Source: http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_131.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:41:20+00:00

Document:
I.e., two courtyards with two houses opening into each. V. 'Er. 5a and 73b.
And for this reason when the courtyards are combined with the houses it is not permissible to carry save within four cubits.
The tenants of all the houses save one can renounce their rights in the courtyard in his favour; the courtyard is then his, and he may carry from his house into it.
Whereas Rab needs at least two houses, v. p, 654, n. 8.
Rab holds ('Er. 74a) that a roof, courtyards, enclosures, and the alley are all one domain, and carrying is permitted from one to another, provided, however, that the houses are not combined with the courtyards, so that no utensils belonging to the houses are to be found in the courtyards which might then be carried into the alley. Hence the same applies to carrying in the alley itself: for if there are no houses at all a formal partnership is unnecessary, and carrying in the alley is permitted, just as from the alley into the courtyard. Since the houses are not combined with the courtyards and no utensils may be moved from the former into the latter, for all practical purposes the houses are non-existent: therefore one may carry over the whole of the alley itself.
As distinct from the precept itself.
Which are offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 17.
Sc. the Feast of Weeks, and must not be postponed for the next day.
That their baking supersedes the Sabbath; not the baking, but the offering 'unto the Lord' is the actual precept, the former being merely a necessary preparation.
V. Glos. But if he held that all preparations supersede the Sabbath, the would not require the gezerah shawah in this particular case.
Viz., the reaping, grinding. and sifting; Men. 72a.
I.e., from the day that ye brought (v. 15) and 'ye shall bring' (v. 17) must have no other purpose than this gezerah shawah. There are three views on this matter: (i) Both parts of the gezerah shawah must be free, otherwise it can be refuted if they are dissimilar in other respects; (ii) Only one part must be free; and (iii) Even if both parts are required for another teaching too, the gezerah shawah cannot be refuted.
But not for the express purpose of fulfilling the precept.
Since Scripture could write, and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord out of your habitations etc. The extension embraces the preliminaries of bringing, and intimates that these supersede the Sabbath.
R. Johanan's statement that R. Eliezer did not rule that the preliminaries of all precepts etc.
V. Glos. and Lev. XXIII, 40.
V. Glos. and ibid. v. 42.
V. Glos. and ibid. v. 24.
These must not be inserted or affixed on the Sabbath.
'The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view.' Whence does R. Eliezer learn this? If from the 'omer and the two loaves, — [there it may be] because they are requirements of the Most High; if from lulab, — [that may be] because it requires four species! Rather [the scope of] seven days' is deduced from the 'seven days' of lulab: just as there its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath, so here too its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.19 Then let the Divine Law write it in connection with sukkah, and these [others] could be adduced and learnt therefrom? — Because one could refute [the analogy]: as for sukkah, that is because it [the precept] is binding by night just as by day.
Thus, when he comes to do it on the Sabbath, he could renounce ownership of the garment or the house, in which case these precepts are no longer incumbent on him.
I.e., they are a direct offering.
For 'on the first' suffices: hence 'day' teaches that the ceremony must be performed whatever the day.
Permitting the handling of the lulab on the Sabbath.
Surely not, for the interdict of handling is only Rabbinical.
E.g., carrying the lulab through the streets, which would otherwise be Biblically forbidden.
How do they interpret the superfluous 'day'?
The lulab precept has to be performed by day.
Do they not admit that it can be deduced from this latter verse?
This is deduced in Suk. 43a.
This law that the preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
Sc. the 'omer and the two loaves.
That there too it is thus: why are separate verses required?
Vis., those enumerated in Lev. XXIII, 40. Hence it is important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath.
Since this analogy is based on a gezerah shawah, it cannot be refuted as before, when the suggested analogy was based purely on logical grounds. (Rashi).
Lev. XXIII, vv. 6 and 39.
They too must partake thereof; v. Pes. 43b. But the precepts of lulab and sukkah are not incumbent upon women.
Does 'day' extend the law even to the Sabbath.
This is rather unusual. Generally we have 'the School of R. Ishmael', and the present passage is so quoted supra 117b in cur. edd. R. Han. however, reads 'the School of Samuel' there too, and it is likewise so in R.H. 29b in cur. edd. Weiss, Dor, III, p. 169 maintains that the reference is to a collection of Baraithas compiled by Samuel. It may also be observed that the verse quoted here is not the same as that quoted supra in cur. edd., though Tosaf.'s reading is identical in both places. It is barely possible that two different Baraithas are referred to, both making the same deduction but from different verses.
Hence no verse is required to teach that it is permitted.
Sc. the blowing of the shofar on New Year and on the day of atonement.
As shown in R.H. 33b.
Hence it is so important that even its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. But the same may not apply to other precepts.
In accordance with Lev. XXV, 10. Hence this too was of particularly great importance.
Each differs in some respect.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v.