Lulav: Regarding Lulav, they did not want to institute taking it at all when there is a Safek ...

Reason: Because it is Yom-Tov, in which case it is Muktzah and everyone can see how they are behaving Minhag Chol on it.

Sukah: Sukah on the other hand, it sometimes happens that it is pleasant sitting in his hut, and he eats there on Yom-Tov.

Clarification: They return from the pasture-ground where their animals were grazing, and where have not sat in a Sukah the entire Yom-Tov/

Implied Question: And even though we learned in the first Perek (Daf 8b) that 'A shepherd's Sukah is Kasher' ...

Answer: Perhaps they did not have even a shepherd's Sukah.

Clarification: On all the other days it writes "ka'Mishpat", except for this last one, where it writes "ke'Mishpatam".

Distinction: This D'rashah is not the same as the previous ones ...

Previous D'rashos: That of Rav Papa, who says that 'On all the other days it writes "Parim", except for this last one, where it writes "Par", which refers (directly) to the eighth day; and the same applies to the D'rashah of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak ...

Current D'rashah: Whereas according to Rav Ashi, it refers to the seventh day, on which it writes "ke'Mishpatam ...

Reason: Because it is the end of the Yom-Tov and the conclusion of the Chag ...

Clarification (concl.): To inform you that this is the law of the six days, but not of the eighth day that follows (See text of Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Dilemma: Rashi points out that the Tana does not state what the Shir of the eighth day is?

Resolution: In Maseches Sofim, however, it implies that in Shul they would say "la'M'enatze'ach al ha'Sheminis" (Tehilim 6) ...

Resolution (cont.): And perhaps that is also what the Levi'im sang in the Bis-ha'Mikdash.

Proof: And so it implies in the Yerushalmi.

Explanation #1: To remain behind the night of Motza'ei Yom-Tov Rishon ...

Source: Which we learn from Pesach, in connection with which the Torah writes in Devarim (16) "And you shall turn round in the morning and return to your tents".

Proof: And one can only say "and return to your tents" on Chol ha'Mo'ed , because on Yom-Tov one is Chayav to appear in the Azarah, in which case it must refer to the morning after Motza'ei Yom-Tov.

Clarification, Linah: It does not ask how Linah is applicable all seven days ...

Reason: Since it takes for granted that it is, inasmuch as someone who did not bring his Chagigah on the first day, and who then brings it on one of the subsequent days is obligated to stay over the following night ...

Clarification, Shehechiyanu: And the reason that it asks it on 'Shehechiyanu' is ...

Reason #1: Because it did not occur to the Gemara that, failing to recite it on the first day, one recites on the second.

Reason #2: Moreover, one recites it over the cup of wine.

Question #1: Why is he not anyway obligated Linah on account of the Shalmei Simchah, which must be brought on all eight days ...

Source: As we learned earlier in the Mishnah (on Daf 42b) 'Hallel and Simchah apply all eight days'?

Question #2: In fact, even someone who brings a Korban throughout the year must stay overnight? ...

Source: As we learned in the Sifri (in Parshas Re'ei) ' "And you shall turn around and return to your tents". This teaches us that they - all Korbanos, similar to the Pesach - require Linah ...

Source (cont.): We only know these (animal Korbanos); from where do we know to include birds, Menachos, wood and frankincense" Therefore the Torah writes "And you shall turn round", all turnings that you turn shall take place from the morning and onwards'.

Pesach Sheini: Regarding Pesach Sheini Tana'im argue in our Sugya (on Amud Beis) and in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Pesachim, Daf 95b & 96a) ...

Pesach Sheini: And the Sifri attributes the opinion that requires Linah to the fact that it is akin to wood and Levonah.

Answer #1: We find a case where one does not bring a Korban on the say that arrives in Yerushalayim, there where one sent his Shelamim on the day before, since Shelamim can be eaten for two days.

Answer #2: Furthermore, in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 8a & 8b) the Beraisa learns "ve'Samachta be'Chagecha", 'to include all kinds of Simchah in the Mitzchah of Simchah' ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Which the Gemara in Perek EIlu Devarim (Pesachim, Daf 71a) explains to mean even clean clothes and aged wine.

Proof: Otherwise, it is not possible to find Simchah all eight days when the first day falls on Shabbos - since the Shechitah must be performed at the time of the Simchah.

Yerushalmi: And we find in the Yerushalmi in the second Perek of Bikurim (Halachah 3) which in the same vein, commenting on the Mishnah there 'And they require Linah', cites Rebbi Yonasan 'Only when they are not acompanied by a Korban, because when they are, they require Linah on account of the Korban'.

Explanation #2: In Perek Dam Chatas (Zevachim, Daf 96a & 96b) it is slightly implied that one requires Linah all seven days of Pesach, since they are all considered like one night ...

Source: Where, in connection with the Mishnah 'Rebbi Tarfon says that if one cooked in a K'li (in the Beis-ha'Mikdash) at the beginning of Yom-Tov, one may cook in it throughout Yom-Tov, in reply to the question 'What is the reason?', Rebbi Yitzchak cites the Pasuk "u'Fanisa ba'Boker ve'Halachta le'Ohalecha" - 'the Pasuk reckons them all as one morning'.

Conclusion: And even though that is not the Gemara's Maskana - since the Gemara asks on it 'Is there no Pigul on Yom-Tov? Is there no Nosar on Yom-Tov?' ...

Conclusion (cont.): Nevertheless, regarding Linah, it seems that the Torah reckons it as one morning - as the Pasuk implies, that one returns home after Yom-Tov. (continued on Amud Beis)

Clarification #1: This explains why we learn Linah by Shemini Atzeres and Bikurim from "u'Fanisa", but by Chag ha'Sukos we require a Hekesh from Chag ha'Matzos and not from "u'Fanisa" ...

Source: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 5a & 5b) 'Why does the Torah write "Chag ha'Sukos"? In order to compare it to Chag ha'Matzos, in that just as Chag ha'Matzos requires Linah, so too, does Chag ha'Sukos' ...

Proof: Because from "u'Fanisa", we would have thought that it is only one night; therefore the Hekesh comes to teach us that may not leave Yerushalayim all seven days of Sukos, seeing as the entire Yom-Tov is reckoned as one morning like Chag ha'Matzos.

Clarification #2: And it also explains why the Gemara says here 'Just as the seven days of Sukos require Linah'.

Clarification: The Mishnah, in the third Perek of Bikurim, explains that the Tenufah takes place in the middle of the K'ri'ah ...

Source: When it says 'When he reaches "Arami Oved Avi", he lowers the basket from his shoulder and holds it by the lip; the Kohen then places his hand underneath and he waves it

Source (cont.): He then reads from "Arami Oved Avi" until he completes the entire Parshah, at which point he places it beside the Mizbe'ach, prostrates himself and leaves ...

Conclusion: Implying that he only waves during the reading of the Parshah.

Opinion #2: The Sifri however, (in Parshas Ki Savo) implies that there are two Tenufos ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): When it says "ve'Hinachto lif'nei Hash-m Elokecha" - 'this teaches us that they require Tenufah twice, one at the time of the Keri'ah, and one at the time of the Hishtachavayah'.

Source: And it Darshens the two Tenufos there from the Pasuk "ve'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadechah", like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): And presumably, it also holds like Rebbi Yehudah who Darshens here "ve'Hinachto", 'Zu Tenufah'.

Reason #1: And the reason that two Tenufos are needed is due to the fact that "ve'Lakach ha'Kohen" is written in the middle of the Keri'ah, and "ve'Hinachto" by the Hashtachavayah.

Clarification: And he explains that it ("ve'Hinachto") is a Lashon Tenufah, as in the Pasuk (in Sh'mos, 32) "Lech Nechei es ha'Am" - a Lashon of Molich u'Meivi.

Reason #2: Alternatively, since after the Kohen puts it down, the Torah inserts another 'Hanachah' following the Keri'ah, one can extrapolate that after the Kohen has placed it, he picks it up again in order to wave it after the Keri'ah - which is at the time of the Hishtachavayah.

Question: In the last Perek of Makos (Daf 18b), the Gemara establishes the Tana who argues with Rebbi Yehudah as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ...

Question (cont.): How does it know that they argue? Perhaps they both Darshen both Pesukim, like the Tana of the Sifri?

Question (concl.): And it implies there that Rebbi Eliezer (ben Ya'akov) learns from "ve'Hinachto" that placing (the Bikurim) is crucial?

Answer: Presumably, since each one does not cite the other one's D'rashah indicates that he does agree with it.

Question: Rebbi Yehudah Darshens Tenufah from "ve'Hinachto", yet he establishs it during the Keri'ah, as the Mishnah in the third Perek of Bikurim (Mishnah 6) states ...

Reason: Because (the first) "ve'Hinicho" is written in connection with the Keri'ah?

Answer: It therefore seems that the Sifri Darshens Tenufah by the Hishtachavayah since it is compared to the Hanachah.

Opinion #3: And there is a third Tana who does not hold of Tenufah at all, as is implied in this Sugya, when it asks "Who is the Tana that holds of Tenufah"? It is Rebbi Yehudah' - implying that the Rabanan do not hold of Tenufah at all.

Opinion #3 (cont.): And this is synonymous with the Tana in Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah (Menachos, Daf 61a) which states, in connection with the Mishnah there 'And the following require Tenufah' - Bikurim, according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov', a proof that the Rabanan do not require Tenufah ...

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Makos establishes the Tana who argues with Rebbi Yehudah as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov ...

Answer: It prefers to cite a Tana whose name we know (rather than those Rabanan, whose name is not specified).

Refutation of Opinion #2: One can also explain that 'two Tenufos' is La'av Davka ...

Refutation of Opinion #2 (cont.): Only since there are times where bikurim do not require Keri'ah - from Sukos till Chanukah, as we learned in the first Perek of Bikurim (Mishnah 6).

Refutation of Opinion #2 (concl.): What the Sifri therefore means is that when Bikurim do require Keri'ah one waves during the Keri'ah, and when they do not, then one waves during the Hishtachavayah.

Explanation #1: This does not mean that he specifically places his hand underneath the hand of the owner ...

Reason: Since that would constitute a Chatzitzah between the K'li and the Kohen's hand.

Proof: And at the end of 'Sh'tei Midos' (Menachos, 94a), in connection with 'Owners who are "Chaverim" ', the Gemara concludes - 'If they were all to perform Tenufah simultaneously, that would constitute a Chatzitzah?'

Explanation #1 (cont.): But as we learned in the third Perek of Bikurim (Mishnah 6) in connection with 'the basket of Bikurim' - 'He holds it by the lip and the Kohen places his hands underneath it and waves it' ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And that is what is meant by 'underneath the hand of the owner'.

Rashi: Rashi however, in the case of 'owners who are Chaverim' explains that with regard to the Kohen waving it, we are not concerned if it is a Chatzitzah, since the main Tenufah is that of the owner.

Question: Where does he get that from, seeing as both Tenufos are written?

Proof: And there in Menachos (Daf 61b), in connection with the Tenufah of the Shelamim, the Beraisa states 'What does he do? The Kohen places his hand underneath that of the owner and waves. How? He places the Emurin on the palm of his hand and the chest and the calf on top of them'.

Refutation: It is possible to say there that the Kohen takes holds of the Emurim where they stick out from his hand; and because the owner is below (See Maharsha), the Tana says 'underneath the hand of the owner'.

Explanation #2: The Yerushalmi in Sotah (at the beginning of the third Perek) slightly implies that they actually touch - in connection with the Tenufah of the Minchah of a Sotah, when it asks 'Is it not "ugly"? If one brings a cloth, is it not a Chatzitzah?'

Explanation #2 (cont.): One therefore brings an old Kohen or even a young one, since the Yeitzer ha'Ra is not common under those circumstances'.

Refutation: It is possible to explain however, that even if one of them holds the base of the K'li and the other one on top, his hand will sometimes touch hers, whilst they are busy performing the Tenufah.