Question: Does a single k’zayis suffice for everyone, or is a k’zayis necessary for each individual?

Rabbi Abba quoting Rav: Eiruv tavshilin must be a k’zayis, whether for an individual or for a hundred people.

Challenge: We learned in the Mishnah (074): “If he ate it [the Eruv] or it was lost, it cannot be relied on. If something was left over, he can rely on it and cook for Shabbos.” So it seems that we can rely on an eiruv as long as ‘something’ is left over - even if it’s less than a k’zayis?

Resolution: ‘Something’ means ‘something that is at least a k’zayis’.

Challenge: We learned: “This cooked item may be broiled, soaked or highly cooked or normally cooked. It may be kulyas ha’ispanin upon which hot water was poured [that is its usual method of cooking]; and it has no measure.” So it seems that there is no measure and a k’zayis is not required.

Resolution: It means that there is no measure in how large it may be, but it must be at least a k’zayis.

Rav Huna quoting Rav: An eiruv tavshilin must be intentional.

Question: The person designating the eiruv must certainly do so with intent; what about the person on whose behalf it is being placed?

Response: Shmuel’s Father would make an eiruv for all of Neharda’a. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would make an eiruv for all of Tveria. It was the custom of Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi to announce “whoever did not designate an eiruv tavshilin may rely on the one I made”.

Question: Up until how far may people rely on an eiruv?

Rav Nechumi bar Zecharyah in the name of Abayye: Up to a techum Shabbos [since they cannot eat from the eiruv - because they’re not within walking distance, they cannot rely on it].

A certain blind man used to set forth beraisas [he was like a living sefer] before Mar Shmuel. Shmuel noticed that this blind man appeared pensive. Shmuel asked him what was troubling him and he explained that he hadn’t prepared an eiruv. Shmuel told him “you can rely on mine”. When this repeated itself the next year, Shmuel said to him “You’re negligent. Anyone can rely on my eiruv but you can’t”.
 

Tosfos: In mesichta Avodah Zarah we learn that another condition of bishul Akum is that it must be fit to be served at a dignified meal. The example given there is that small fishes are not fit to be served and would not qualify for bishul Akum?
We must say that here we’re discussing fish that are slightly bigger. [Some poskim explain that there it is discussing fish that will grow big but are still small - those are not important. Here we’re discussing small fish that do not grow bigger, these are indeed considered significant enough to be affected by bishul Akum].

The Flour is the Mainstay: Based on this, we permit bread broiled with eggs, baked by gentiles. Since the bread is the mainstay, and gentile bread is permitted.
We might want to differentiate between the cases: since here this concept is being used as a stringency, while over there it would result in leniency. But actually, here the Gemara is willing to use it as a leniency - if only the fish would be considered the mainstay. Since the flour is considered the mainstay it results in stringency but had the fish been the mainstay our Gemara would ruled leniently, so we can apply this principle to our egg-bread.
We need not worry that the eggs are from non-kosher species since it is uncommon, neither do we need to worry about bloodspots which are not found in most eggs. Our practice of checking eggs for bloodspots is a stringency,, if they weren’t checked, they’re kosher. We also do not need to worry that the eggs are from neveilah or treifah chickens, since most eggs are not.
 

Question: Why is bread specifically excluded? Because bread is a staple and constantly available (079)?
But porridge is not constantly available and Rav Nechumi bar Zechariah said in the name of Abayye: One cannot use porridge as an Eiruv. Why is that?

Response: Bread or porridge cannot be used, because it must be something that is an accompaniment. Porridge is not, as Rabbi Zeira said: The Babylonians are foolish, they eat bread with bread [they would eat bread (baked grain) with porridge (boiled grain), he was ridiculing them for their lack of variety in diet] [so we see it’s not an accompaniment].

We will presently learn that the Eiruv need not be something especially cooked for that purpose.

Beraisa of Rabbi Chiya: Lentil beans that are left over on the bottom of the pot may be scraped together and relied on for Eiruv Tavshilin, provided they amount to a k’zayis [and have been assigned for this purpose].

Rav Yitzchok brei d’Rav Yehuda: Fat that’s left on the side of the knife, can be scraped off and relied on for Eiruv Tavshilin, provided they amount to a k’zayis.

Rav Asi quoting Rav: Small salted fishes [the fish were salted to make them fit for eating], are not forbidden due to bishul Akum [a Jew may not eat something cooked by a gentile if it is something that requires cooking to make it edible].

Rav Yosef: If a gentile broiled these fishes [after they were salted], they can be relied upon for Eiruv Tavshilin. But if the gentile cooked them as kosi d’harsena [a recipe in which the fish are cooked with flour], it is forbidden due to bishul Akum [because the flour was not fit to eat previously].

Question: Isn’t it obvious that kosi d’harsena is forbidden?

Response: We might have thought that the fish is the mainstay of the dish [and it is fit to eat without being cooked], so we’re taught that the flour is actually the mainstay of the kosi d’harsena.

Rabbi Abba: Eiruv Tavshilin must be a k’zayis.

Tosfos: There are three rules regarding eiruvin:

Techumin require two meals worth for each individual.

Chatzeiros require a fig’s worth for each individual, once two meals worth has been set aside, it is enough for even a hundred people.

Tavshilin one k’zayis of each type suffices even for a hundred people.  

Question: How is this accomplished?

Response: He can smear some oil on the child [it was customary in those days to smear oil on the forehead and cheeks] and fill around his eyes with bluestone.
Nowadays since people [deteriorated and] are worried about sorcery, some of that food is smeared on the child.

Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: All mitzvos were given to us publicly, except for Shabbos which was given privately, as it states “Between Me and the children of Yisroel, a sign forever”.

Challenge: If that’s the case, Gentiles should not be punished for not accepting this mitzvah [they are held responsible for not accepting the Torah, as the Gemara explains elsewhere that Sinai means that the nations are now despised (sinah) because they did not accept the Torah]?

Resolution: Shabbos is revealed, but its reward was not revealed.

Another explanation: Its reward was revealed but the neshamah yeseirah [an expansion of the neshamah] was not revealed. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Hakodosh Boruch Hu gives a neshamah yeseirah into every Jew on erev Shabbos which is taken from him on Motzoei Shabbos, as it states “He rested and was refreshed (vai-nefesh)”, once the rest is over, vai [alas] the nefesh [soul] departs.

[The Rov spoke here about the reward of Shabbos which was explained in last week’s Toras Avigdor booklet here].

074: If you cook something [for Shabbos] before Yom Tov, you can rely on it for Shabbos.

Abayye: This is in order to cook, but bread need not be prepared in order to bake bread.

Question: Why is bread specifically excluded? Because bread is a staple and not eaten without an accompaniment? Perhaps only something which is an accompaniment can be used as an Eiruv Tavshilin?
But porridge is not eaten as an accompaniment as Rabbi Zeira said: The Babylonians are foolish, they eat bread with bread [they would eat bread (baked grain) with porridge (boiled grain), he was ridiculing them for their lack of variety in diet] [so we see it’s not an accompaniment]. And Rav Nechumi bar Zechariah said in the name of Abayye: One can use porridge as an Eiruv.

Response: Bread cannot be used, because it must be something that is not a constant.
 

We learned in a Beraisa also thus: Beis Shammai: From Sunday, worry about Shabbos. Beis Hillel: “Hashem is Blessed every day”.

Rabbi Chama b’Rebbi Chanina: One who gives someone a gift, need not inform the recipient [who the giver is, nor the quality of the gift], as it states “Moshe did not know that his face was shining with rays of light”.

Challenge: It states [regarding Shabbos] “So that they know that I am Hashem who makes them holy [by means of Shabbos]”. Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe: “Moshe, I have a good gift in my treasure house, it’s called Shabbos. I’d like to present it to Yisroel, go and let them know [how great the gift is and that it’s from me, like it states וְיֵדְעוּ כִּי מֵאִתְּךָ הִיא מְנוּחָתָם]”. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel derived from here that if one gives someone a gift: if he gives a child a piece of bread, he must let the mother know [smear some jelly on his nose so that there is still evidence even after the gift is devoured, this will cause love between neighbors when the child tells his mother “the lady next door gave me a sandwich”].

Resolution: Rabbi Chama b’Rebbi Chanina is referring to a gift which will become evident [thus modesty is preferred]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is referring to a gift which will not become evident.

Challenge: The gift of Shabbos became evident?

Resolution: Although we enjoy the Shabbos, its reward is unknowable [because it is the source of all blessings. See more in last week’s Toras Avigdor booklet here].
 

We also learned a Beraisa to that effect: A field that has Adar in it, cannot be robbed, and its crops are protected.

Rav Tachlifa, the brother of Ravnai Choza’ah [of Mechuza]: All of a man’s household expenses are set on Rosh Hashanah [and then if he’s overly lavish, he will be left without money to finish off the year], except for the expenses of Shabbos and Yom Tov and tuition for his children’s Torah learning. If he skimps on these expenses he won’t gain anything, and if he overspends on these, more will be added to him.

Rabbi Abahu: Where is this stated? “Blow Shofar on Rosh Chodesh, on the festival when the moon is covered” - this must refer to Rosha Hashanah. And it states there “It is a ‘chok’ for Yisroel”. Chok means sustenance, as we find regarding the priests of Pharaoh. Mar Zutra quoted a verse stated by Shlomo Hamelech which also uses this expression to mean a food allocation.
 

Challenge: Why would Rabbi Eliezer refer to feasting on Yom Tov as forsaking everlasting life for pleasures of this world? Feasting on Yom Tov is a mitzvah.

Resolution: Rabbi Eliezer is following his opinion that simchas Yom Tov is a reshus, as recorded in the Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: On Yom Tov, one may eat and drink all day or sit and learn all day [it doesn’t mean ‘all day’ in a literal sense, Yom Tov is not a fast day. Tosfos: Indeed, the people who left at the end received his blessing]. Rabbi Yehoshua: Split the day; half ‘for Hashem’ and half ‘for yourselves’ [one must eat more than usual].

Rabbi Yochanan: They both derived this from the same verse: One possuk says “An Atzeres for Hashem” and one possuk says “An Atzeres for yourselves”. Rabbi Eliezer understands that either one is legitimate. Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the day must be split.

Question: What is meant by the statement in Nechemya [075]: “Send portions to those who are lacking.”?

Rav Chisda: It refers to those who have not prepared Eiruv Tavshilin.

Some Say: To those who couldn’t make Eiruv Tavshilin [due to poverty], but if one was able to and he neglected his duty, he is negligent, and we’re not concerned for him.

Question: What is meant by the statement in Nechemya [075]: “the joy in Hashem will be your strength”?

Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon: Hakadosh Baruch Hu says to the Jewish nation “My children, borrow on my credit for the necessities of Shabbos and Yom Tov, and trust in me; I will pay for it”. [Tosfos: The Gemara elsewhere says that one should make his Shabbos meal like a weekday meal, rather than taking from others, that is only if he doesn’t know where he will be able to pay back from. The Gra has a different version - that the other Gemara is referring to a case where he doesn’t have anyone to borrow from. It seems that if he does have someone to borrow from, he may borrow even if he doesn’t know how he will pay back].
 

The Tanna [of the beraisa] brings it from here, Beraisa: “Whatever you have to bake, bake [before Shabbos], whatever you have to cook, cook [before Shabbos].” From this verse [it is superfluous, since one may not cook or bake on Shabbos, obviously everything must be prepared before Shabbos] Rabbi Eliezer derived that one may only cook [relying] on a cooked item, and bake [relying] on a baked item. Based on this, the Chachomim instituted Eiruv Tavshilin.

Beraisa: Once [on Yom Tov] Rabbi Eliezer regaled the people all day with hilchos Yom Tov, when the first group left, he said “they have big barrels of wine”. When the second group left, he said “they have kegs of wine”. When the third group left, he said “these have pitchers of wine”. When a fourth group left, he said “these have bottles of wine”. When a fifth group left, he said “they have cups”. When the sixth group got up to leave, he said “they have lack” [the word used can mean curse]. And he noticed that they were blanched, so he said, “My children, I have nothing against you. Only against those who left earlier, who forsook the everlasting life for pleasures of this world”. As they left he said to them the possuk in Nechemya “Go and eat delectable foods, and drink sweet wines. Send portions to those who are lacking. For this day is holy to our Master, do not be saddened, because the joy in Hashem will be your strength”.
 

Mishnah:

If Yom Tov falls out on Friday, you cannot cook on Yom Tov for Shabbos. You can cook for Yom Tov, and if there’s anything left over, it may be used on Shabbos.

If you cook something [for Shabbos] before Yom Tov, you can rely on it for Shabbos [this item that you cooked on Thursday becomes an “Eruv Tavshilin” - it’s your food for Shabbos, and then you can continue cooking on Friday (Yom Tov) for Shabbos; because you already have cooked food for Shabbos].
Beis Shammai: Two cooked items are necessary. Beis Hillel: One is enough. [One cooked item. But in order to bake, one baked item is necessary. For this reason we use a Matzah and an egg - a baked item and a cooked item]. They both agree that a fish with an egg cooked on it is considered two cooked items.
If he ate it [the Eruv] or it was lost, it cannot be relied on. If something [at least a kzayis] was left over, he can rely on it and cook for Shabbos.

Gemara:

Question: From where do we know these things [the Gemara will quote pesukim. Rashi explains that eruv is obviously a takanah of Chazal. The pesukim are quoted as a source for the necessity of Eruv]?

Shmuel: The verse states “Keep in mind to sanctify the Shabbos”, Shabbos must especially be kept in mind when another day [Yom Tov] comes that will make you forget.

Question: What’s the reason [that it is necessary to make an Eruv Tavshilin]?

Rava: So that he should choose a good portion for Shabbos just like he does for Yom Tov.

Rav Ashi: To remind people that it is forbidden to cook for Shabbos on Yom Tov, and certainly not for the weekdays.

Challenge: We learned in the Mishnah: “If you cook something [for Shabbos] before Yom Tov, you can rely on it for Shabbos”. According to Rav Ashi we understand why it must be done before Yom Tov. But according to Rava, why can’t it be done on Yom Tov?Resolution: You’re right. Only we’re concerned he may forget on Yom Tov [due to feasting and inebriation]. 

Challenge from Rav Huna brei d’Rav Ikka: “If one was travelling and wearing Tefillin when Shabbos came in, he should cover his Tefillin with his hand until he arrives in town, and he should deposit the Tefillin in the first house within the city walls. If he was sitting in the Beis Medrash when Shabbos came in, he should cover the Tefiilin with his hand until he arrives in town, and he should deposit the Tefillin in the first house within the city walls.” [so we see, that he can’t continue to wear them until he gets home]?

Resolution: Abayye is discussing a case where the Tefillin wouldn’t be safe until he arrives home.

Challenge: If there is no safe space for the Tefillin, it should be permitted to put them on, even if he was not yet wearing it? As we learned in a
Mishnah: If one finds Tefillin [in the street on Shabbos and cannot carry them] he may put them on one at a time, and take them inside.

Resolution: There the Tefillin are not safe from thieves and dogs [and he may even put them on]. In Abayye’s case, they’re safe from dogs but not from thieves. One might think that most thieves [in that neighborhood] are Jews and one need not be concerned about them disrespecting the Tefillin [which is why we do not permit one to put them on especially to carry them], but in fact, we are concerned [so if one is already wearing the Tefillin, he need not take it off].

MAZEL TOV UPON FINISHING THE FIRST PEREK!

SEND US A RECORDING OF YOURSELF SAYING OVER THE ENTIRE PEREK [UNTIL TUESDAY FEBRUARY 14] FOR A CHANCE TO WIN A BEAUTIFUL LEATHER BOUND GEMARA MASICHTA BEITZAH.
 

Question: Why not?

Response: Because of an incident that once happened [070].

Abayye: One may not wear a spiked sandal, but it may be handled. It may not be worn: because of that incident. It may be handled: Since the Mishnah [070] says that it may not be sent, so obviously it may be handled.

Mishnah 070: An unsewn shoe may not be sent.

Question: Isn’t that obvious?

Response: This is discussing where it is already loosely stitched.

Mishnah 070: Rabbi Yehuda: Nor a white [undyed] shoe which needs a craftsman to complete it..

Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda permits a black shoe [even though it hasn’t been polished], but he forbids a white shoe because it needs the lump of black clay. Rabbi Yosi forbids a black shoe because it needs to be polished.
They’re not arguing, they’re discussing different types of shoes. In Rabbi Yehuda’s region the fleshy part of the leather was inside the shoe, but in Rabbi Yosi’s region it was outside and was very unsightly even after it was blackened, as long as it was not polished.

Mishnah 070: This is the rule: Anything that can be used on Yom Tov, may be sent.

Rav Sheishes permitted the Rabbanan to send Tefillin as a gift on Yom Tov.

Abayye: But Tefillin cannot be used on Yom Tov?

Rav Sheishes: It means: Anything that can be used [during the weekdays], may be sent on Yom Tov [Tefillin is not handled on Shabbos and Yom Tov, but its not really muktzeh].

Abayye: Since we’re discussing Tefillin, we’ll say something on the subject: If a man was walking on the road, wearing Tefillin, and the sun began its descent [according to Rashi, this is erev Shabbos, but others explain that even during the week, one shouldn’t wear tefillin at night], he should cover his Tefillin with his hand until he gets home.
If he’s sitting in the Beis Medrash [which was outside of the town], and Shabbos began to come in: he should cover his Tefillin with his hand until he gets home.
 

Resolution: Only hard shaatnez [which cannot be used as a garment] is permitted to be sent on Yom Tov. As Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua taught: Hard felt of Neresh may be used [as seats, even if they’re shaatnez].

The Rov learned Tosfos* here.

Rav Papa: Slipper clogs [which are hard] are not shaatnez.

Rava: Bags made to hold coins [which are then kept in one’s bosom] are not shaatnez [because the coins cause the contact with the body to feel hard, and it is not soft like a garment]. Such bags holding seeds, would pose a problem of shaatnez.

Rav Ashi: Neither coins nor seeds can be considered shaatnez, since it’s an unusual manner of clothing.

_______________________________________* Tosfos: The Paroches [curtain] of the Mishkan was capable of contracting tumah even though Ulla’s reason does not apply? The answer is that since the Paroches bends over the Aron it can be an Ohel. Once it is considered an Ohel, it may be considered a keili and would become tamei in all ways. Rav Shmuel of Ivri: When they travelled in the Midbar, they would wrap keilim in the Paroches, so it’s considered like a blanket which is surely capable of contracting tumah. 

Gemara:
Challenge: Unsewn clothes can be used as blankets, but what use can one have of shaatnez?
Would you suggest it be folded under to be used as a cushion?
We learned a Beraisa: “It [shaatnez] should not go on you”, but you may spread it out beneath you, but the Chachomim forbade it, lest one thread rise up above his flesh.
Would you suggest that something can be placed to intervene between your body and the shaatnez cushion? But:
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi quoting Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi quoting Rabbi Yosi ben Shaul quoting Rebbi in the name of the holy gathering of Chachomim in Yerushalayim: Even if there are ten sheets one one top of the other and shaatnez is beneath them, it is still forbidden to sleep on them.

Resolution: The shaatznez may be used as a curtain.

Challenge: Ulla: Why is a curtain capable of contracting tumah [after all, it’s not a garment]? Because the servant sometimes warms himself with it. [If that’s the case, it should be considered a garment?]
 

Beraisa: Rabbi Elazar b’Rebbi Tzaddok: Such was the practice of Rabban Gamliel’s household. They would bring a bucketful of lentils and pour water over it, the lentils would remain on bottom and the inedible parts would float to the top.

Challenge: But we learned the other way around: The edible parts would float to the top and the inedible would remain on bottom.

Resolution: It depends on what type of inedible matter was mixed in; earth would sink to the bottom while straw would float to the top. [All this makes no difference because we don’t pasken like Rabban Gamliel anyhow].

It was the practice to send over servants carrying platters of food on Yom Tov as a demonstration of friendship. Beis Shammai holds that only portions that can be eaten on Yom Tov may be sent, otherwise one is carrying without Yom Tov use.

Mishnah:
Beis Shammai: One can only send portions of food on Yom Tov.
Beis Hillel: Animals and fowl may be sent, whether alive or slaughtered [since the intention is to create friendship, it will have its intended effect on Yom Tov, even if the gift is not consumed on Yom Tov].
One can send wines, bottles of oil, bottles of flour and peas, but not grains [because it cannot be used on Yom Tov at all].
Rabbi Shimon permits sending grain [since it can be cooked].

Gemara:
Beraisa: Rav Yechiel: On condition that it is not sent with a row of servants [it is too much fuss for Yom Tov].

Beraisa: Three people are considered a row.

Rav Ashi: What if three servants are sent, each bearing something else?

Teiku: It remains unanswered.

Rabbi Shimon permits sending grain.

Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon permits grain, for instance, to make porridge from wheat, to feed barley to animals, and to make cooked lentils.
 

Question: Perhaps it was made in a small pounder [which is permissible in Bavel, 067]?

Response: He saw that it was very finely ground.

Question: Perhaps it was ground before Yom Tov?

Response: Its peel was bright [it was evidently freshly peeled].

Another explanation: The house of Mar Shmuel is different because of the carelessness of slaves [it was a prosperous household and the laws of Eretz Yisroel (067) apply].

Mishnah:
One who is selecting peas on Yom Tov [to remove those which are unfit], Beis Shammai: He must choose what is edible [this is a shinui, usually what is unfit is selected], and eat it [it must be eaten right away; this is the procedure we follow on Shabbos].
Beis Hillel: He may select in the usual manner and he may gather it in his lap [he is not required to eat it immediately], with a funnel or a bowl, but he cannot pick with a board or a sieve [a slight shinui is required]. Rabban Gamliel: He may even float them in water and pick the dirt off the top.

Gemara:
Beraisa: Rabban [Shimon ben] Gamliel: This was said regarding a case where there are more edible peas, but when there are more which are inedible, everyone agrees that the edible should be picked [because it’s less work. According to Beis Hillel the criterion for Yom Tov is to select what is less work].

Challenge: When the majority is inedible, does anyone permit it [the whole mixture is muktzeh]?

Resolution: It means that while the inedible is the minority, it takes more work to select it [because the pieces are very fine, for example].
 

Rav Acha Bardela to his son: When you pound salt, incline it [to create a minor shinui].

Rav Sheishes heard the sound of pounding [in the street on Yom Tov], he said: This sound is not coming from my house.

Question: Perhaps they inclined when they pounded?

Response: The sound was clear.

Question: Perhaps they were pounding spices?

Response: Only salt makes a clear sound when pounded.

Beraisa 1: Tissni [when grain is pounded finely until each kernel is split in four] cannot be made and grain cannot be pounded in a pounder.

Challenge: Those are two separate [contradictory] statements?

Resolution: It means: What’s the reason you cannot make Tissni? Because a pounder may not be used [to pound it to a lesser degree, a pounder is not necessary].

Challenge: If so, the Beraisa could have simply said “a pounder should not be used on Yom Tov”?

Resolution: Such wording would imply that a professional grade pounder may not be used but a small one would be permissible, this is why the Beraisa must make both statements.

Challenge: “Beraisa 2: A large [professional] pounder may not be used, but a small one is permissible.”?

Abayye: Beraisa 1 is also only discussing a professional pounder. [The Beraisa is saying that Tissni cannot be made, and even a coarser grain cannot be made with a professional pounder].Rava: [rejects Abayye’s explanation and explains Beraisa 1 as follows: You cannot make Tissni, nor can you use a pounder (even a small one), because it is used to make Tissni]. Beraisa 2 was said in Bavel [where no slaves were kept and the people were conscientious in the laws of Yom Tov, therefore a small pounder was permitted] Beraisa 1 was said in Eretz Yisroel [where slaves were common and the laws had to be stricter]. 

Question: How may one blow grain on Shabbos?

Rav Ada bar Ahava quoting Rav: He must blow it from the joints of his fingers [not from his palm].

In Maarava [Eretz Yisroel] they laughed at that: Since he is making a shinui, he can do it with his whole hand. Rather, Rabbi Elazar: He can blow from one hand with all his energy [he need not limit himself].

[Since it is beneficial to have freshly ground spices on Yom Tov, it is permitted to grind with a shinui. Salt, however, which can just as well be ground before Yom Tov, requires a greater shinui].

Mishnah:
Beis Shammai: Spices [any type of condiment, including garlic] can be pounded in a wooden pounder, but salt, in a pot with a wooden spoon.
Beis Hillel: Spices can be prepared even in a stone pounder, but salt, in a wooden pounder.

Gemara:
Question: Everyone agrees that salt requires a shinui, what is the reason for that?

Rav Huna and Rav Chisda: One says: All pots require salt [and it should have been prepared before Yom Tov]. One says: Spices lose their flavor, salt doesn’t lose its flavor.

Question: What would be the difference between the two explanations?

Response: If one knew what he’s planning on cooking. Or, saffron [the flavor which does not evaporate, like salt].

Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: Everything that is pounded on Yom Tov, may be pounded in the usual manner, even salt.

Question: But we learned that salt requires a shinui?

Response: Shmuel follows this Tanna [who differs with our Mishnah].
Beraisa: Rabbi Meir: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that spices may be pounded in the usual manner and salt may be pounded along with them. Their argument is only regarding pounding salt on its own. Beis Shammai: In a pot with a wooden spoon - for broiling [in which case only a small amount of salt is necessary] but not for cooking [which requires a lot of salt]. Beis Hillel: It can be ground in any manner.

Challenge: Can it be that Beis Hillel is so lenient?

Resolution: It can only be ground in a pot with a wooden spoon [which is not muktzeh], but for any purpose.
 

Challenge: It’s not so [it cannot be that peeling more than one grain of barley is considered a Melacha on Shabbos]! “Rav’s wife would peel cupsful for him on Shabbos”, and “Rav Chiya’s wife would peel cupsful for him on Shabbos”.

Resolution: If we are to accept Rabbi Elazar’s interjection in the Mishnah, it must be referring to the second part of the Mishnah: One who rubs grain may blow it (058) from his hand, a bit at a time, and he may eat [without separating Maaser]. But if he blows and places it in his lap, it is obligated in Maaser.
Rabbi Elazar: The same applies to Shabbos.

Rabbi Abba bar Mammal: So are you saying that the first part of the Mishnah applies only to Maaser and not to Shabbos? Is there such a thing that is considered a Melacha [processed] with regard to Maaser, but not with regard to Shabbos?

Rav Sheishes brei d’Rav Idi: Isn’t there such a distinction with regard to the “Goren of Maaser”?
Mishnah: What is the Goren [the finished pile] of Maaser [for the following vegetables]? Cucumbers and pumpkins, when the flower falls off. If the flower doesn’t fall off, it is considered ready when he piles them into a heap.
The same is learned regarding onions: “when he piles them into a heap”.
But with regard to Shabbos, collecting vegetables into a pile is not considered a Melacha. How would you explain this? That with regard to Shabbos only a Melacha requiring skill is considered a Melacha, so you can apply the same explanation to the distinction between peeling barley and rubbing grain.

Question: How may one rub grain on Yom Tov?

Abayye in the name of Rav Yosef: One finger on top of one finger.

Rav Avya in the name of Rav Yosef: One finger over two fingers.

Rava: As long as he’s making a shinui [not rubbing it with both hands], it is permitted even to do it over all fingers [as long as it’s being done with one hand.
 

Question: Why does it require Terumah at this stage?

Rava: Since it acquired the title of Maaser.

The following paragraphs are found very frequently in Shas.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: If one separated Maaser from unprocessed grain, there is no obligation to separate Terumah. As it states: “You [Levi’im] shall separate from it Terumas Hashem a tenth of the Maaser”. Maaser is obligated in Terumas Maaaser but not in Terumah.

Rav Papa to Abayye: According to this the Levi shouldn’t be obligated in Terumah even if the grain is processed, as long as he took it before the owner separated Terumah?

Abayye: Because of people who ask questions like you, there’s another verse “From all the gifts [Maaser that you receive] you should separate Terumas Hashem”.

Challenge: Perhaps the first verse refers to processed grain and the second refers to unprocessed grain?

Resolution: The processed grain is already obligated in Terumah, so it only makes sense to apply the verse obligating Terumah to the case of processed grain.We learned there [Mishnayos Maasros]: One who is peeling barley [an unusual way of processing] can peel off one grain at a time and eat it [it is considered ‘casual eating’ which is not obligated in Terumos and Maasros], but if he peels to put in his hand [more than one at a time, it is considered processing and] he is obligated in Terumos and Maasros.
Rabbi Elazar: The same applies to Shabbos [threshing is a Melacha, but if he peels only one at a time, it is not considered a Melacha]. 

Resolution: When the Mishnah said that Terumah is not separated on Yom Tov, it meant in general, but it’s true that in our case Terumah would be separated.

059: Beraisa: If he brought in ears of grain in order to process it for dough, he may eat from it in a casual manner and he need not separate Terumah, but if he brought them in with the intention of rubbing them and eating them in that manner, Rebbi requires Terumah to be separated [since it is brought in with that purpose] and Rabbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehuda does not.

Abayye: Their debate is only with regard to ears of grain, but in the case of peas, everyone agrees that bundles of pea pods already require Terumah separation.Suggestion: Perhaps this is a proof to Abayye: Beraisa: One who has bundles of Tevel [something which Terumah has not been separated from] Tiltan [it grows in a pod like peas, but it is used as a condiment so only a minimal amount is used at a time. Sometimes the pods are also used to flavor foods], can crush the pods and calculate how much seed was inside, and he separates Terumah from the seeds but not from the pods.
So it seems to follow Rabbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehuda that when it is accepted that only a small amount will be used, Terumah must be separated. And we see that the law of peas [Tiltan] is different from grain. 

Resolution: It is actually permitted even on Yom Tov, but since the Beraisa begins with the law of grain rubbed before Shabbos, it continues with grain rubbed before Yom Tov.

Challenge: If so, there’s a case of Terumah which can be separated on Yom Tov! The Mishnah (056) states that there is no such case [since terumah must be separated before threshing and threshing is not permitted on Yom Tov]?

Resolution: It is not difficult. The Mishnah follows Rebbi while the Beraisa follows Rabbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehuda [not that it’s permitted to separate Terumah on Yom Tov, but that Terumah must not be separated from grains].

Beraisa: If he brought in ears of grain in order to process it for dough, he may eat from it in a casual manner and he need not separate Terumah, but if he brought them in with the intention of rubbing them and eating them in that manner, Rebbi requires Terumah to be separated [since it is brought in with that purpose] and Rabbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehuda does not.

Challenge: Even according to Rabbi Yosi b’Rebbi Yehuda there is a case where he will have to separate Terumah on Yom Tov; if he originally brought the grain in with the intention of making dough, he cannot use it for rubbing grain without separating Terumah?
 

Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Yosi.

Rav Tuvi brei d’Rav Nechemiah had a bottle of terumah wine [they used to separate terumah in Bavel]. He came to Rav Yosef and asked him “Can I bring it to a kohen today?”
Rav Yosef: So said Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Yosi.

The host of Rava bar Rav Chanan had bundles of mustard seed plant [which grows in pods], he asked if he can crush the pods in order to extract the seeds to eat on Yom Tov [this can be considered “threshing”, but perhaps a bit between the tips of your fingers is not considered a Melacha]. Rava bar Rav Chanan didn’t know so he came to Rava.
Rava: Beraisa: One may rub ears of fresh grain and crush pods of peas on Yom Tov.

Abayye: Beraisa: One who rubbed grain before Shabbos [and he now has a mixture of the grain and chaff], he may blow it from one hand to the other on Shabbos and eat the grain, but he cannot do it by means of a funnel, or a big pot. One who rubbed grain before Yom Tov, he may blow on it a little at a time and eat it and even by means of a funnel and a pot but not by means of a board or a sieve.
So we see here that it is not permitted on Yom Tov?
 

Beraisa (continued): Rabbi Yosi: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that mattanos may be taken to the kohen on Yom Tov, their debate is only regarding Terumah.
Acherim: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that terumah may be taken to the kohen on Yom Tov, their debate is only regarding Mattanos.

So it seems that our Mishnah follows only Acherim and not Rabbi Yehuda? [We always like to explain a Mishnah according to more Tannaim and not limit it only to one opinion. Rabbi Yosi’s opinion is clearly irreconcilable with the Mishnah since according to him Beis Hillel permit bringing Terumah, but we’re attempting to make the mishnah work according to Rabbi Yehuda].

Rava: The Mishnah is discussing an animal slaughtered before Yom Tov, Rabbi Yehuda is discussing an animal slaughtered on Yom Tov. [They can thus be in agreement].

Question: Is the Mishnah then only in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and not with Acherim?

Response: Acherim also agree that mattanos of animals slaughtered on Yom Tov can be brought on Yom Tov.

Challenge: If so, in what area does he differ with Rabbi Yehuda?Resolution: Only Rabbi Yehuda permits bringing yesterday’s, when it is brought together with today’s. 

Mishnah:

Beis Shammai: One cannot bring challah and matnos kehunah [certain parts of a slaughtered animal which must be given to a kohen] to a kohen on Yom Tov [Tosfos explain that it’s not because of the prohibition against carrying; even if the kohen comes to pick it up, it’s forbidden] whether it was separated before Yom Tov or on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel permit it.

Beis Shammai: There’s a comparison to be made here; challah and matanos are given to the kohen just as terumah is given to the kohen. Since you agree that terumah cannot be brought on Yom Tov, you should agree that the same goes for matanos.

Beis Hillel: No. One has no right to separate terumah on Yom Tov, but he has the right to separate matanos on Yom Tov.

Gemara:

It enters our mind: When Beis Shammai said “whether it was separated before Yom Tov or on Yom Tov”, it means “whether the animal was slaughtered before Yom Tov or on Yom Tov”. The Mishnah is not according to Rabbi Yosi or Rabbi Yehuda, but according to Acherim.

Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that matanos separated before Yom Tov may be taken to the kohen along with other matanos separated on Yom Tov, their debate is only regarding bringing matanos separated before Yom Tov on their own.
 

Rabbi Yochanan is also of the opinion that the debate hinges on the principle of ‘mitoch’*:
A learner was learning in the presence of Rabbi Yochanan: One who cooks a gid hanashe in milk, on Yom Tov, and eats it, is liable for five sets of malkos. 1. For cooking a gid [which is not something meant to be eaten, he thus cooked on Yom Tov for nothing]. 2. For eating gid hanashe. 3. For cooking meat and milk. 4. For eating meat and milk. 5. For kindling a fire on Yom Tov.
Rabbi Yochanan: Go teach this outside [you’re not saying it correctly], kindling a fire and cooking [1 & 5] is not a teaching. If indeed this was taught, it was taught by Beis Shammai who do not hold of ‘mitoch’. According to Beis Hillel, however, kindling a fire is permitted on Yom by the principle of ‘mitoch - since it is allowed for ochel nefesh, it is allowed for other purposes as well’**.

__________________________________
* Tosfos: This principle is only applied to a hotza’ah which is at least somewhat necessary for Yom Tov, otherwise it’s a Torah prohibition of carrying [for this reason, while it’s permitted to take a machzor to shul, one may not carry it back home, unless he fears it will go missing, in which case we can apply the principle of ‘the end was permitted because of its beginning’ (052)]. A mitzvah necessity such as Milah is also considered a Yom Tov necessity. This is the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, but Tosfos argues that one may carry out a child even for mere enjoyment and not just because of a mitzvah, since enjoyment can also be considered a ‘Yom Tov necessity’.** Tosfos: Since he desires to eat it on Yom Tov, it is considered a Yom Tov necessity for himself. 

Abayye: [There are three cases here. In one case everyone agrees it’s muttar, in one case everyone agrees it’s ossur, and in one case it’s a machlokes]. When there’s a hinge on the side, everyone agrees it’s forbidden [Beraisa b] [because it looks like a regular door]. When it has no hinge at all [it is just replaced in the frame], everyone agrees it’s permitted [Beraisa a]. The machlokes is when the hinge is in the middle [a peg on the top and bottom of the door]. This doesn’t look like a real door, but one opinion is that it may be confused with a regular hinge and is therefore treated as such, and the other opinion makes no such gezeirah.

Mishnah:

Beis Shammai: You can’t carry out a child, a lulav or a sefer Torah to the reshus horabbim on Yom Tov [only ochel nefesh is permitted, nothing more]. Beis Hillel permit it [the permission granted by the Torah for ochel nefesh extends to anything necessary. This will be explained in the Gemara as ‘mitoch shehutrah letzorech hutrah nami shelo letzorech - since it was permitted for food necessity it was permitted for other purposes as well’. This is not a blanket hetter (055, Tosfos) but the Poskim agree that it is applied to carrying and kindling a fire where necessary].

Gemara:

A learner was learning a Beraisa in the presence of Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi: One who shechts a voluntary korban olah [in the Beis Hamikdash] on Yom Tov is liable for malkos.

Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi: Whose opinion is that? It sounds like Beis Shammai who hold that we don’t say ‘mitoch shehutrah letzorech hurrah nami shelo letzorech’. But Beis Hillel who say ‘mitoch’ with regard to carrying [in our Mishnah] would say that since we can shecht on Yom Tov for ochel nefesh, we can shecht the Olah as well. [Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi is asking a question, because the learner shouldn’t be learning a Beraisa according to Beis Shammai’s opinion (053)].

Rabbah: Who says that the debate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel centers around ‘mitoch’? [Perhaps no one holds ‘mitoch’] and the debate in our Mishnah is whether there is an issur of hotza’ah on Yom Tov at all.
Perhaps Beis Hillel holds that there is no issur of hotza’ah based on the verse “Do not carry out a burden on the day of Shabbos”!

Rav Yosef: If it is so, why didn’t the Mishnah discuss carrying stones? [The reason for the issur of muktzeh is lest one come to carry things outside. If there would be no issur of carrying, then the Mishnah should have let that be known by discussing a case of muktzeh stones!]

If anyone is ambitious to know masichta Beitzah from cover to cover, we’ll be happy to confer upon you a framed certificate of honor. Your family and friends will be present, and all the people in the kehillah also. It’s a very big achievement to have a Masichta under your belt, it’s a solid accomplishment!
 

Challenge: ‘2. Shutters’ is explicitly stated by the Mishnah (51)?

Resolution: One might think Beis Hillel permits this because “there is no ‘construction’ or ‘destruction’ in keilim” and other doors would be permitted as well, this is why Ulla explains that “the end was permitted in order to encourage the beginning” [although we actually do hold that there is no construction regarding keilim, here we are talking about large keilim which have the appearance of actual construction].

Challenge: ‘3. Bandaging in the Mikdash’ is also explicitly mentioned?

Resolution: One might think this is permitted because “there is no ‘shevus’ in the Mikdash” [this is not an absolute rule, but in general the takkanos of the Chachomim were not applied in the Mikdash so as not to conflict with the established ancient institutions] and even Kohanim not presently involved in avodah would be permitted, this is why Ulla explains that “the end was permitted in order to encourage the beginning”.

Challenge: ‘4. Opening a keg’ is also explicitly stated? “One who opens a keg of wine or begins a dough in honor of the Regel. Rabbi Yehuda: He may finish it. Chachomim: He may not finish it.”

Resolution: One might think that there is no tumah on an am ha’aretz during the Regel, and even an unopened keg touched by an am ha’aretz during the Regel is permitted as well, this is why Ulla explains that “the end was permitted in order to encourage the beginning”.

Question: Why didn’t Ulla count #4?

Response: He talks only about unanimous things but this is a machlokes.

Challenge: #1 and #2 are also only the opinion of Beis Hillel?

Resolution: Beis Shammai versus Beis Hillel is not considered an opinion at all [At Yavneh it was decided that it was too perilous to maintain the two schools of Hillel and Shammai, and the opinions of Beis Shammai were erased entirely and it is forbidden even to be stringent and follow their views].

Our Mishnah runs counter to this Tanna: Beraisa (a): Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that the shutters may be removed, they only argue about returning the shutters. Beis Shammai forbids it, while Beis Hillel permit it. Additionally, Beis Shammai only forbid it when the shutters have hinges, but when there are no hinges, everyone agrees it’s permitted [even to return the shutter].

Challenge: There’s another Beraisa (b): The debate is only when the shutters have no hinges, but when there are hinges, everyone agrees it’s forbidden!
 

Question: What kind of shutters are we talking about?

Ulla: The shutters of stores [portable booths that were used in the marketplace as stores]. 

Ulla: There are three cases in which the end was permitted in order to encourage the beginning of that thing. 1. Skins before the treaders (048). 2. The shutters of stores. 3. Returning the bandage on a plastered wound on Shabbos or Yom Tov in the Mikdash [when there’s a plastered wound, a bandage cannot be put on, lest one smear the salve. This is permitted in the Mikdash so that the kohanim can remove their bandages in order to do the avodah without chatzitzah].

Rechava quoting Rabbi Yehuda: [Rechava was much later than Rabbi Yehuda. He couldn’t even be quoting Rabbi Yehuda Nesiah. Some explain that he is actually quoting Rav Yehuda but because it was his primary rebbi, he called him Rabbi] another one should be added: 4. One who opens his keg or begins a dough on the Regel for the purpose of Yom Tov [when Jews were oleh regel, the din was “chaverim kol yisroel”. Although normally an am ha’aretz is not relied on to maintain taharos like a chaver, and anything he touches is considered tamei; on Yom Tov we consider all Yisroel to be chaverim. The law here is teaching that in order to make wine available on Yom Tov, we permit a keg opened on Yom Tov and touched by amei ha’aretz even after Yom Tov is over already. The same rule applies to dough]. This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda (053) who said “he may finish” [that he may finish whatever he started for Yom Tov even though it is no longer Yom Tov].

Challenge: ‘1. Skins’ is explicitly stated by the Mishnah?

Resolution: One might think Beis Hillel permits this because it is fit for use as a seat (40, 48, 51), and thus it would be permitted even if the animal was slaughtered before Yom Tov, this is why Ulla explains that “the end was permitted in order to encourage the beginning” on Yom Tov.
 

Challenge: How is this different from the case of our Mishnah (048) in which Beis Hillel permits skin placed on the ground where it will be stepped on?

Resolution: There his intention is not demonstrated, since the skins are fit to sit upon [it looks like a rug (40, 48)], but here if one is permitted to aerate the fats he may mistakenly salt them for preservation [assuming that the Chachomim permit the preservation of fats from a slaughtered animal.].

Salting meat is not a Melacha but is forbidden by the Chachomim because it looks like salting leather. Even on Yom Tov it is only permitted to salt the meat one would like to eat on Yom Tov.

Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: A man may salt many pieces of meat at once, although he only needs one piece [this wouldn’t be permitted with regard to other issurim but because of the potential loss here it was specifically permitted].

Rav Ada bar Ahavah would do a haaramah and salt one piece at a time [claiming that he had found a more desirable piece to salt]. [The Poskim do not bring this better though].

Mishnah:

Beis Shammai: One cannot remove the shutters of booths on Yom Tov [because it resembles building]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted even to replace them [which is certainly not necessary for ochel nefesh (040)].
 

Gemara:

Beraisa: They both agree that meat which will be broiled may be salted over it [salt works to preserve the skin. We’re worried that if slaughtering an animal on Yom Tov means losing the hide, the owner may forego eating meat on Yom Tov].

Abayye: This is specifically meat which will be broiled but not meat which is cooked [meat which is cooked must be salted to remove its blood - so that it doesn’t leave the meat during cooking and come back in again - but broiled meat is salted minimally].

Question: Isn’t that obvious? The Beraisa states “meat which will be broiled”.

Response: Abayye is pointing out that even if the meat will be broiled, it may only be salted minimally.

Beraisa: The fats [of an animal slaughtered on Yom Tov] may not be salted [for preservation], nor can they be turned over for aeration. They said over from Rabbi Yehoshua: They may be spread on sticks [you can’t leave it lying on the floor, you have to put it someplace, so you can put it somewhere which is prepared for that purpose].

Rav Masnah: The halachah follows Rabbi Yehoshua.

Some say: Rav Masnah: The halachah does not follow Rabbi Yehoshua.

Challenge: According to the first version we understand why the ruling is necessary, since “a single against the majority, the law follows the majority”, but according to the second version, isn’t it obvious that the law doesn’t follow Rabbi Yehoshua who is opposing the majority opinion?

Resolution: One might think that Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic is superior because we’re afraid that if you don’t permit anything, people will refrain from slaughtering animals on Yom Tov and will forego having meat, still the halachah does not accept this argument.
 

Beis Shammai: One cannot move the pounding board [upon which grain was pounded to remove the husks] to chop meat on it* [the pounding board is muktzeh since pounding grain is prohibited on Yom Tov (see Tosfos 005, 040)]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted [because of Simchas Yom Tov].
Beis Shammai: [When animals are slaughtered on Yom Tov there is a problem of what one can do with its valuable skin. The first steps of tanning the skin is to place it where people will walk so that the remaining protein is trampled upon and the skin is toughened] Skin cannot be placed on the ground before the treaders [even though they’re walking there anyhow], and it cannot even be handled [when the animal is skinned it must be dropped, it’s muktzeh] unless it has a kzayis of meat stuck to it [in which case the skin is considered a handle for the meat]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted [since they’re walking anyhow, it is permitted for Simchas Yom Tov. Beis Hillel holds it’s not muktzeh since there’s a use for the hides even on Yom Tov, it can be used as a seat. Beis Shammai, however, disregards that use since the hide is chiefly used for forbidden purposes].

_____________________________

* Tosfos: Challenge: Why should it be forbidden? A keili may be moved for permissible use even if it is primarily used for forbidden purposes and is thus muktzeh.

Resolution: It is explained elsewhere that the chopping board is considered “muktzeh machamas chisaron kis”, it is thus prohibited despite its keili status. Beis Hillel would also prohibit it because of muktzeh, only that there’s a special dispensation for Simchas Yom Tov. [A. Although it seems from the Gemara that the issur here is Keili shemelachto l’issur, Tosfos is mechadesh that it is not so. B. It seems that Tosfos learns, muktzeh is permitted for Ochel Nefesh, but this is not a general rule, because we see that birds are muktzeh on Yom Tov.]
 

Summary

We learned in the Mishnah (044): “If he prepared them inside the nest and found them in front of the nest [on the little porch], they’re forbidden.”

Suggestion: It would seem that this is proof to Rabbi Chanina (044).
Rabbi Chanina: When there is a conflict between Rov [majority] and Karov [nearby], we follow Rov.

Abayye: On the platform [since there is a small platform, passing birds tend to alight there and they are all considered ‘nearby’].

Rava: The Mishnah is discussing a case of a double decker dovecote. [It is thus no longer a question of Rov vs. Karov, rather of Karov vs. Karov since the other birds may have come from the next level which is also Karov]. And this is true whether the designated birds were on the lower level where we merely assume those of the upper level came down, or even if the designated birds were on the upper level, we assume the other birds crept up.

If he prepared them inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they’re forbidden. If no other nests are nearby, they’re permitted.

Question: What are we discussing here? If these are birds that can fly, then why should we reject the possibility that these birds arrived from elsewhere even if there are no other nests in the vicinity?
We must assume then, that we’re discussing birds that cannot fly. If so, we have a rule stated by Mar Ukva bar Chama: Young birds [which are not yet capable of flying] cannot hop further than fifty amos. So if there’s a nest within fifty amos, they’re capable of hopping, if not, it is certainly permitted!

Response: It could be that there is a nest within fifty amos and the birds are still permitted. Young birds will not leave the line of sight of their nest, thus, even if there is a nest within fifty amos, if it is around the corner, it is considered ‘not in the vicinity’ and the birds remain permitted. 

Summary

The Mishnah (044) said: “If he prepared three birds and found two; they’re permitted.” The Gemara explained because these are the same birds only that one flew away.
We learned a Beraisa regarding Maaser Sheini money: If one prepared two hundred and found one hundred: Rebbi: One hundred was removed and the second hundred remained in place. Chachomim: It is all chullin.
It seems then that our Mishnah follows the view of Rebbi. But the Gemara explained in the name of  Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar: Birds are different because they hop away.

Challenge: Regarding that Beraisa of Maaser Sheini we learned:
Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar: One of them [A] explains that the debate [of Rebbi and the Chachomim] is only with regard to money in separate purses [only then will Rebbi hold that one purse was taken while the other was left in place] but if all the money was in one purse, everyone agrees that all the money would have been removed simultaneously.
And one of them [B] explains that the debate [of Rebbi and the Chachomim] is only with regard to money left in one purse [only then will the Chachomim hold that the entire purse was replaced] but if the money was in separate purses, everyone agrees that the remaining purse was not exchanged.
Since the case of the birds can only be compared to the case of separate purses, the fact that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar both needed to explain that birds are different [because they hop away] is difficult. This explanation is only necessary according to one of them [A]. According to [B] the case of the purses is in agreement with our Mishnah and raises no difficulty!

Rav Ashi: Our Mishnah discusses birds which are bound together. And the purses, too, are bound together [one purse doesn’t mean ‘one purse’, it means two purses bound together]. Since birds hop around, their bonds will loosen, but a purse will remain as ‘one purse’. Rebbi, on the other hand, maintains that even a bound purse could have been separated. 

Explanantion: What do you want? [It’s ossur any way you look at it]. If these are new birds, they were never designated. If two of them are the original birds, but there is another mixed in with them*!

If he prepared three birds and found two; they’re permitted.

Question: Why is this so?

Response: These are the same birds only that one flew away.

Suggestion: It would seem that our Mishna is taking the side of Rebbi against the Chachomim [this is a difficulty since the Mishnayos should always be the majority opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise], as discussed in this Beraisa:
If one prepared a hundred sus [of maaser sheini money] and then found two hundred: Rebbi: It is maaser and chullin mixed together. Chachomim: It is all chullin [people wouldn’t place chullin money with maaser money]. If one prepared two hundred and found one hundred: Rebbi: One hundred was removed and the second hundred remained in place [this is similar to our case in the Mishnah where we say one bird flew away and two remained in place]. Chachomim: It is all chullin.

Response: Birds are not the same as money. We learned about our Mishnah: “Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: Birds are different because they hop away” [In the case of money, since it is stationary, we assume that if part of it was removed, the entire sum would have been moved, but since birds can hop away, even the Chachomim would agree that one hopped away].

________________________

* Tosfos: It does not become battel because: A. Living things never become battel b’rov. B. This is a case of Davar shyesh lo mattirin (009).
 

If he prepared black birds and found white ones, or he prepared white birds and found black ones [the Gemara will ask that this is obviously superfluous to say, since these birds were certainly not prepared], or if he prepared two birds and found three; they’re all forbidden [although it’s possible that only one is new, it is not battel because it’s a davar sheyesh lo mattirin (009)].

If he prepared three birds and found two; they’re permitted. If he prepared them inside the nest and found them in front of the nest [on the little porch], they’re forbidden. If no other nests are nearby, they’re permitted.

Gemara:

Question: It’s superfluous to say that birds of another color are forbidden?

Rabbah: We’re discussing a case where he prepared both black and white and then found that they had switched places on Yom Tov, we might think they’re the same birds but switched places, so the Mishna teaches that actually they’re different birds.

There are two possibilities here. A. We assume they are the same birds, because they are nearby. B. We assume they are new birds because there are so many birds in the world, that the majority is new birds.

Suggestion: It would seem that this is proof to Rabbi Chanina.
Rabbi Chanina: When there is a conflict between Rov [majority] and Karov [nearby], we follow Rov.

Response: It is as Abayye said (047): On the platform. Here too, the Mishnah is discussing a platform [the platform is an invitation to all passing birds to alight, and so all faraway birds are also nearby birds, because we assume they will stop by].

[We actually do follow Rabbi Chanina, only that there is no proof to him from our Mishnah].
 

Challenge: Mishna: If a meis is in a room with a number of entrances, all are tamei. If one was opened, all are now tahor except for the one which was opened. If he intended to take the meis out from one of the doors, it rescues all other openings from becoming tamei.
Beis Shammai: This is only if that intention took place before the meis died. Beis Hillel: Even after he died. [So it is clear that Beis Hillel holds of Bereirah!]

Resolution: This Mishna was already explained by Rabbah: “To purify the doorways from now on.”

So too said Rabbi Oshaya: To purify the doorways from now on. Only going forward but not retroactively.

Rava: The openings are permitted retroactively. The reason Beis Hillel requires one to designate birds before Yom Tov and it is not clarified retroactively on Yom Tov is because we’re worried he might pick up [a bird] and reject it, pick up another and reject it, and he will have moved something he didn’t intend to use.

Challenge: But according to Beis Hillel it’s enough to designate a bird? [They are not worried he will come to reject it on Yom Tov and they do not require him to actually pick it up before Yom Tov]?

Resolution: This is true about Erev Yom Tov [because we required his to select a bird to avoid the possibility of his rejecting it on Yom Tov], but [if we don’t require anything before] we are worried he may reject the bird on Yom Tov because what seemed fat may turn out to be lean and he will have moved something that is not fit for him on Yom Tov. Or perhaps all of the birds will turn out to be too lean and he’ll leave over that nest and refrain from Simchas Yom Tov [but if a bird is designated before Yom Tov, he will slaughter that one even if it turns out to be lean].

Mishna:

If he prepared black birds and found white ones, or he prepared white birds and found black ones, or if he prepared two birds and found three; they’re all forbidden. If he prepared three birds and found two; they’re permitted. If he prepared them inside the nest and found them in front of the nest [on the little porch], they’re forbidden. If no other nests are nearby, they’re permitted.
 

Introduction to next subject: We’re discussing a case of Ohel Hameis, there is a room with multiple doorways and windows all of which are closed. Since we know that the meis will be carried out of one of them, we consider them to be part of the ohel and any keilim in the doorway, or on the windowsill is tamei [even though it is on the other side of the door/window], because we consider the door/window to be open. If one door is open, it is considered the exit path for the meis and all other doors and windows are considered closed and keilim there remain tahor.

Challenge: Mishna: If a meis is in a room with a number of entrances [and all are closed (if they’re open, there’s no question that they’re actually a part of the ohel)], all are tamei [keilim in the doorways are all tamei, since each doorway is eligible to be used as the exit]. If one was opened, all are now tahor except for the one which was opened. If he intended to take the meis out from one of the doors or from a window which is 4x4 tefachim [and is thus considered an ‘opening’], it rescues all other openings from becoming tamei.
Beis Shammai: This is only if that intention took place before the meis died. Beis Hillel: Even after he died. [So it is clear that Beis Hillel holds of Bereirah!] (The same would hold true if the door was opened, it would then clarify retroactively that only that doorway had become tamei and everything else is tahor. We’re discussing intent which is a bigger chiddush).

Resolution: This Mishna was already explained by Rabbah: To purify the doorways from now on. [Beis Shammai holds that designating a doorway will not change the status of the doorways only actually opening it].
 

Beis Shammai: One may not take a bird on Yom Tov [to slaughter for the meal] unless he had hefted it from before Yom Tov [out of concern that when he picks it up he’ll find it too lean and will want to choose another one for his meal, he will then be guilty of having picked up a muktzeh bird without the excuse of needing it for simchas Yom Tov]. Beis Hillel: He can designate them before Yom Tov.

Rav Chanan bar Ami: Their debate is only about the first set of birds that are hatched in the season. Beis Shammai is worried he might change his mind [because people are reluctant to slaughter of the first group] and Beis Hillel do not make such a gezeirah. But in the second batch, everyone agrees it is enough to designate the birds before Yom Tov. [We rule like Beis Hillel so actually it doesn’t matter].

Question: Why must the birds be designated according to Beis Hillel? It should be enough just to declare one’s intention to take birds but it shouldn’t be necessary to designate specific birds.

Suggestion: You may want to answer that Beis Hillel do not hold of Bereirah [retroactive clarification].

Introduction to next subject: We’re discussing a case of Ohel Hameis, there is a room with multiple doorways and windows all of which are closed. Since we know that the meis will be carried out of one of them, we consider them to be part of the ohel and any keilim in the doorway, or on the windowsill is tamei [even though it is on the other side of the door/window], because we consider the door/window to be open. If one door is open, it is considered the exit path for the meis and all other doors and windows are considered closed and keilim there remain tahor.
 

Challenge: Mishna (048): “Beis Shammai: One cannot move the pounding board [upon which grain was pounded to remove the husks] to chop meat on it [the pounding board is muktzeh since pounding grain is prohibited on Yom Tov (see Tosfos 005)]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted [they follow the principle that even a keili designed for issur may be used for a permissible purpose].

Rabbi Yochanan: The subject is inverted, Beis Hillel is the stringent one with regard to moving the pounding board.

Challenge: Perhaps their positions are unique to the circumstances in each case. Beis Shammai is only lenient in the first case because a stick has already been placed in the ground before Yom Tov. Beis Hillel is lenient in the second case because the pounding board is a keili.

Resolution: This is the reason Rabbi Yochanan felt it necessary to invert our Mishna:
Mishna (048): Beis Shammai: [When animals are slaughtered on Yom Tov there is a problem of what one can do with its valuable skin. The first steps of tanning the skin is to place it where people will walk so that the remaining protein is trampled upon and the skin is toughened] Skin cannot be placed on the ground before the treaders, and it cannot even be handled [when the animal is skinned it must be dropped, it’s muktzeh] unless it has a kzayis of meat stuck to it [in which case the skin is considered a handle for the meat]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted.
So we see that Beis Hillel is lenient because of simchas Yom Tov in opposition to our Mishnah (036)?

Rabbi Yochanan: The subject is inverted, Beis Hillel is the stringent one with regard to preparing the skin.

Challenge: Perhaps their positions are unique to the circumstances in each case. Beis Shammai is only lenient in the first case because a stick has already been placed in the ground before Yom Tov. Beis Hillel is lenient in the second case because skin is fit for use as a seat.

Resolution: This is the reason Rabbi Yochanan felt it necessary to invert our Mishna:
Mishna: Beis Shammai: One cannot remove the shutters from merchants’ booths on Yom Tov [although one is not opening the store on Yom Tov and just needs something permissible, it looks like he is doing business on Yom Tov]. Beis Hillel: It is permitted even to replace them [otherwise people wouldn’t open the booths if they knew they’re not allowed to close them, and they would remain without crucial Yom Tov needs].
This seems to be in opposition to our Mishnah (036). Beis Shammai can explain that they are stringent here because there is no shovel in the ground. But how does Beis Hillel resolve the contradiction?

Rabbi Yochanan: The subject is inverted, Beis Hillel is the stringent one with regard to opening the booths.

Challenge: Perhaps their positions are unique to the circumstances in each case. Beis Hillel may be lenient here because there is no Melacha of Boneh with keilim.

Mishna:
Beis Shammai: [Animals may not be handled on Yom Tov, they’re muktzeh] One may not take a bird on Yom Tov [to slaughter for the meal] unless he had hefted it from before Yom Tov [out of concern that when he picks it up he’ll find it too lean and will want to choose another one for his meal, he will then be guilty of having picked up a muktzeh bird without the excuse of needing it for simchas Yom Tov]. Beis Hillel: He can designate them before Yom Tov.
 

Mishna: Beis Shammai: A ladder cannot be moved from one dovecote to another But it can be moved from one window to another. Beis Hillel permits this.

We see from here that regarding simchas Yom Tov, Beis Hillel is lenient and Beis Shammai is stringent.

Challenge: Mishna (001): “Beis Shammai: He may dig with a stick and cover the blood. Beis Hillel: He may not slaughter unless he has earth prepared for the purpose of covering.” [So we see that Beis Hillel are stringent even when it comes to matters of simchas Yom Tov, and they should be constant in their principles applying them across the board].

Rabbi Yochanan: The subject is inverted, Beis Hillel is the stringent one with regard to moving the ladder.

Challenge: Perhaps their positions are unique to the circumstances in each case. Beis Shammai is only lenient in the first case because a stick has already been placed in the ground before Yom Tov. Beis Hillel is lenient in the second case because the dovecote demonstrates why he’s carrying the ladder.

Resolution: This is the reason Rabbi Yochanan felt it necessary to invert our Mishna:
Mishna (040): Beis Shammai: [Animals may not be handled on Yom Tov, they’re muktzeh] One may not take a bird on Yom Tov [to slaughter for the meal] unless he had hefted it from before Yom Tov [out of concern that when he picks it up he’ll find it too lean and will want to choose another one for his meal, he will then be guilty of having picked up a muktzeh bird without the excuse of needing it for simchas Yom Tov]. Beis Hillel: He can designate them before Yom Tov.
So we see that Beis Hillel is lenient because of simchas Yom Tov in opposition to our Mishnah (036)?

Rabbi Yochanan: The subject is inverted, Beis Hillel is the stringent one with regard to picking up the bird.

Challenge: Perhaps their positions are unique to the circumstances in each case. Beis Shammai is only lenient in the first case because a stick has already been placed in the ground before Yom Tov. Beis Hillel is lenient in the second case because muktzeh can be permitted by designation.

[Rashi teaches that in all these cases (we will learn more tomorrow), the second Mishna is inverted while the original Mishna remains. Tosfos argues that it isn’t logical to invert multiple Mishnayos because of one Mishna, and it is the first Mishna which should be inverted according to Rabbi Yochanan.]
 

Rabbi Chiya’s sons [Yehuda and Chizkiyah] went out to the villages [to inspect that everything was being done according to the Torah]. When they returned Rabbi Chiya asked them “Did any questions come up?”
They said: A question of moving a ladder on Yom Tov came up, and we permitted it.
Rabbi Chiya: Go back out and prohibit what you permitted.

They thought that only Rabbi Yehuda makes a distinction between ladders but according to the Tanna Kamma, Beis Hillel would permit even a large ladder. But it is not so. Rabbi Yehuda was explaining the Tanna Kamma’s opinion.

Question: How do we know that the Tanna Kamma agrees with Rabbi Yehuda?

Response: It states: “the ladder may be moved from dovecote to dovecote”. If it were not discussing a dovecote ladder, if it were discussing a construction ladder, it would say: “the ladder may be brought to the dovecote”! So we see that the Tanna Kamma is only discussing a dovecote ladder.

Rabbi Chiya’s Sons understood it differently: It is discussing a construction ladder, the reason it doesn’t say “the ladder may be brought to the dovecote” but rather “the ladder may be moved from dovecote to dovecote” is to teach us that it may be moved around between many dovecotes.

Some Say: Rabbi Chiya’s Sons said to him “A question about inclining a [construction] ladder came before us and we permitted it”. Rabbi Chiya replied “ Go back out and prohibit what you permitted”.

They thought that Rabbi Dosa came to permit what Rabbi Yehuda prohibited. But actually Rabbi Dosa is being stricter than Rabbi Yehuda and he holds that even a dovecote ladder may only be inclined but not more.
 

Resolution: Rav Chanan can explain that this matter is debated by Tannaim as in the following Beraisa: [If one’s clothes got wet on Shabbos] he may hang them to dry in the sun, but not in public [lest people think he washed them out on Shabbos]. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this. [So Rav would be following Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon but Rav Chanan’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of the Tanna Kamma].

Others Say:
Rav Chanan bar Ami: The debate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel is only in a private place. Beis Shammai applies the principle of Rabbi Yehuda amar Rav and Beis Hillel do not. But if the ladder is in public, everyone agrees that it’s forbidden.

Challenge: It seems then that Rav holds like Beis Shammai?

Resolution: This matter is a debate amongst the Tannaim [as mentioned above. Rav holds that we rule like Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon. Only, Rav Chanan holds that there’s a distinction between a public and private place, he will hold that Beis Hillel follows the Tanna Kamma].

Our Mishna differs with this Tanna:
Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that the ladder may be moved from dovecote to dovecote. The question is only whether the ladder may be put away afterwards. Beis Shammai: It may not be put away. Beis Hillel: It may even be put away.
Rabbi Yehuda: This is only said regarding a smaller ladder, but everyone would agree that a ladder which is used for roof repairs, is forbidden.
Rabbi Dosa: It can be inclined from one window to the other.
Acherim from Rabbi Dosa: If it is carried in an unusual manner with constant stops, it is permitted.
 

Abuha d’Shmuel: If he prepared a dough before Yom Tov, he may not separate Challah on Yom Tov [the permission to separate Challah is only granted if the dough is formed on Yom Tov and there was no other time to separate the Challah].

Question: Would you say then, that Shmuel disagrees with his father Abuha d’Shmuel?
Shmuel: In chutz la’aretz [where Challah is only d’Rabbonon] one can eat a loaf of bread [on Yom Tov] and leave over dough at the end so that he can take off challah after Yom Tov. [If the bread can be eaten without taking off challah, then Challah cannot be compared to Terumah which enables one to eat the food and taking Challah should be permitted on Yom Tov. So it appears that Shmuel disagrees with his father and holds that challah can be separated on Yom Tov].

Rava: Shmuel agrees that were he to proclaim a piece of the bread Challah on Yom Tov, it would become prohibited to non-kohanim [so even Shmuel agrees that a Melacha can be done on Yom Tov when the challah is separated].

The following sugya is based on the subject of Maaris Hoayin - making people think you’re doing an Issur.

Mishna:
Beis Shammai: A ladder cannot be moved from one dovecote to another [because people may think you’re moving it to repair the roof - these were made from caked mud and needed constant repairs, as they would sit out on the roofs a lot]. But it can be moved from one window to another. Beis Hillel permits this [since it’s not the type of ladder generally used for repairs].

Gemara:
Rav Chanan bar Ami: This discussion is only in a case where the ladder is stationed in the street. Beis Shammai holds, those who see will think he needs to plaster his roof and Beis Hillel hold they’ll see the dovecote and understand he wants to get a bird, but if the ladder is on private property, everyone agrees it’s permitted.

Challenge: Didn’t Rav Yehuda amar Rav say “Any case the Chachomim forbade because of Maaris Hoayin, appearances sake, it is forbidden even in a hidden chamber”. [So how can it be that Beis Shammai would go against this principle]?
 

Rabbi Zeira learned a Beraisa: In addition to a koy, whose blood cannot be covered on Yom Tov, blood of a Beheimah and Chayah which were mixed together, can also not be covered up on Yom Tov.
Rabbi Yosi bar Yasina’ah: This is only true if it cannot be covered with one dig of the shovel, but if it can be covered with one dig [and no extra unnecessary effort is made on Yom Tov], it is permitted.

Question: Isn’t that obvious?

Response: One might think that we would be concerned that if we allow one dig, he may dig agin [out of enthusiasm for the mitzvah], so we’re learning that there is no such gezeirah.

Rabbah: A bird which was slaughtered before Yom Tov, may not be covered on Yom Tov [Beis Hillel only permitted kisui so that people would have meat on Yom Tov (030, 032), but in this case he could have covered it before Yom Tov].
[On Yom Tov it is forbidden to separate Terumah (which includes Challah), but it’s a mitzvah to bake fresh bread, for this reason, a special permission was given for separating challah on Yom Tov.] If one prepared a dough before Yom Tov, he may still separate Challah on Yom Tov*.

*[Maharam explains the difference between kisui hadam and hafrashas challah. Beis Hillel never allowed slaughtering and kisui on Yom Tov, only b’dieved they permitted using a shovel that had already been stuck in the ground. But Challah is permitted as a matter of course, so it is also permitted when the dough was formed before Yom Tov.]
 

Rava: When people prepare things for their needs, they only prepare for vadai [certain] needs not for needs which are safek.
Rava is following the principle which he set forth elsewhere: Rava: If one brought in dirt to cover excrement [perhaps a child will dirty the floor, and he will need this dirt to cover it up], he may use it to cover blood of a bird that is slaughtered on Yom Tov. But if the dirt was brought in to cover up the blood of a bird, it cannot be used to cover excrement [which was not a certain event].
Neharbeloi [the Chachomim of that town]: Even if dirt was brought in to cover the blood of a slaughtered bird, it may be used to cover up excrement.

They said in Maarava [Eretz Yisroel]: This matter is debated by Rabbi Yosi bar Chama and Rabbi Zeira and some say: Rava brei d’Rav Yosef bar Chama and Rabbi Zeira: One of them hold that blood of a koy can be compared to excrement, while one holds blood of a koy is different [because excrement is more probable than koy].

A proof that Rava is the one who says “blood of a koy can be compared to excrement” - from Rava’s statement above. This is indeed proof.

Rami brei d’Rav Yeiva: Blood of a koy is not covered on Yom Tov (032) because of a gezeirah lest its cheilev be permitted [a Chayah is different from a Beheimah in that its blood requires kisui and and its cheilev - an issur kareis by Beheimahs - is permissible. If covering blood of a koy is permitted on Yom Tov, some might say that it is actually a Chayah and its cheilev is permitted].

Challenge: Then kisui of a koy should be forbidden on a weekday as well?

Resolution: During the week, we assume that he’s covering up the blood so as to keep his chatzer clean.

Challenge: What if he’s shechting on a dung pile, where he’s certainly not covering for cleanliness? Additionally, what about someone who comes and asks a sheila as to whether kisui is required, and we tell him to cover it up - wouldn’t that lead to peritting cheilev?Resolution: In the weekdays we trouble everyone to do the mitzvah of kisui even though it is only a safek, but on Yom Tov we do not make people work because of a safek. 

Challenge: The beraisa further states “If it was shechted, it may not be covered with earth”, this implies that earth is available?

Rabbah: Stove ashes are considered muchan only for needs that are certain, not for something that is only needed in case of a safek [such as for covering the blood of a koy].

Challenge: Why would it be forbidden in case of a safek? Because he is forming a hollow? A hollow is formed whenever the earth is removed, regardless of whether it will be used for safek! You must answer that a hollow is not an issue since we rule like Rabbi Abba (031), so why should it be problematic when doing it for a safek need?

Response: It is forbidden lest he come to grind the dirt.

Challenge: It should be just as forbidden in the case of a different animal?

Resolution: In that case the mitzah of kisui overrules the lav of grinding on Yom Tov [eseh docheh lo saaseh].

Challenge: Eseh docheh lo saaseh should not apply here. It only applies when both mitzvos are simultaneous: such as the case of milah on a tzaraas [which may not be removed] or shaatnez in tzitzis. But here when he is chopping up the block of earth – transgressing the melacha of grinding, he is not yet doing the mitzvah of kisui.

Resolution: If he’s grinding it over the blood, it is simultaneous.Challenge: In any event Yom Tov is not only a lav, it is also an asei. An eseh cannot override another eseh. 

The ashes of a stove are not considered muktzeh and may be used for this purpose. Rabbah: The Mishna is adding that although no preparation has been made on these ashes, they are always considered muchan. Rav Yehuda quoting Rav: This is only if these ashes were formed before Yom Tov, but if it happened on Yom Tov, these ashes are considered Nolad. If, however, these ashes are still hot enough to broil an egg on them, they are permitted.

We Learned in a Beraisa also thus: When it was taught that stove ashes are considered muchan, it was only said with regard to ashes that were burned before Yom Tov. If they were burned on Yom Tov, these ashes are forbidden. If, however, these ashes are still hot enough to broil an egg on them, they are permitted.
If one brought earth into his garden or a ruined shed near his house [for use to cover up spit and the like], it may be used for kisui [if it is scattered on the ground, it returns to muktzeh status but if it is heaped in one spot for use, it remains muchan].

Rav Yehuda: One can bring a basket full of dirt in, and use it for all his needs.

Mar Zutra announced in a lecture, quoting Mar Zutra Rabbah: This is only if he assigned a corner for this dirt.

Challenge: Beraisa: A koy [a buffalo, which is possibly a beheima - not necessitating kisui, and possibly a chaya - necessitating kisui] should not be shechted on Yom Tov [so that we don’t go through the (possibly unnecessary) trouble of kisui]. If it was shechted, it may not be covered with earth.

If what we learned is true, why can’t kisui be done in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s teaching?

Response: What about stove-ashes, or a stick stuck in the ground from before Yom Tov [two scenarios clearly permitted by the Mishna 001]?
You would respond that these are not available, so too, perhaps he doesn’t have prepared dirt.

Challenge: If we’re discussing a scenario where he doesn’t have anything prepared, why mention a koy? In such a case he shouldn’t shecht even a deer!

Resolution: It is obvious that a deer should not be shechted. We might have thought that a koy may be shechted since it is possible that it doesn’t need kisui and we would permit the safek because of simchas Yom Tov, this beraisa teaches that this is not correct.
 

028: When earth was not prepared before Yom Tov, there are three questions involved: 1. Digging. The Melacha of choreish, plowing in a field, or the Melacha of boneh, building - when digging inside a home. 2. Clods of earth cannot be used for kisui hadam, it must be broken up. This involves the Melacha of tochein. 3. Earth is muktzeh. The question is, since eating meat on Yom Tov is a mitzvah, how far do we go to permit these prohibitions?

Rabbi Zrika quoting Rav Yehuda: This is only if the stick had already been stuck into the ground before Yom Tov (prolem #1 above is not relevant).

Challenge: But he is still grinding up the earth! (problem #2 above).

Rav Chiya bar Ashi quoting Rav: The earth being discussed here is loose and does not require grinding. [Tosfos adds that problem #3 is also not relevant, because placing the stick in the ground removes the muktzeh designation].

Challenge: But he’s creating a hollow on Yom Tov [even if the act of digging took place before Yom Tov, the result of creating a hollow - which is forbidden, is being done on Yom Tov].

Resolution: This is in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Abba.
Rabbi Abba: One who digs a hole on Shabbos in order to use the earth but he doesn’t need the hole, is pattur. [Rashi: Since he is not plowing or digging, he is doing an act of ruination, which is forbidden on Shabbos D’Rabbonon, but one is not liable D’Orayso].

The ashes of a stove are not considered muktzeh and may be used for this purpose.

Question: Who said anything about ashes of a stove?

Rabbah: The Mishna is adding that although no preparation has been made on these ashes, they are always considered muchan.

Rav Yehuda quoting Rav: This is only if these ashes were formed before Yom Tov, but if it happened on Yom Tov, these ashes are considered Nolad. If, however, these ashes are still hot enough to broil an egg on them, they are permitted [they’re not considered Nolad, since they still serve their original purpose of heating and cooking].
 

Rav Yosef: According to Beis Shammai one must dig up earth to use in kisui before slaughtering. But Beis Hillel holds one may not slaughter unless he had earth prepared from before Yom Tov.

Abayye to Rav Yosef: Are you and Rabbah disagreeing in the principle of Rabbi Zeira quoting Rav?
Rabbi Zeira quoting Rav: One who slaughters must place loose earth below the blood aside from covering it in earth. As it states “It should be covered inside the earth”.
It seems that you [Rav Yosef] require earth to be dug up before the shechitah in accordance with this principle, while Rabbah disagrees.Rav Yosef: We both agree with the principle of Rabbi Zeira. Only that Rabbah holds that shechitah may only be performed if there is already earth underneath. We cannot permit him to dig lest he change his mind about the shechitah and he will have performed a forbidden deed on Yom Tov.
I [Rav Yosef] am of the opinion that digging is permissible lest he lose out on Simchas Yom Tov by not shechting. 

Question: The beginning of the Mishna “One who slaughters” indicates that they’re discussing a case of dieved: if someone went ahead and slaughtered, then Beis Shammai permits. But when Beis Hillel responds, they say “He may not slaughter” - lekatchilah - so we infer that Beis Shammai holds one may, in fact, slaughter lekatchilah.

Response: This is not a difficulty, Beis Hillel’s intention is “He may not slaughter and cover up - lekatchilah”. Rather, he can slaughter and leave the blood uncovered until after Yom Tov. [So both Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai agree that lekatchilah one should not slaughter on Yom Tov if he did not prepare earth from beforehand.]

Challenge: Later the Mishna states “Beis Hillel agrees that if he went ahead…”, which is clearly talking about dieved, so it seems that the beginning of the Mishna is not discussing dieved [and Beis Shammai’s opinion is lekatchilah]?

Rabbah: When the Mishna says “One who slaughters” it means “One who would like to slaughter”, it is thus discussing a lekatchilah situation.
 

Beis Hillel: Both se’or and chametz are necessary. If the Torah would only mention se’or, we would think that only an advanced stage of leavening is forbidden by the Torah. If the Torah would only mention chametz, we would think the prohibition only applies to chametz that is edible but not to se’or which has so soured as to render it inedible. Both are thus necessary and do not indicate a difference in shiur.

Question: Does Beis Shammai disagree with the basic premise expressed by Rabbi Zeira?
Rabbi Zeira: The verse [Chametz shall not be found and se’or shall not be found on your property] begins with chametz and continues with se’or to teach that their law is identical.

Response: Everyone agrees that the law of consuming chametz is identical to se’or. Beis Shammai only disagrees with regard to beiur chametz [-destroying chametz]. Beis Shammai doesn’t hold that the law of beiur can be deduced from the law of consuming, while Beis Hillel does not differentiate.

We also learned [from a very early Amora]: Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina: Their disagreement is only with regard to beiur chametz, but with regard to consuming chametz, all agree that the shiur is a kzayis.

We learned in a Beraisa also thus: “Chametz shall not be found and se’or shall not be found on your property” - this [beiur and not consumption] is the matter of dispute between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. Beis Shammai: Se’or is forbidden on Pesach in the shiur of a kezayis, Chametz is forbidden in the shiur of a date. Beis Hillel: Both are in the shiur of a kezayis.

An introduction to tomorrow’s lesson (031):

The Mishna (001) discussed kisui hadam. When earth was not prepared before Yom Tov, there are three questions involved: 1. Digging. The Melacha of choreish, plowing in a field, or the Melacha of boneh, building - when digging inside a home. 2. Clods of earth cannot be used for kisui hadam, it must be broken up. This involves the Melacha of tochein. 3. Earth is muktzeh. The question is, since eating meat on Yom Tov is a mitzvah, how far do we go to permit these prohibitions?
 

Question: How near must the male be for him to influence the egg laying habits of a rooster?

Rav (Safra) [Gamda] from Rav: As long as she can hear the sound of the rooster [now you know why roosters are so loud].

Rav Mar experimented and found that the rooster’s voice could carry a distance of sixty houses.

This is not true if a river intervenes between the hen and the rooster [they’re accustomed to the neighborhood]. If there is a ferry, the rooster will use it to visit the hen, but it will not use a riverwalk.

It once happened that a hen did cross over on a riverwalk to maintain its rendezvous.

Rabbi Yosi ben Shaul quoting Rav: If one examined his chicken coop before Yom Tov and it was free of eggs, and he found an egg there early the next morning, it is forbidden.
Gemara: He is referring to a case where the egg is from the ground (024).

Challenge: If we are willing to concede that [since no rooster is present] this may be a nighttime egg, we should consider it a nighttime egg even if he didn’t examine the coop before Yom Tov?

Resolution: If it was not examined we will assume that it tis a daytime egg [most eggs, even ‘from the ground’ are laid in daytime].

Challenge: If so, even if he did examine the coop before Yom Tov, perhaps the majority of the egg came out before Yom Tov but then went back inside, as taught by Rabbi Yochanan (025, 026).

Resolution: Rabbi Yochanan’s case is a very infrequent occurrence.

Rabbi Yosi Ben Shaul quoting Rav: [This statement is not connected to the topic but it is recorded here since it is from the same author as the previous statement]. Crushed garlic should not be left uncovered overnight because of danger [serpents may be attracted by the smell and leave venom. Serpents were common in their homes like we have beetles and bugs].

001: Beis Shammai: Se’or [anything capable of leavening] is forbidden on Pesach in the shiur of a kezayis, Chametz is forbidden in the shiur of a date. Beis Hillel: Both are in the shiur of a kezayis.

Question: What is Beis Shammai’s source?

Response: If the shiur would be identical, why mention se’or at all? We would say that if chametz whose leavening is not so strong is a kezayis, surely se’or is a kezayis as well. Since the Torah specifies se’or, we understand that its shiur is different.
 

Some Say: Whose opinion is it that eating of the ovary makes one tamei?

Rav Yosef: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov who holds that as long as the eggs are attached with tendons, they’re considered meat.

Abayye to Rav Yosef: Perhaps it is not referring to the eggs attached to the ovary but to eating the ovary itself. It is still necessary to teach this law, just as it is taught with regard to the gizzard and the intestines - since there are people who wouldn’t eat these parts, we’re taught that they are in fact considered meat.

[Chickens are daytime birds, they rise early but are not active at all in the nighttime] Beraisa: All those [living things] who copulate by day, give birth by day. Those who copulate by night, give birth at night. Those who are active both by day and by night, give birth both by day and by night.
Those who copulate by day give birth by day: refers to chickens.
Those who copulate by night give birth by night: refers to bats.
Those who are active both by day and by night give birth both by day and by night: refers to humans and others.

We Learned: “Those who copulate by day give birth by day: refers to chickens.” This is relevant to the case of Rav Mari brei d’Rav Kahana.

Rav Mari brei d’Rav Kahana: If one examined his chicken coop before Yom Tov and it was free of eggs, and he found an egg there early the next morning [before daybreak], it is permitted [because it was not laid at night, so it must be from before Yom Tov].

Question: But he examined it before Yom Tov?

Response: He must have not examined it carefully. Even if he did, perhaps the majority of the egg came out before Yom Tov but then went back inside, as taught by Rabbi Yochanan (025).

Challenge: It is not so! Rabbi Yosi ben Shaul quoting Rav: If one examined his chicken coop before Yom Tov and it was free of eggs, and he found an egg there early the next morning, it is forbidden.

Resolution: He is referring to a case where the egg is from the ground (024).

Question: If so, perhaps in Rav Mari’s case, the eggs were also from the ground?

Response: Rav Mari is discussing a case where a male is present.

Question: Perhaps the egg still came from the ground?Ravina: We have a tradition that whenever a male is present, the chicken does not produce eggs from the ground. 

Another Explanation: When the majority of the egg comes out, it is considered to have been laid - like Rabbi Yochanan said.
Rabbi Yochanan: If the majority of an egg came out before Yom Tov, but then it went back inside and only came out on Yom Tov, it is permitted.

Some Say: An egg is only finished when it comes out in its entirety, Rav is arguing on Rabbi Yochanan.

We learned above (023): One who discovers finished eggs inside a chicken that he slaughtered, may eat them with milk. Rabbi Yaakov: If they were still connected to the ovary with tendons, it’s forbidden.

Question: Whose opinion does this Beraisa follow?
One who eats of the neveilah of a kosher bird [he becomes tamei and his clothing become tamei as well]; from the egg cluster (attached to the ovary), from the bones, from the ligaments, or from the meat of the bird while it was still alive: he’s tahor. If, however, he ate from the ovary itself, from the gizzard, the intestines, or from liquefied fat: he’s tamei [although these are unusual forms of eating, it’s still considered eating].
So who is of the opinion that eating of the egg cluster is tahor?

Rav Yosef: This is against the opinion of Rabbi Yaakov who holds that as long as the eggs are attached with tendons, they’re considered meat.

Abayye to Rav Yosef: Perhaps a distinction must be made between Issur and Tumah. Rabbi Yaakov is stating that there’s a chumrah d’Rabbonon on eating such eggs with milk, but they’re not actually considered meat. He wouldn’t make such a gezeirah regarding tumah, because we do not increase tumah.
 

Suggestion: Perhaps Beis Hillel [in the Mishna (001)] do forbid an egg found inside the mother, the Mishna discusses the case of a laid egg to let us know that Beis Shammai permits it even then?

Response: But then whose opinion is the Beraisa (023) recording? Beis Shammai would permit the eggs even after they were laid, and Beis Hillel would forbit such eggs.

Resolution: Rav was letting us know that it is only capable of hatching a chick if it has been laid. This is not a halachic matter but it is relevant for commerce [the Chachomim sometimes made statements for usefulness].

There was once someone who walked through the street saying “Who has eggs of a cakling hen?” [a hen cackles when it delivers, this man was looking for eggs that had been laid which would be capable of hatching]. He was given eggs from a slaughtered hen. When the case came before Rav Ami he declared it a mekach ta’us - a deception and voided the sale.

Challenge: Of course it’s a mekach ta’us!

Resolution: You might say that he actually needed the eggs for food but he wanted eggs that had been laid because they’re more complete and taste slightly better. In such a case the sale would not be void, only that the seller would have to pay for the discrepancy in value.

[There are two types of eggs. 1. Eggs of a male - these come when the hen has contact with a rooster. 2. Eggs from the ground - these are secondary eggs which come indirectly when the hen is warmed by burrowing into the ground]. There was a man who was looking for “Eggs from a male”. He was given eggs from the ground. When the case came before Rav Ami he declared it a mekach ta’us - a deception and voided the sale.

Challenge: Of course it’s a mekach ta’us!

Resolution: You might say that he actually needed the eggs for food but he wanted eggs caused by a male because they’re fatter. In such a case the sale would not be void, only that the seller would have to pay for the discrepancy in value.
 

Rabbah or perhaps Rav Yosef to Abayye: True. Something muchan for humans is not muchan for dogs, because he would never cast to the dogs something he can eat himself. But something muchan for dogs becomes muchan for humans because it is useful to us.

The opinions of both Rav and Shmuel or perhaps Rabbi Yochanan are supported by Beraisas:
A Beraisa in support of Rav: A calf born on Yom Tov [presumably even to a treifah] is permitted, a chick hatched on Yom Tov is forbidden. The calf becomes muchan together with its mother by shechitah, but an egg is unaffected by its mother’s shechitah.
A Beraisa in support of Shmuel or perhaps Rabbi Yochanan: A calf born on Yom Tov is permitted, a chick hatched on Yom Tov is also permitted. The calf becomes muchan together with its mother by shechitah, and the chick’s muktzeh status is broken since it can now become permissible by shechitah.

Beraisa:
A chick born on Yom Tov is forbidden. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: It is also forbidden on a weekday, because it has not yet opened its eyes.

Beraisa: “Every creepy thing that creeps on land” includes also chicks who have not yet opened their eyes.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

Rav Huna quoting Rav: An egg is finished when it comes out.

Question: What is meant by that statement? Does it mean that at that point it loses its status as meat and becomes permissible to eat with milk? We learned a Beraisa: One who discovers finished eggs inside a chicken that he slaughtered, may eat them with milk [according to Rashi even if a shell has not formed yet].

Suggestion: Perhaps it means that once it is laid, it is permitted to be eaten on Yom Tov, but if it is found in the slaughtered body of its mother, it would be forbidden to eat on Yom Tov.

Rejection: But we learned in a Beraisa: One who slaughters a chicken and finds completed eggs inside of it may eat them on Yom Tov.

Suggestion: Perhaps our Mishna (001) holds that even an unborn egg is forbidden on Yom Tov, and this Beraisa argues and permits it.

Rejection: The Mishna clearly only discusses an egg laid on Yom Tov, but would certainly permit an egg found inside its mother.
 

Rav forbids it, because it is muktzeh.

Shmuel or perhaps Rabbi Yochanan permits it: Since it has changed categories and can now become permitted by shechitah, its muktzeh status is broken.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi to Rav: Why is a chick different from a calf born on Yom Tov?

Rav: The calf’s mother is permitted, and the calf itself may be eaten if the mother is shechted before it is born [but not an egg].

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi to Rav: Why is this chick different from a calf born to a treifah [whose mother is muktzeh] on Yom Tov?

Rav did not respond.

Rabbah or perhaps Rav Yosef: Why didn’t Rav respond? He could have said that a treifah is also muchan [ - the opposite of muktzeh] for dogs.Abayye to Rabbah or perhaps Rav Yosef: Something muchan for humans is not muchan for dogs [and it takes more to make something muchan for humans] - as we learn in a Mishna (003) “the carcass of an animal may be cut up for dogs on Shabbos. Rabbi Yehuda: If it died on Shabbos, it is forbidden because it’s not muchan” - so why would you assume that something muchan for dogs becomes muchan for humans? 

Rava: If there’s a dead body on the first day of Yom Tov, it should be buried by gentiles [we permit telling gentiles to do Melacha because of Kvod Hameis]. On the second day, Jews can do everything. This applies also to the days of Rosh Hashanah - though its law is different regarding an egg laid on the first day.

Nehardai: The law of an egg is also the same on Rosh Hashanah. The entire idea of Rosh Hashanah being one Kedusha is based on the possibility that they wouldn’t declare the thirtieth day of Ellul Rosh Hashanah; however Rav Chinena bar Kahana quoted Rav that since the days of Ezra it never happened! [Rashi adds that even the one time that the witnesses came late (016), their testimony was still accepted on the first day, and it was declared Rosh Hashanah, and from then on the witnesses always came earlier in the day. However because of the possibility that witnesses would come late and their testimony would not be accepted until the following day, they always kept two days].

Mar Zutra: A dead body can only be buried by Jews on the second day if he had died on the first day, but if he died on the second day, it can wait.

Rav Ashi: Even if he just died, he is immediately buried, the Chachomim consider the second day like an ordinary weekday with regard to a corpse. One can even cut cloth or branches in order to honor him.

Ravina: Nowadays that the Magi have taken power [they were oppressive to the Jews in Persia], we can no longer do so [we can only avoid working for them because they respect our religious beliefs, but if they see that we’re doing work for a meis they will require us to do work for them as well].

Ravina was sitting in Rav Ashi’s presence on the first day of Rosh Hashanah which fell on Thursday. He noted that Rav Ashi seemed sad and he asked him about it. Rav Ashi explained that he had not made an Eiruv Tavshilin.
Ravina: So do it now! Didn’t Rava say: One can make a conditional Eiruv Tavshilin on the first day of Yom Tov [following the principle elaborated on in 007].
Rav Ashi: This was said regarding Yom Tov, did Rava say this regarding Rosh Hashanah?
Ravina: But Nehardai said an egg is permitted on the second day of Rosh Hashanah just like any other Yom Tov!
Rav Mordechai to Ravina: Rav Ashi told me that he doesn’t hold like Nehardai.
 

Rav Ada and Rav Shalman - both from Bei Kluchis [a place outside Eretz Yisroel]: The egg remains forbidden even after Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. We hope the Beis Hamikdash will be speedily rebuilt [and the old rule of not accepting testimony past Mincha will be restored] but people will say “we ate the egg last year, so we can eat it this year as well” - they won’t know that last year Rosh Hashanah was two separate Kedushas while this year both days have one Kedusha.

Challenge: If so we shouldn’t accept testimony past Mincha out of the fear that they will continue to do so once the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt?

Resolution: Accepting testimony is in the capable hands of the Sanhedrin, but a decision on using the egg is made by every woman in her kitchen.

Rava: The egg remains forbidden even after Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s Takanah. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai agrees that the second day remains holy - even when testimony is accepted late afternoon on the first day [thus: both days are one Kedusha].Rava (014): We follow Rav in these three things whether he is stringent or lenient: [1. Shabbos and Yom Tov which are contiguous (he is stringent, 013). 2. Two days of Yom Tov in Chutz La’Aretz (he is lenient, 015). 3. Two days of Rosh Hashanah (he is stringent, 016)]. 

Abayye: A decision was never made to prohibit the egg. The only decision ever made by the Sanhedrin was with regard to accepting testimony after Mincha. The status of the egg is contingent on that, but there was never any pronouncement made regarding the egg!
 

Another Proof: [At the time of Matan Torah, there was a strict prohibition against ascending the Mountain. We would think that after Matan Torah it would be self understood that this no longer applies, but instead] it is written “When the Shofar sounds, they can ascend the Mountain”.

Another Proof from a Mishna: Fruits of a fourth year vine must be brought up to Yerushalayim from a radius of a day’s journey in every direction [people who live near Yerushalayim cannot redeem it and bring money]. This is the boundary: Eilas in the South, Akravas in the North, Lud in the West and Yarden in the East.

Ulla or perhaps it was Rabbah bar bar Chana quoting Rabbi Yochanan: The reason for this is so that the markets of Yerushalayim will be crowned with fruits.

Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer had a fourth year vine East of Lud [within the above boundary] near Kfar Tavi. He desired to gtive away all the fruits to poor people so that he would be free of the burden of taking it to Yerushalayim [this was after the churban, when there was no longer any reason to crown the markets of the conquerors, yet he still felt bound by this law]. His disciples said to him: Rebbe your Chaverim already permitted it.

The Chaverim refer to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai.

We see that Rabbi Eliezer needed to hear that there was special permission even though the reason seemingly no longer applied.

Question: Why were more proofs necessary?

Response: The first verse was not enough because perhaps the command to return to the tents was not necessary to permit the prohibition. It was just because the men were so enamored by Matan Torah that they would have forgotten about Mitzvas Onah [they would forget about the big function of the Jewish people to make children] - thus the second verse is necessary.
However these two proofs only discuss D’Orayso laws, so the Mishna about a fourth year vineyard was necessary to teach that this law applies in D’Rabbonon cases as well.

Regarding the two days of Rosh Hashanah, we learned that Rav and Shmuel agree that an egg laid on the first day is prohibited on the second day.
It was explained that this is because sometimes two days of Yom Tov were kept even when only the second day was pronounced Yom Tov; thus lending a single extended Kedusha to both days. Rabbah then explained that from the time of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, when it was no longer necessary to pronounce the second day Yom Tov on the first day, the law of the egg changed and it would be permitted on the second day.
Rav Yosef argued that nothing changed in the time of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai since the law prohibiting the egg is considered a davar Sheb’minyan which requires an official decision to permit it.

Rav Yosef: If you want to argue that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai permitted the egg as well, this is incorrect since the decision of his Sanhedrin was only made regarding testimony on the first day, not regarding the egg.
 

Rabbah: From the time of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai’s Takanah,an egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashanah is permitted on the second day.

As we learn in the Mishna: After the churban, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai made a takanah permitting the acceptance of testimony all day on Rosh Hashanah (since there was no longer a concern about interfering with the Shir).

Abayye to Rabbah: But Rav and Shmuel both agree that an egg is forbidden?

Rabbah: I’m telling you about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai and you’re bringing up Rav and Shmuel?

Challenge: Rav and Shmuel appear to be challenged by the Mishna?

Resolution: The law is different for us and for them [in Eretz Yisroel there are no longer two days of Rosh Hashanah, but in Chutz La’Aretz we still keep two days following the old system established when the two days were considered one Kedusha (016)].

Rav Yosef: The egg remains forbidden even after Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai’s Takanah.
This is because it was a davar sheb’minyan [something taken up for vote in the Sanhedrin and decided by the majority], and something decided by a majority requires a majority decision to undo it.

Rav Yosef: I learn this principle from the verse “Return to your tents”. [At the time of Matan Torah they were told to separate from their wives, but after Matan Torah they had to be told to return, otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed to since it is considered like a davar sheb’minyan].
 

Rabbi Zeira: Rav Asi’s opinion appeals to our logic. Because nowadays we know when Yom Tov really is but still keep two days [because we look at them as one long day].

Abayye: Rav’s opinion appeals to our logic. Because we learned in a Mishna: “In early times they would let everyone know when Rosh Chodesh was by means of signal fires. Later the Kusim began making false alarms and shluchim were sent out.”
However, if there wouldn’t be Kusim, we would go back to one day. Additionally, in those places [even outside of Eretz Yisroel] where shluchim could arrive in time, they would keep one day. [So this seems to be a proof to Rav that two days are only kept because of a safek and they’re not considered one Kedusha].

Challenge: If so why do we keep two days of Yom Tov now that we know the true date?

Resolution: An order was sent from Eretz Yisroel “Be careful to maintain the practice of your forefathers [to keep two days], lest the government interfere and we will fall back [since there were no calendars printed]”.We Learned: Two days of Rosh Hashanah: Rav and Shmuel agree that an egg laid on the first day is forbidden on the second day. This is based on the Mishna: At first testimony regarding Rosh Chodesh was accepted all day. Once, the witnesses came late and the levi’im sang the wrong Shir as a result [in the morning it is not a problem, since the witnesses usually come after the first Shir, but here the afternoon Shir was spoiled. Tosfos asks that they missed out on Mussaf also? They answer that the Mussaf can be brought after the Tamid b’dieved]. From then on they no longer accepted testimony after Mincha. If witnesses did come later, they would keep the remainder of the day holy, and pronounce the next day Rosh Hashanah as well. [So many times, two days were kept even though they knew that only the second day would be pronounced Rosh hashanah]. 

Challenge: But he must turn over the wood and he will be handling muktzeh?

Resolution: Since most of the wood is permitted, we say that the wood he is turning is permitted wood [the forbidden wood becomes battel].

Challenge: But then he is being mevattel a prohibition as a matter of course, and We Learned: We cannot nullify a prohibition as a matter of course.

Resolution: This is true regarding a Torah prohibition, but a D’Rabbanan prohibition may be nullified [Tosfos: A D’Rabbanan prohibition that has its basis in a Torah law (such as Bassar B’Chalav D’Rabbanan), is considered a Torah prohibition for this purpose].

Challenge: Rav Ashi (012) holds that even a D’Rabbanan davar sheyesh lo mattirin cannot become battel, so the firewood should remain forbidden?

Resolution: This is true only in a case where the issur would remain in existence, but here it is in the process of being destroyed and we do not consider it a davar sheyesh lo mattirin.

We Learned: A two-day Yom Tov in Chutz La’Aretz [any regular Yom Tov]: Rav: An egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second day. Rav Asi: It is forbidden.

Question: Does this mean Rav Asi considered both days of Yom Tov as one long day? Rav Asi would make havdalah on the night of Yom Tov [the end of the first day, to separate it from the second day]?

Response: Rav Asi was unsure of whether they’re considered one long day or two separate days, and he was stringent both ways.
 

This is a debate among Tannaim: If it is laid on Shabbos, it can be eaten on Yom Tov [Sunday], or it was laid on Yom Tov [Friday], it may be eaten on Shabbos. Rabbi Eliezer: On the second day it is also a debate. Beis Shammai permits it, while Beis Hillel prohibit it.

The host of Rav Ada bar Ahavah had eggs that were laid on Yom Tov which fell on a Friday. He asked Rav Ada bar Ahavah whether he could broil the eggs on Yom Tov in order to eat them on Shabbos.
Rav Ada bar Ahavah: Do you think it is permissible because we follow Rabbi Yochanan over Rav? Even Rabbi Yochanan would only permit sipping the egg raw on Shabbos, but he wouldn’t allow handling it on Friday (an egg laid on Yom Tov is always muktzeh).
This is as we learned in a Beraisa (009): An egg that was laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov may not be handled, and it cannot be used to cover a jar or to support a wobbly bed.

The host of Rav Papa,
Some Say: Some man came to Rav Papa on Shabbos which was followed by a Yom Tov. He asked whether the eggs laid today would be permissible tomorrow on Yom Tov. Rav Papa asked him to return on the next day because [he had drunk wine at the meal (for Birkas Hamazon) and] Rav never set up an Amora to announce his Drasha (Rav would speak in a quiet voice and the Amora would announce it for everyone to hear) from one day of Yom Tov to the next [after he had eaten the Yom Tov meal] because of the wine.
On the next day, when he returned, Rav Papa said: Indeed now, I would have forgotten and said that the Halacha follows Rav Yochanan over Rav, but Rava said: In these three matters we follow Rav whether he’s stringent or lenient [the first thing being our case, that the egg is forbidden on the second day].

Rabbi Yochanan: Wood that fell from a tree directly into an oven on Shabbos, may not be used as firewood the following day on Yom Tov. Do not object to this based on my lenient ruling regarding an egg laid on Shabbos. Since an egg may be eaten on Shabbos, but we forbid it, it is permissible on the following day. But since firewood could not be used on Shabbos even if it is cut from the tree before Shabbos, the prohibition on Shabbos doesn’t mean anything and it is necessary to prohibit it on the following day as well.
 

Question: Does Rav hold that contiguous days carry one Kedusha? Rav said: The Halacha follows Four Zekeinim who ruled like Rabbi Eliezer that two contiguous days are considered separate Kedushas.

Response: The debate between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan is about something different entirely. Rav holds of Hachana D’Rabbah* [as explained in 004, that Yom Tov may not prepare for Shabbos or vice versa], while Rabbi Yochanan does not.

_____________________________

* Tosfos: Challenge: Hachana means when the egg is fashioned on a Holy Day - for instance when Yom Tov is on a Sunday and the egg is laid on that day, the problem is that the egg was fashioned the day before, on a Holy Day, Shabbos. But in our case, the egg was fashioned friday and laid on Shabbos, why should it be forbidden now on Sunday?

Resolution 1: Its laying is also a Hachana, for an egg is not prepared if it hasn’t been laid.
Resolution 2: Since it would become permissible on Sunday due to its having been laid on Shabbos, it may be considered “prepared on Shabbos” for Yom Tov.
 

Respose: The second part of the Beraisa (about a safek and a mixture) is discussing a new “egg-topic” - eggs of a tereifah, which is D’orayso.

Challenge: If so, why does a mixture not become battel? If it is discussing an egg laid on Yom Tov, it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin, but why shouldn’t a tereifah become battel?

Rav Ashi: The second part of the Beraisa is still discussing a safek D’Rabbonon. But since it’s a davar sheyesh lo matirin [009] and is thus not battel - and - we’re stringent about its safek since it becomes moot as soon as Yom Tov is over.

Beraisa: Acherim quoting Rabbi Eliezer: An egg [laid on Yom Tov] can be eaten, and its mother can be eaten as well.

Question: What type of hen are we discussing? If it is a hen standing to be slaughtered [so the egg can be eaten in accordance with Beis Shammai, 001], of course it can be slaughtered on Yom Tov!
If we’re discussing a hen that is standing for egg production, Rabbi Eliezer surely holds it is muktzeh!

Rabbi Zeira: It means: The egg may be eaten as an adjunct to its mother.

Question: What does this mean?

Abayye: We’re discussing a case where the hen was purchased without a specific purpose. If it is slaughtered on Yom Tov, we know retroactively that that’s what it was bought for and the egg is permitted, but as long as it is not slaughtered, the egg would not be permitted.

Rav Mari: It is discussing a hen standing to be slaughtered, and it was not actually necessary to teach the law of the hen, which is obviously permissible, Rabbi Eliezer is actually just teaching his opinion that the halacha follows Beis Shammai in our Mishna [001], he mentions that the hen is permissible as an expression of exaggeration.

This is as we learned in a Beraisa: Acherim quoting Rabbi Eliezer: An egg [laid on Yom Tov] can be eaten, its mother can be eaten, the chick can be eaten, and the eggshell can be eaten!Explanation: What does it mean that the eggshell can be eaten? The shell is not edible! It must mean “a chick that hasn’t hatched yet and is inside the shell”, but this is surely forbidden, the Chachomim and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov only debate a case where a chick hatched but has not yet opened its eyes, a chick that has not yet hatched is surely forbidden.
So “a chick that hasn’t hatched yet and is inside the shell” must be an exaggeration, similarly, “an egg and its mother” is an exaggeration. 

Rav Papa: It is the Tanna of “a litra of dried figs” who holds that anything counted, even an issur D’Rabbanan is not battel.

Mishna: A litra of dried [tevel] figs that was pressed on top of a barrel, or keg full of kosher figs, and he doesn’t remember into which barrel it was pressed.
Rabbi Meir: Rabbi Eliezer: The complete contents of the barrels are counted towards bittul [in this case bittul of tevel/terumah which requires one hundred. Although the lower part of the barrels are not actually part of the safek, in reality bittul works as long as there is a majority of better, only the Chachomim required one hundred and in this case they were lenient]. Rabbi Yehoshua: If there are one hundred barrel tops, it is battel, otherwise, all tops are forbidden while the rest of the barrels [which are not part of the safek] are permitted.
Rabbi Yehuda: Rabbi Eliezer: If there are one hundred barrel tops, it is battel, otherwise, all tops are forbidden while the rest of the barrels are permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua: Even if there are three hundred barrel tops [it’s a guzma], it cannot become battel [this opinion then is the “Tanna of litra ketzios”].
If the ketzios were pressed into a barrel but it is not known which barrel, everyone agrees that it can become battel.

Challenge: What does that mean “everyone agrees”? This is the case they’re arguing about!

Rav Papa: It should read “If the ketzios were pressed into a barrel but it is not recognizable in the barrel, it has become amalgamatged, everyone agrees that it can become battel.”
 

If someone has bundles of Tiltan that are kilei hakerem [tiltan is a type of spice which is a plant and is thus forbidden when grown together with grapes], they must be burned [they’re assur b’hana’ah]. If they were mixed in with other bundles and the other bundles were mixed with still more bundles, everything is forbidden [it does not become battel because it is a davar sheb’minyan - something that is counted], this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
Chachomim: They become battel at a a ratio of 1/200 [although min haTorah everything is battel in a majority, the Chachomim were more stringent with some things. Terumah is only battel 1/100 and kilei hakerem, 1/200].
This is because Rabbi Meir holds: Things that are counted remain forbidden. The Chachomim hold: Only six things, Rabbi Akiva: Seven things.
These are the six things: Perech nuts, pomegranates from Badon, closed kegs of wine, heads of Tardin, large heads of cabbage and Greek pumpkins. Rabbi Akiva adds: large homemade loaves of bread. These things, some of them are Orlah and ossur forever and some are ossur due to their being kilei hakerem.

We learned about this Mishna: Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Meir said “things that are counted”. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Rabbi Meir said “anything that is counted”.Challenge: Our Mishna which states that eggs cannot be battel can work according to Reish Lakish, because eggs are sometimes sold by count. But it cannot work according to Rabbi Yochanan since eggs are not things that are only sold by count. 

Challenge: Beraisa: An egg that was laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov may not be handled [it is muktzeh], and it cannot be used to cover a jar or to support a wobbly bed [this can be accomplished if you know how to handle an egg properly]. A utensil may be moved in order to cover it up [although it is completely muktzeh, like a stone or money, it is still permitted to handle something permitted in order to protect it (not everyone agrees with this, but it is the opinion of this Tanna and this is how we pasken)]. A safek is forbidden and even if it is mixed in with a thousand others, it does not become battel.
This [that a safek is forbidden] would be right according to Rabbah, because it is a safek in Hachana, a Torah prohibition, but according to Rav Yosef and Rav Yitzchok, it is a safek in a D’Rabbanan position and we should be lenient?
[This question is not asked about Rav Nachman’s opinion because muktzeh is stricter than a standard D’Rabbanan, Tosfos. Some say we don’t even consider Rav Nachman’s terutz because it was abandoned].

Resolution: The second part of the Beraisa (about a safek and a mixture) is discussing a new “egg-topic” - eggs of a tereifah, which is D’orayso.Challenge: If so, why does a mixture not become battel? If it is discussing an egg laid on Yom Tov, it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin [something which will anyway become permissible - after Yom Tov - and is thus not battel], but why shouldn’t a tereifah become battel?
You might suggest that an egg is considered too important to become battel [a chaticha hare’uyah l’hischabed, for instance, something one would serve to a guest, is considered important and is not battel].
This is dependent on your reading of a Mishna: If you read it “anything that is counted”, eggs are sometimes sold by count. But if you read it “things that are counted”, eggs are not always sold by count and wouldn’t be considered important enough to not be battel. 

Mishna: One may not squeeze fruits for juice on Shabbos or Yom Tov, if juice flowed from grapes and olives without being squeezed, the juices are forbidden.
Rabbi Yehuda: If they were prepared for food, their juice is permitted, if they were prepared for juicing, the juice is forbidden.

Rabbi Yochanan: So we see that according to Rabbi Yehuda, anything that comes from something prepared for food is consider like “a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf”.

Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda: One can eat tevel by making a condition. Similarly, an egg laid on the first day of Yom Tov may be eaten on the second day.

Rabbi Yochanan: It is only permitted on the second day but it is forbidden on the first day! Shouldn’t it be considered like “a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf” - just like juice?

Rabbi Yochanan: We must invert the opinions in the first Mishna: The Chachomim differentiate between fruits prepared for food or for juicing, while Rabbi Yehuda always forbids it.

Ravina: We need not invert the opinions. In the second Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda is only talking according to the position of the Chachomim. “My opinion is that it is like a sliced bread and is permitted, but you should at least admit that on the second day it is permissible”.
The Chachomim, however, disagree: “Rosh Hashana is different because both days are one kedusha.”

Ravina brei D’Rav Ulla: The second Mishna is not discussing a hen raised to be slaughtered. An egg from such a hen would indeed be comparable to a sliced piece of bread. The Mishna is discussing a hen standing for egg production, thus Rabbi Yehuda, according to his strict position with regard to muktzeh, forbids such eggs. [The reason Rabbi Yochanan asked the question in the first place is because the Beraisa didn’t specify what type of hen the egg is from, and it seems to include also hens intended for slaughter].

Mishna: An egg which is laid on Yom Tov: Beis Shammai: It may be eaten. Beis Hillel: It may not be eaten.
Rav Nachman: The egg is muktzeh.
Rabbah: The egg is forbidden because of Hachana.
Rav Yosef: The egg is forbidden because of gezeiras peiros hanoshrin.
Rav Yitzchok: The egg is forbidden because of gezeiras mashkin shezavu.

Challenge: Beraisa: An egg which was laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov may not be handled [it is muktzeh], and it cannot be used to cover a jar or to support a wobbly bed [this can be accomplished if you know how to handle an egg properly]. A utensil may be moved in order to cover it up [although it is completely muktzeh, like a stone or money, it is still permitted to handle something permitted in order to protect it]. A safek is forbidden and even if it is mixed in with a thousand others, it does not become battel.
This [that a safek is forbidden] would be right according to Rabbah, because it is a safek in a Torah prohibition, but according to Rav Yosef and Rav Yitzchok, it is a safek in a D’Rabbanan position and we should be lenient?
[This question is not asked about Rav Nachman’s opinion because muktzeh is stricter than a standard D’Rabbanan, Tosfos.]
 

Rabbi Yochanan also explained the Mishna in terms of a gezeiras mashkin shezavu [like Rav Yitzchok]. This is implied by the question and answer which Rabbi Yochanan said in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s position, as shall be explained:

Mishna: One may not squeeze fruits for juice on Shabbos or Yom Tov, if juice flowed from grapes and olives without being squeezed, the juices are forbidden.
Rabbi Yehuda: If they were prepared for food, their juice is permitted, if they were prepared for juicing, the juice is forbidden.

Rabbi Yochanan: So we see that according to Rabbi Yehuda, anything that comes from something prepared for food is consider like “a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf”.

Mishna: More from Rabbi Yehuda [on the subject of two days of Rosh Hashana]: One can eat tevel (food from which terumah and maaser has not yet been separated) by making a condition [he separates it on the first day on condition it is a weekday, and then again on the second day, he can then eat it, since it was definitely separated on a weekday]. Similarly, an egg laid on the first day of Yom Tov may be eaten on the second day.

Rabbi Yochanan: It is only permitted on the second day but it is forbidden on the first day! Shouldn’t it be considered like “a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf” - just like juice?

Rabbi Yochanan: We must invert the opinions in the first Mishna: The Chachomim differentiate between fruits prepared for food or for juicing, while Rabbi Yehuda always forbids it.

We see from Rabbi Yochanan’s question that in his understanding, an egg is forbidden because of gezeiras mashkin shezavu.
 

The others (Rabbah, Rav Yosef and Rav Yitzchok) do not explain the Mishna like Rav Nachman because of our kasha (003) [the Mishna could have easily taught both laws “Beis Shammai permit the chicken and its egg”?].
They do not explain the Mishna like Rabbah because Hachana is a novel idea which they don’t hold by.

Question: Why does Rav Yosef not give the same reason as Rav Yitzchok?

Response: An egg is a solid food and is more similar to peiros.

Question: Why does Rav Yitzchok not give the same reason as Rav Yosef?

Response: An egg is concealed within the hen and is more similar to wine that is concealed in the grapes.

Rabbi Yochanan was active in Eretz Yisroel soon after Rav Yitzchok.

Rabbi Yochanan also explained the Mishna in terms of a gezeiras mashkin shezavu [like Rav Yitzchok]. This is implied by the question and answer which Rabbi Yochanan said in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s position, as shall be explained:

Mishna: One may not squeeze fruits for juice on Shabbos or Yom Tov [as Tosfos explains, that although preparing food is permitted on Yom Tov all melachos up to lisha are prohibited, and juicing is included in Dosh - Threshing], if juice flowed from grapes and olives without being squeezed, the juices are forbidden.
Rabbi Yehuda: If they were prepared for food, their juice is permitted, if they were prepared for juicing, the juice is forbidden.Rabbi Yochanan: So we see that according to Rabbi Yehuda, anything that comes from something prepared for food is consider like “a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf”. 

In a case where a Yom Tov is Sunday, “an egg laid today was finished yesterday”, thus Shabbos made Hachana [preparation] for Yom Tov, which is forbidden by a possuk.

Abayye: What about an ordinary Yom Tov, which does not fall on Sunday? Our Mishna prohibits eggs laid on Yom Tov regardless of which day of the week it is.

Resolution: There is a gezeirah lest the egg be permitted even on a Sunday.

Question: What about every Shabbos? An egg laid on Shabbos should be permitted.

Resolution: There is a gezeirah lest the egg be permitted even on a Shabbos which follows Yom Tov

Challenge: Do we make such gezeiros? We learned in a Beraisa:
One who slaughters a hen on Yom Tov may eat completed eggs found in them [these are not forbidden due to the law of Hachana which only applies to an egg laid on Yom Tov, not to one which is still in the hen’s body]. [Why is no gezeirah enacted here?]

Rabbah: To find completed eggs inside a hen is out of ordinary and the Chachomim did not enact gezeiros for anything out of the ordinary.

Mishna: An egg which is laid on Yom Tov: Beis Shammai: It may be eaten. Beis Hillel: It may not be eaten.
Question: What is the case here? If it is a hen standing to be slaughtered, why would Beis Hillel forbid it? 

Rav Yosef: The egg is prohibited because of gezeiras peiros hanoshrin - if you permit this egg you may come to permit fruits that fall off the tree on Yom Tov [these are prohibited lest one desire to eat more apples and he will transgress the biblical law of kotzeir in cutting them off from the tree*].

Abayye: Peiros Hanoshrin is itself a gezeirah, would we make a gezeirah for the gezeirah?

Response: It’s all one gezeirah [at the beginning, when the gezeirah was made, anything similar was included].

Rav Yitzchok: The egg is prohibited because of gezeiras mashkin shezavu - if you permit this egg you may come to permit liquid that seeped of grapes on Yom Tov [these are prohibited lest one desire more wine and he will transgress the biblical law of Dosh in squeezing out the tree].

Abayye: Mashkin Shezavu is itself a gezeirah, would we make a gezeirah for the gezeirah?

Response: It’s all one gezeirah [at the beginning, when the gezeirah was made, anything similar was included].

________________________________

* Tosfos: Why aren’t the apples forbidden because of muktzeh, as in the case of gentile who brings a gift of the season’s fruits?
We cannot say that this follows Rabbi Shimon who is lenient in muktzeh, Rashi there explains that even Rabbi Shimon would forbid this muktzeh.
We must say that here is a case where the fruit tree is in his yard and the fruits are “prepared” in his mind to feed his pet ravens.
But if this is the case, why is one not allowed to lead his animal to cut grass on Shabbos? Why don’t we consider it “prepared”?
We must explain that as a case where the animal is across the stream from the cut grass and couldn’t reach it without its owner’s assistance, it is thus muktzeh.
Question: Why is it not permitted to pick the fruits off the tree based on the law that Ochel Nefesh is permitted on Yom Tov? Answer 1: Only Melachos from Lisha on are permitted. Answer 2: Kotzer is specifically forbidden. [Yerushalmi].
 

Challenge: If the problem with this egg according to Beis Hillel is that it comes from a muktzeh hen, why are they arguing about the egg? Let them argue about the hen itself?

In case you want to answer that we prefer to teach a leniency, still the Mishna could have easily taught both laws “Beis Shammai permit the chicken and its egg, while Beis Hillel forbid it”!

Rabbah: Actually the Mishna is talking about a hen that is standing to be slaughtered for food, although such an egg shouldn’t be muktzeh, there’s a problem with Hachana. In a case where a Yom Tov is Sunday, “an egg that was laid today was finished yesterday”, thus Shabbos made Hachana [preparation] for Yom Tov, which is forbidden by a possuk.
[The same law would apply to an egg laid on Shabbos if Friday was Yom Tov. Shabbos and Yom Tov food is important and we look at when it was prepared. Eggs laid on a weekday Sunday are thus not an issue. Beis Hillel holds the law of Hachana as taught by Rabbah, while Beis Shammai argues].

Rabbah follows his shittah as he taught elsewhere: What is meant by the possuk “On the sixth day they should prepare”?
A weekday can prepare for Shabbos and Yom Tov, but Shabbos cannot prepare for Yom Tov nor can Yom Tov prepare for Shabbos [Rabbah is also adding a little push to the idea, not that we cannot prepare, but even nature cannot prepare for Yom Tov on Shabbos by creating the egg].

[Based on the law of Rabbah, some Poskim maintain that an Eiruv Tavshilin is not a blanket better to cook for Shabbos on Yom Tov - because it is an issur d’orayso. They explain that an Eruv only works as long as there is a possibility to use the cooked food on Yom Tov (in case guests show up)
 

Challenge: In Masichta Shabbos Rav Nachman in Shabbos inverted a Mishna to read that Beis Shammai is stringent with muktzeh while Beis Hillel is lenient, how can it be that here he explains the Mishna in the opposite way?

Resolution: [Rav Nachman wasn’t around anymore but he would have answered as follows]: In masichta Shabbos there is an anonymous Mishna [which always reflects the Halacha] which concurs with Rabbi Shimon’s lenient opinion:

Mishna: One may cut up pumpkins for an animal to eat [they are already disconnected from the ground, the tircha of cutting it up is what is being permitted], and the carcass of an animal [which died on Shabbos and wasn’t ‘prepared’, it is thus muktzeh] may be cut up for dogs on Shabbos.

Thus we rule like Rabbi Shimon with regard to Shabbos [and since the Halacha always follows Beis Hillel, we must say that in Shabbos Beis Hillel concurs with this opinion].

But with regard to Yom Tov there is an anonymous Mishna which concurs with Rabbi Yehuda’s stringent opinion:

Mishna: [It is permissible to chop wood on Yom Tov for firewood, but] one cannot chop beams which are prepared for building [and are muktzeh], nor can one chop a beam that came loose on Yom Tov.

Thus we rule like Rabbi Yehuda with regard to Yom Tov [and since the Halacha always follows Beis Hillel, we must say that in Yom Tov Beis Hillel concurs with this opinion].

Question: Let’s see, who decided to leave the Mishnayos anonymous? Rebbi, when he edited the Mishnayos. If so, why did he rule differently regarding Shabbos and Yom Tov?

They Answered: Shabbos is more severe in the minds of people and they won’t be careless because of a leniency, but Yom Tov is more lenient in people’s eyes [since they can cook] and if muktzeh were permitted, we are worried that people would become lax with the laws of Yom Tov.

Challenge: If the problem with this egg according to Beis Hillel is that it comes from a muktzeh hen, why are they arguing about the egg? Let them argue about the hen itself?

Resolution: To tell us that Beis Shammai permits even Nolad.

Challenge: Let them argue regarding the hen to teach us that Beis Hillel is stringent even regarding muktzeh?

In case you want to answer that we prefer to teach a leniency, still the Mishna could have easily taught both laws “Beis Shammai permit the chicken and its egg, while Beis Hillel forbid it”!
 

Gemara:
Question: What is the case here? If it is a hen standing to be slaughtered, why would Beis Hillel forbid it? The egg is like a small piece of bread that was removed from a loaf [since the hen is considered food, Tosfos].

Response: The hen is standing to produce eggs and is not considered a food; it is thus muktzeh.

Challenge: If that’s the case, what is Beis Shammai’s reasoning? It is muktzeh!

Question: It may be that Beis Shammai does not hold of muktzeh?

Response: But surely they hold Nolad [something that was newly created seems to be more muktzeh]?

Rav Nachman: The opinion that rejects the principle of muktzeh also rejects nolad. So Beis Shammai does not hold of either muktzeh or nolad and that is why they permit the egg laid by a muktzeh chicken.

Beis Shammai’s opinion is not unheard of and is paralleled by other Tannaim: Beis Shammai is in agreement with Rabbi Shimon and Beis Hillel is in agreement with Rabbi Yehuda.

Challenge: Did Rav Nachman make such a statement?
We learned a Mishna [in masichta Shabbos]: Beis Shammai permits lifting unfit remnants of food (peels and bones) off the table, Beis Hillel: One can lift the table board so that they will fall but you cannot handle the muktzeh*.
Rav Nachman: We don’t have this version, the opposite is true: Beis Shammai is in agreement with Rabbi Yehuda and Beis Hillel is in agreement with Rabbi Shimon.
So we see that Rav Nachman in Shabbos emended a Mishna to read that Beis Shammai is stringent with muktzeh while Beis Hillel is lenient, how can it be that here he explains the Mishna in the opposite way?

________________________________* Tosfos: Why is the table board not forbidden as a Basis? [The bones were placed on the table intentionally and it should be considered a Basis?]
According to Rabeinu Tam this is understandable; he explains that a Basis is only formed when one intended to leave the muktzeh there for the entire day.
Another explanation: Since there is food on the table as well, it is not considered a Basis L’davar Ha’Assur, rather L’davar Hamuttar as well.
Another explanation: He has no interest for the bones to be on the table at all, he wouldn’t mind if it fell on the floor either, so it cannot be considered “placed on the table”. 

Introduction: The first case in our Mishna discusses an egg laid on Yom Tov, which is muktzeh according to Beis Hillel. At first the Gemara attempts to explain the reason for this: since the hen is set aside for producing chickens, not to be used as food, its eggs are not food and are muktzeh. Later the Gemara rejects this understanding and explains that the Mishna is based on the Torah prohibition of Hachana. This means that Yom Tov food may not be prepared on Shabbos and Shabbos food may not be prepared on Yom Tov. An egg is prepared inside the hen a day before it is laid, thus if Yom Tov were on a Sunday, this egg would be forbidden due to Hachana, it is thus forbidden on Yom Tov any day of the week because of a Gezeirah for a case where Yom Tov falls on Sunday.

Mishna:
An egg which is laid on Yom Tov: Beis Shammai: It may be eaten. Beis Hillel: It may not be eaten.

Beis Shammai: Se’or [anything capable of leavening] is forbidden on Pesach in the shiur of a Kzayis, Chametz is forbidden in the shiur of a date. Beis Hillel: Both are in the shiur of a Kzayis.

One who slaughters a wild animal or bird on Yom Tov [and must therefore cover its blood], Beis Shammai: He may dig with a stick [which was previously stuck into loose earth] and cover the blood. Beis Hillel: He may not slaughter unless he has earth prepared for the purpose of covering. Beis Hillel agrees that if he went ahead and slaughtered the animal or bird, he may go ahead and use the stick as permitted by Beis Shammai.
The ashes of a stove are not considered muktzeh and may be used for this purpose.

It is unusual for Beis Shammai to take the lenient approach. WHile these three cases are unrelated, they are recorded together as three cases in the laws of Yom Tov where Beis Shammai takes the lenient position. Tosfos.