Some Say: Abayye: Only a cooked item may be used as Eiruv Tavshilin, but not bread.

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.  

We learned (078): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel derived from here that if one gives a child a piece of bread, he must let the mother know.

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.
 

Beraisa: They related about Shammai Hazakein: He would eat every day l’kavod Shabbos. If he found a nice animal [on Sunday] he would say “this is for Shabbos”. If he found a better animal [on Monday] he would put it away for Shabbos and eat the first animal. But Hillel Hazakein followed another system wherein all his deeds were for the sake of Heaven [Shammai did everything l’shem Shomayim as well, but Hillel followed a system of trusting in Hashem] as it states “Hashem is Blessed every day” [there is no need to be anxious on Sunday for the needs of Shabbos. Shammai’s opinion was that when it comes to a mitzvah you need to have less bitachon and do more hishtadlus].

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].
 

[Another, unrelated statement from] Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Elazar b’Rebbi Shimon: If someone wants his property to endure for him [the farmers would live in villages and were not on site to protect their boundaries] he should plant an Adar plant there [in addition to the fact that it’s conspicuous and stubborn, and not easily uprooted, it also repels pests] as it states “Hashem is mighty [Adir] on High” [it is a mighty plant that does the work of Hashem to protect our assets].
Another explanation: Adar - as people say: ‘it lasts for generations [dor]’.

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.
 

The Gemara related a story of how Rabbi Eliezer spoke in Halacha all day long on Yom Tov. He was upset with people who left early “who forsook the everlasting life for pleasures of this world”. But blessed the people who left at the end “Go and eat delectable foods, and drink sweet wines.”

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 Gemara asked where we can find a remez to the topic of Eiruv Tavshilin.

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”.
 

Now we come to the topic of Eiruv Tavshilin:

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]. 

Abayye: If a man was walking on the road, wearing Tefillin, and the sun began its descent, 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.

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.
 

One of the things that may not be sent as a gift on Yom Tov is “spiked sandals”.

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.
 

We learned in the Mishnah that Shaatnez may be sent as a gift on Yom Tov. The Gemara explained that one may use it as a curtain. Elsewhere, Ulla explains the reason a curtain can contract tumah - because it is sometimes used as clothing by servants who wish to warm themselves with the curtain. According to this, then, it should be forbidden as Shaatnez?

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. 

Mishnah:
Garments may be sent on Yom Tov, whether they’re sewn up or not, even if they’re shaatnez, provided they’re sent for the purpose of Yom Tov. But a spiked sandal cannot be sent [there was a special Takanah made by Chazal that spiked shoes may not be worn on a day when Jews get together due to an unfortunate stampede that once happened while Jews were hiding in a cave], nor a shoe that is not sewn together.
Rabbi Yehuda: Nor a white [undyed] shoe which needs a craftsman to complete it.
This is the rule: Anything that can be used on Yom Tov, may be sent.

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?]
 

Rabban Gamliel: He may even float them in water and pick the dirt off the top.

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.
 

Rav Papi happened to visit the home of Mar Shmuel [Shmuel was no longer alive then, he visited the family on Yom Tov], they brought him a porridge of crushed grain and he refused to eat.

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].
 

According to the Mishnah salt needs a shinui. According to Shmuel [and a Beraisa] it may be pounded without a shinui.

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]. 

One who rubs grain may blow it 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.

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.
 

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].

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.
 

We go back again (061): Rabbi Abahu quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: If Maaser was separated from ears of grain [before it became obligated in Terumah separation], it becomes Tevel with regard to Terumas Maaser [the Levi is obligated to separate Terumah, although it is not yet at a stage which would ordinarily require Terumah].

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]. 

The Mishnah (056) states that Terumah is not separated on Yom Tov. We learned that there is a case where one may separate Terumah on Yom Tov; if he originally brought grain in with the intention of making dough, he may eat it on Yom Tov by means of rubbing, yet he will have to separate Terumah. How do we reconcile this with the mishnah?

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. 

Rava quoted a Beraisa which permits rubbing grain on Yom Tov to remove the kernels. Abayye quoted a different Beraisa which seems to forbid rubbing the grain on Yom Tov since it mentions the law of one who rubbed grain “before Yom Tov” rather than “on Yom Tov”.

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?
 

Several opinions were expressed regarding bringing mattanos to a Kohen on Yom Tov. According to Rabbi Yosi, everyone agrees that bringing mattanos is permitted on Yom Tov, furthermore, Beis Hillel holds that even bringing Terumah is permitted on Yom Tov.

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?
 

Beis Shammai: One cannot bring challah and matnos kehunah to a kohen on Yom Tov whether it was separated before Yom Tov or on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel permit it.
The Gemara explains that since it seems there is no situation in which Beis Shammai would permit bringing mattanos on Yom Tov, our Mishnah must be said according to Acherim and not Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Yosi.
Rabbi Yehuda: Mattanos separated before Yom Tov may be brought on Yom Tov together with mattanos separated 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. 

It is forbidden to separate Terumah on Shabbos and Yom Tov, but one may separate Challah from a loaf being baked on Yom Tov. Our Mishnah discusses giving the separated Challah to a kohen, since once you’re giving you might separate what’s forbidden.

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.
 

The Mishnah discusses a debate between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the permissibility of carrying on Yom Tov. Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi explained that their argument hinges on the principle of ‘mitoch’. Rabbah raised a difficulty with this explanation which was resolved by Rav Yosef.

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. 

Mishnah (051): Beis Shammai: One cannot remove the shutters of booths on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel: It is permitted even to replace them.
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 [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!

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!
 

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 (51). 3. Returning the bandage on a plastered wound on Shabbos or Yom Tov in the Mikdash.
Rechava quoting Rabbi Yehuda: Another one should be added: 4. One who opens his keg or begins a dough on the Regel for the purpose of Yom Tov. This is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda (053) who said “he may finish”.

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!
 

Mishnah: Beis Shammai: One cannot remove the shutters of booths on Yom Tov. Beis Hillel: It is permitted even to replace them.

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.
 

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

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)].
 

Mishnah (048): Beis Shammai: Skin cannot be placed on the ground before the treaders, and it cannot even be handled unless it has a kzayis of meat stuck to it. Beis Hillel: It is permitted [because it is a melacha she’eino tzrichah legufah. Additionally it is being done with a shinui and is a davar she’eino miskavein].

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.
 

Mishnah:

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. 

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

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).
 

Mishna:

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].
 

We learned in the Mishna (040) that according to Beis Hillel, one must designate birds he would like to slaughter on Yom Tov, before Yom Tov. It was suggested that this is because Beis Hillel does not accept the principle of Bereirah - retroactive clarification - and so the exact birds must be selected before Yom Tov.

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.
 

We learned in the Mishna (040) that according to Beis Hillel, one must designate birds he would like to slaughter on Yom Tov, before Yom Tov. It was suggested that this is because Beis Hillel does not accept the principle of Bereirah - retroactive clarification - and so the exact birds must be selected before Yom Tov.

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].
 

Mishna:

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.
 

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. The Gemara brings two Mishnayos that seem to contradict this principle and Rabbi Yochanan’s response that “The Mishna is inverted in reporting the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai”. Both times the Gemara responds that perhaps these opinions are unique because of the unique circumstances involved. The Gemara is presently seeking a case where there is no unique circumstances and the opinions are inverted, about which it can be said that Rabbi Yochanan made his statement.

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.
 

Now comes easy Gemara…

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.]
 

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.
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.

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.