Beitza 5b - paskening like Beis Shammai l'asid lavo

The gemara quotes a shita that says that even after takanas Raban Yochanan ben Zakai the beitza born on the first day of R"H is assur on the second because "m'heira yibaneh beis hamikdash" and people will recall that it was permissible the previous year and assume the same about this year. The Rogatchover asks that this gemara seems to be against the well known comment of the Arizal that l'asid lavo we will pasken like Beis Shammai, according to which there should be no concern over here because when the beis hamikdash is rebuilt an egg that is nolad on Y"T will be mutar that very same day! The Rogatchover suggests that perhaps the Arizal only means that we will pasken like the chumros of Beis Shammai which we do not have the fortitude to pasken like yet, but will be able to handle l'asid lavo. If this is the case then we will still pasken like Beis Hillel in our mishnah because he is the more machmir opinion.
Perhaps there is also room to distinguish between "l'asid lavo" and "meheira yibaneh beis hamikdash". Maybe the beis hamikdash will be rebuilt prior to the time known as l'asid lavo so the halacha will still be like Beis Hillel. Rav Yakov Emden makes this distinction in Maseches Rosh Hashana where the gemara explains why "yom hanaf kulo assur" because "meheira yibaneh...". Rav Emden asks that this is against the gemara in Nidda that mitzvos beteilos lasid lavo? He answers to distinguish between "l'asid lavo" (which, unlike Rav Emden's explanation, in context in Nidda probably just means when an individual dies) and the earlier time of binyan hamikdash.

Beitza 4b - bitul issur on sukkah

The gemara states that you can't be mevatel an issur d'oraysah l'chatchila. The Hagahos Habach on the Rif 2b asks why one may be mevatel schach passul by adding schach kasher on a sukkah. The Taz 626:2 suggests many answers to this question:
1 - when you built it before Yom Tov it doesn't have a sheim issur yet
2 - even on Yom Tov the schach passul is not an "issur" - it is only something that you can't fulfill your mitzvah of sukkah with.
3 - The reason we can't be mevatel issur lechatchila is that ultimately we are benefitting from the issur when we are mevatel it, but if the benefit is a mitzvah it is no problem because mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu (see Chavas Daas 99:8 that bitul issur lechatchila is an issur d'oraysah on isurei hana'ah because by being mevatel the issur you are benefitting from it.
4 - Perhaps the reason you can't be mevatel issur lechatchila is that you may come to use pure issur, which is an unlikely concern when you are trying to do a mitzvah.

Beitza 4b- Yom Tov Sheini: Minhag?

The gemara discusses whether the 2 days of yom tov outside of EY was a takana of yoma arichta (therefore nolda bazeh asurah bazeh) or kept only misafek (therefore nolda bazeh muteres bazeh). Abbaye holds that it was only misafek, but nonetheless even when we know the keviah d'yarcha we need to keep 2 days bec. - "hizharu biminhag...". There is an important machlokes between Tosafos succah 44b and the Ran (22a bidapei harif) in succah whether the status of this hizharu was on the level of minhag (Tosafos) or on the level of takana derabonon (Ran).
Acc. to both Tosafos and the Ran it comes out that before the fixed calendar they only kept 2 days misafek, and would presumably not make brachos on kiddush and mitzvos either day 1 or day 2 (safek l'kula), but after they fixed the calendar and no longer had a reason to keep 2 days, there was a formal decision to maintain the custom to keep 2 days [acc. to Tosafos this decision had status of minhag, and acc. to Ran as a formal takana], and then they began making brachos on both yom tov rishon and yom tov sheini.

Beitza 3b - Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

The gemara concludes (acc. to r' ashi) that davar sheyesh lo matirin is the reason to assur the ta'aroves and also the reason for it being assur misafek. Rashi and Ran disagree with the logic behind the chumra of davar sheyesh lo matirin. Rashi - since it will be mutar later, you should wait. Ran (Nedarim 52a) - bitul can only occur if the 2 are different but something which will be mutar is too similar to heter to become batul. In short, acc. to rashi bittul takes place but chazal still require you to be machmir, whereas acc. to ran the bittul does not take place (although even ran may agree it is only derabanan). The rashash and tzlach both point out that the logic of the Ran only explains ta'aroves, but it does not explain safek, so for safek lichumra we must say like rashi. Why then does the Ran add a new reason, since he anyway must come on to rashi's rationale to explain safek being assur? Perhaps it is based on tzlach who points out that rashi's reason only applies to eatable items since it is a 1 time use, but by something where one can benefit many times, the lose of todays use cannot be made upt so bittul does take place. The Ran's sevara would help to assur in the case of a non-eatable item where one can benefit multiple times.

beitza or bay'ah

Many have the custom to call this mesechta by the name bay'ah rather than beitza. This is based on the Magen Avraham 156 in the name of maharshal that we should not say a davar megunah. The meforshim on the mishnayos, however, point to a different source. The gemara in Sanhedrin 5b says that there was a town that mistakenly assumed mei betzaim (swamp waters) are not machshir l'kabel tumah. A talmid chacham had told them that "mei beitzim" are not machshir l'kabel tumah. Some of the meforshim point out that clearly the custom was to call it beitza or else there would have been no room for error. (bay'ah and betzaim do not sound alike and would not have been confused). Others (Tiferes Yisrael) point out that maybe because of the confusion that occured they decided not to call it beitza anymore and that is where the custom to call it bay'ah really originated. See Mishnah Rishonah there.

beitza 2b - manna on Y"T (2)

More on the topic of whether the manna fell on Yom Tov. We have lechem mishnah as a zecher l’man. We also have a challah cover according to some rishonim as a zecher l’man. It would seem that if the manna fell on Y”T there would be need for neither on Yom Tov. Some rishonim (quoted in Tur), however hold other reasons for the challah cover: perhaps it is “shelo yirah hapas boshto” or “l’kavod shabbos” each of which applies equally to Yom Tov regardless of the manna. Another nafka mina in the reason for covering the challah might be whether it needs a cover on the bottom (if it is a zecher l’man it may need to be surrounded on all sides, according to the other reasons it only needs to be covered on top). Another Nafka mina would be whether it needs to remain covered after kiddush (if it is l’kavod shabbos or zecher l’man yes, if it is not to embarass the bread no.) Another nafka mina may relate to seudah shelishis where there is not kiddush but there is a fulfillment of kavod shabbos and the entire meal is certainly a zecher l’man. Oddly though, on Yom Tov we do lechem mishnah (with the cover) clearly assuming manna did not fall, while we don’t do seudah shelishis (apparently assuming that the manna did fall). See Rabeinu Manoach chameitz umatzah 8:6 who deals with this problem.

beitza 2b - manna on Y'T

I heard the following from Rav Yonasan Sacks shlit"a:
Tosafos quotes two opinions as to whether the manna fell on Yom Tov. The gemara Shabbos 117b relates the obligation to eat three meals to the passuk of "achluhu hayom" while the gemara Pesachim 105a relates that there is an element of kavod shabbos in the seudos (kavod yom adif m'kavod laylah - see also Gittin 38b). Based on the gemara about kavod there only seems to be a requirement for two meals (kavod yom and kavod laylah). Apparently there are two chiyuvim in seudos shabbos ("Ichluhu hayom" and kavod/oneg shabbos) The third meal is only a din in "ichluhu hayom" and not in kavod (this is evidenced in the fact that S"A 291:3 allows splitting a daytime meal to fulfill seudah shelishis, which obviously involves no enhancement of the oneg/kavod hayom.)
The mitzva of kavod/oneg relates to Y"T (see Rambam Y"T 6:16) but if the manna did fall on Y"T there is no mitvah of "ichluhu hayom" and thus no mitzvah of seudah shelishis. If the manna didn't fall on Y"T there is a mitzvah of both (just like by shabbos).

Succah 56a - Shehechiyanu comes before Succah

Beis Shamai offers 2 arguments to explain kiddush before hagafen: 1. kedushas hayom is the cause to have a cup of wine. 2. Kedushas Hayom comes first with the onset of the day. the gemara is mechalek to make rabba bar bar chana who says Shehechiyanu and then Succah, fit with the first reason of Beis Shamai. The question is that rabba bar bar chana can work himself out with Beis Shamai very simply by saying that the second reason of Beis Shamai is the primary reason. Therefore, here too, shehechiyanu which is caused by the onset of the day comes before the chiyuv of succah which just comes when you come into the succah. Is the gemara struggling with rabba bar bar chana only bec. it wants to work it out with both reasons of Beis shamai (even though in beis hillel we only work out rav with one of the 2 reasons of beis hillel)?

55a - Declaring Yom Tov to be Chol

Rashi comments that we cannot say "ub'yom Hasheini" on the second day of succos in chutz l'aretz, bec. by doing so we would be declaring that it is chol hamoed. Presumably that is considered degrading to Yom Tov if we are going to declare it as chol. We find a similar concept in Tosafos 47a as explaining why we don't shake lulav and esrog out of safek. However, someone asked me in the shiur this morning about counting sefira on the second night of Pesach. Since the proper time for sefira to begin is "mimacharas hashabos" - after yom tov, isn't the counting of Sefira also declaring it to be chol (the fact that we don't count a sefeika d'yoma and the fact that we are willing to make a bracha on the safek, is discussed in the Ba'al Hameor at the end of Pesachim, but I don't think that this question is addressed there).

Chag

This is a general haora about Succos and meseches Sucah
The Mishna calls Succos chag "bechag nidonin al hamayim". What is the inyan?
The maharl in Beer Hagola zeh leshono: "Shelach es ami Vyachogo li bamidbar" vedavar zeh hem hakarbanos, shehem chag lahashem, shecen lashon chag bekol makom .
From this maharal it comes out that Succos has a special relatioship to karbanos.
In fridays daf Rashi brings down that there is an inyan by succos of bal tacher, that it is by succos that you are over bal tacher. We see from here again a shaycus between Succos and Karbanos.
The reason we say Hallel each day is that they are chluk bekarbanosihem.
We also see by Lulav that even though it is a mitzvah from all klal yisroel still the mishna says that in the mikdash it was for 7 day( Based on the pasuk "vesamachtem lifnei hashem") and elsehere only 1 day . I dont recal another yom tov where we celebrate it differntly in the bais hamikdash. Again a shaychus between the mikdash, the makom of karbanos, and mitzahs lulav on succos.
Both Mikdash and Succah are bichnas kedushas hamakom.
Just some thoughts I hope they are in spirit with the new blog.
Yasher Koach Avi.

tadir v'sheino tadir (daf yomi)

The following isn't my own heara, but it is a good one: The gemara says that the shir shel shabbos (accompanying the mussaf) is more tadir than the shir shel rosh chodesh. If you look at Gemara R"H 31a and Rambam Temidin U'Musafin 6:9 you will not that the shir shel shabbos is divided into "haziv lach" of parshas Ha'azinu, and one section is read each shabbos. It comes out that any particular part of the shir shel shabbos is only read once every six weeks - less frequently than the shir shel Rosh Chodesh. Obviously, the tedirus is determined based on the general chiyuv and not the specific action. See Turei Even Megilah 29b who says we read the shabbos laining before the Rosh Chodesh laining because the chiyuv kerias hatorah for shabbos is more tadir, even though the particular parsha that we are reading only gets read once per year.

Succah 54b

Although the Braisa in today's daf implies that the levi'im say the shir of rosh chodesh and not shabbos, the gemara explains in the name of r' safra that it just means that the shir of rosh chodesh comes before the shir for shabbos. On that the gemara asks, we should say the tadir comes first - so shabbos should be first. Tosafos comments that the question of Tadir can be asked even without r' safra. Clearly, Tosafos implies that Tadir is not simply a sevara for kadima but even it is even a sevara to choose the shir of shabbos rather than rosh chodesh. See Magen Avrohom 684:2 who points this out. Tosafos here is lishitasam in Tosafos in Yoma 33a (ein ma'avirin) where Tosafos claims that ein ma'avirin al hamitzvos is a sevara of kadima, but if you have to choose one or the other you use the sevara of tadir.

Also, if tadir is a sevara deoraysa, how can we override the sevara of tadir in order to publicize that it is rosh chodesh?