Review for Thursday

Last night, we clarified the two alternatives suggested by the Gemara in explaining the machloket between R. Elazar and Chachamim.

Approach #1 - both RE and C agree that "eyn dichui" - and therefore, RE's psul of the over-berried hadas cannot be based on "yesh dichui". What, then, is the basis of RE's psul? A: He holds that we learn lulav from Succah.

Rashi breaks this down into two steps:

1) RE holds that Lulav does need an egged - and therefore, it is relevant to discuss the concept of "constructing" the bundle.
2) We learn Lulav from Succah in the form of a binyan av - paradigm - just like Succah has to be made, and needs asiya (and therefore has the psul of ta'aseh) so too, Lulav, which has to be made, has the psul of ta'aseh.

Chachamim, on the other hand, agreeing that Lulav needs to be bound, nevertheless, do not learn lulav from Succah. Rather, only pesukim that themselves have the term "ta'aseh" or "asiya" in them have the psul of ta'aseh v'loh min ha'asui.

Approach #2

Both RE and Chachamim hold that if Lulav needed an eged, we would learn lulav from Succah, and you would have a psul of ta'seh. However the debate is:

RE: Lulav needs an egged
Chachamim: Lulav does not need an egged. Therefore, there can be no psul of ta'aseh

The machloket between RE and Chachamim is parallel to the Machloket in another baraita between Tanna Kamma and R. Yehuda...R. Yehuda says that Lulav does need an egged, and TK says it doesn't.

In other words, the baraita that has just been quoted is the argument over the principle of eged and the disagreement between RE and Chachamim is the "playing out" of that machloket as it pertains to an over-berried hadas & the psul of ta'aseh. RE agrees with R. Yehuda that lulav needs an egged, and the hadas is therefore subject to the psul of ta'aseh. Chachamim agree with TK that lulav does not need an egged and the hadas is therefore not subject to the psul of ta'aseh.

Last part of the sugyah:
מאי טעמא דר' יהודה יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב כתיב הכא ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון וכתיב התם ולקחתם אגודת אזוב מה להלן אגודה אף כאן אגודה ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה מאן תנא להא דת"ר לולב מצוה לאוגדו ואם לא אגדו כשר מני אי רבי יהודה כי לא אגדו אמאי כשר אי רבנן מאי מצוה קא עביד לעולם רבנן ומצוה משום זה אלי ואנוהו

What does the Gemara want to know when it asks מאי טעמא דר' יהודה ?
Explain the limud/drasha cited by the Gemara
How does the Gemara explain the view of TK/Rabanan? Saying ורבנן לית להו לקיחה לקיחה seems to beg the question!
The sugyah concludes with the following question מאן תנא להא דת"ר etc - what is the Gemara looking for when it uses this expression?
Summarize the baraita/views now cited by the Gemara
What "catch-22" question does the Gemara ask on this baraita?
How does the Gemara, before the 2 dots, ultimately resolve this question?