to skip, since they said 'li'Keros', so why did he try to stop them?

Rejection: This is not a question, since even where one completes Hallel one may say 'li'Keros es ha'Hallel'

Support: Just as one says 'li'Keros Megilah'.

Conclusion: And the fact that nowadays, we say 'li'Gemor' when completing it, and 'li'Keros' whn skipping, we do that merely as a Si'man ...

Conclusion (cont.): But strictly speaking, either way, one may recite either 'li'Keros' or 'li'Gemor'.

Question: When Rebbi Yochanan in Ta'anis referred to the eighteen days on which a Yachid completes Hallel, why did he mention 'a Yachid', implying that a Tzibur also completes it on the other days of the year? ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the episode with Rav occurred in a Tzibur, yet they skipped?

Answer #1: Perhaps he mentioned 'Yachid', to teach us a Chidush - that even a Yachid on his own completes it ...

Answer #2: Furthermore, one can answer that the Gemara calls even a Tzibur which does not incorporate all of Yisrael 'Yachid' ...

Source: Since the Gemara in Arvei Pesachim (Daf 117a) states - 'The Nevi'im instituted that Yisrael should recite Hallel on every occasion, and on every Tzarah that they experience , that when they are redeemed from it, they recite Hallel on their redemption ...

Answer #2 (cont.): He therefore mentioned 'Yachid', because when all of Yisrael are not involved, they only complete Hallel on those days ...

Answer #2 (concl.): But when all of Yisrael is redeemed, they always complete it.

Implied Question: And when the Beraisa says there that on a Ta'anis Yachid one should not begin saying it, but if one did, he should complete it ...

Answer #1: When all of Yisrael are not involved, the Tana calls even a Tzibur 'Yachid', and if they are redeemed from a Tzarah, and began reciting it, they complete it.

Answer #2: The Rach however, explains 'They should not begin' - with the B'rachah (See also Tosfos Erchin, 10a, DH 'Chai Yamim, Tosfos B'rachos, Daf 14a, DH 'Yamim' & Tosfos, Ta'anis, Daf 28b, DH 'Amar.).

Refuted Explanation: This does not mean that it is forbidden to take the Aravah together the Lulav ...

Refutation: Since it is talking about binding them together (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Clarification: Three twigs growing out of one stalk.