Question: But we see from Lulav that those in Eretz Yisrael are not restricted by the limitations of those outside!?

Answer: The Lulav does not override in Eretz Yisrael, either.

Question: But then the Beraisos are still contradictory!?

One states that they brought their Lulavim to the Beis ha'Mikdash and one says that they brought them to the Beis ha'Kneses.

We had resolved this by stating that one was at the time of the Mikdash and one after.

Note: But we are now asserting that even in Eretz Yisrael the Lulav does not override Shabbos.

Answer: One Beraisa speaks in the Mikdash and one speaks outside of the Mikdash (but Lulav is not Docheh anywhere after the Churban).

Question (Abaye): Why do we single out Lulav for a seven-day Zecher l'Mikdash but we only make a one-day Zecher l'Mikdash for the Mitzvah of Aravah?

Answer (Rava): There is a Zecher to the Aravah in the daily use of the Lulav (with its Aravos).

Question (Abaye): That Aravah does not represent its Mitzvah, since it is only part of Lulav!

Answer: He must pick the Lulav up a second time.

Question: We have never seen such a thing!?

Answer (R. Zevid citing Rava): Lulav is d'Oraisa (and hence gets a seven-day Zecher) whereas Aravah is d'Rabanan (and gets only one day).

Question: According to whom is Aravah d'Rabanan!?

Answer: According to Aba Shaul.

Question: But he learns it from the plural Arvei!

Answer: It is according to Rabanan.

Question: But they hold that Aravah is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (as taught by R. Asi citing R. Yochanan citing R. Nechunya) - not d'Rabanan!?

Answer (R. Zevid citing Rava): Lulav has its basis in the Torah outside of the Mikdash (and thus gets a seven day Zecher) whereas the Mitzvah of Aravah outside of the Mikdash has no basis in the Torah (it is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai only in the Mikdash).

(Resh Lakish): Even the Ba'alei Mumin would press in to fulfil the Mitzvah of surrounding the Mizbe'ach.

(R. Yochanan): Who said this Halachah (presumably asking who said that there is an obligation for each Kohen to do Hakafah)!?

Question: How could R. Yochanan have asked this, seeing that he, himself, taught this Halachah!?

Answer: Rather, he was asking who taught that the Mitzvah is with Netilah and not just setting Aravos up along the Mizbe'ach (something which could be done by just one Kohen)?

He further questioned as to who said that Ba'alei Mumin are also obligated?

R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua b. Levi argued over whether the Aravah is a Yesod Nevi'im or a Minhag Nevi'im.

We may conclude that R. Yochanan is of the opinion that it is Yesod Nevi'im since R. Avahu cited his opinion.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Avahu): But it was R. Yochanan who taught that Aravah is Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai!?

Answer (R. Avahu, after a moment of stunned silence): R. Yochanan referred to the fact that in Bavel the Halachos mi'Sinai were forgotten and were restored (Yesod) by the Nevi'im.

Question: But R. Yochanan taught that the Torah in its entirety is to be found among the scholars of Bavel!?

Answer: In the Mikdash it was Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai whereas outside it was the Yesod Nevi'im.

(R. Ami): The Aravah must have a Shiur, must be taken alone and one may not use the Aravah which is bound with his Lulav.

Question: If it must be taken alone then it goes without saying that one may not use the Aravah bound with his Lulav!?

Answer: We might have permitted this Aravah if he picked up his Lulav-set a second time.

(R. Chisda): One may use the Aravah bound with his Lulav.

Question: What is the Shiur of Aravah?

Answer (R. Nachman): Three branches with moist leaves.

Answer (R. Sheshes): Even one leaf and one branch.

Question: What is one leaf or one leafless branch?

Answer: Rather, one leaf on one branch.

R. Elazar was brought an Aravah and he was Chovet (waved it-Rashi) and did not recite a Berachah, holding that it is Minhag Nevi'im (the same was done by Rav, for the same reason).

R. Elazar was very impressed with the wealthy man who asked regarding the manner in which he was paying his workers with Shevi'is produce.

The man returned to ask how to properly pay.

R. Elazar told him to use money.

Question: But this labor (Kishkush) is not permitted on Shemitah (as in the Beraisa)!?

Answer (R. Ukva b. Chama): One Kishkush is permitted (covering the roots, for the survival of the tree) and one is not permitted (for the enhancement of the tree).

Eivo cited R. Elazar as teaching that a person must not travel more than three Parsah on Erev Shabbos.

(R. Kehana): This restricts him only when traveling to his home, not to an inn (since he is not relying on the innkeeper to have food for him, he is not likely to be angered by its absence).

(Alternate R. Kehana): This restricts him even if going to his home (where he may well find at least something to eat).

(R. Kehana) I once came home too close to Shabbos and there was absolutely nothing for me to eat.

An Amora recited in our Mishnah that they would place the Lulavim on the Gag of the Itztaba, instead on the Gav.

Question (R. Nachman): Why would they put them out on the roof (to dry)!?

Answer: Rather, remember the Mishnah as Al Gav.

(Rachva citing R. Yehudah): Har ha'Bayis was designed with rows of such posts (Itztabaos).