Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Chulin permits Shechting a bird that survived twenty-four hours after being trodden on, hit against a wall or one that was crushed by an animal.

(b) The animal must also be a 'Mefarcheses' (unable to stand up) - in order to fall under the category of 'Risuk Eivarim'.

(c) Having Shechted it (without waiting for it to recover) - one is not permitted to eat it immediately, before one has examined it for 'Risuk Eivarim'.

(d) Despite the fact that the bird needs to be examined, it must also survive twenty-four hours - because if it does not, the fact that it was crushed and did not survive, renders it a 'Risuk Eivarim', even if the examination reveals no defect.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira whether one is permitted to Shecht such a bird on Yom-Tov - bearing in mind that one may well discover that it is a 'Risuk Eivarim', and the Shechitah will then have been in vain. (This is not comparable to the Shechitah of all animals, which is permitted despite the fact one will later need to examine the lungs, and it may turn out to be a Tereifah - because all animals are assumed to be Kasher [as we learned above]), and their examination is only a Minhag, rather than an absolute Halachic requirement.)

(b) Rebbi Zeira resolved the She'eilah from our Mishnah - which prohibits the heating of tiles on Yom-Tov, because they need to be tested (as we learned a little earlier).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah rejected Rebbi Zeira's proof however - on the grounds that he followed the other reason stated there ('Mipnei she'Tzarich le'Chasman' - because they need to be strengthened).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that if one person lights the flame, another places wood, a third places the pot on the stove, and a fourth pours in the water, yet another adds spices and another stirs, they are all Chayav (on Shabbos). We reconcile this Beraisa with the Beraisa which states that only the last one is Chayav - by establishing this Beraisa when the first person lit the flame (as the Tana presents the case); whereas the second Beraisa speaks when it was the last one who lit the flame.

(b) The person who places the empty pot on the stove is Chayav - only when pot is a new one, in which case heating it strengthens it (and he is Chayav because of 'Tikun K'li').

(c) One *may* move an oven on Shabbos - because it is fit to put things in.

(d) On Yom-Tov, smearing it with oil and rubbing it with a cloth are forbidden. Cooling it down with cold water is sometimes forbidden and sometimes permitted. It is ...

1. ... forbidden - if it is to strengthen it.
2. ... permitted - if it is to cool it down in order to prevent the bread that one intends to bake in it from getting burned.

(a) One may ...

1. ... boil the head or feet of a bird in boiling water (in order to remove the hair) on Yom-Tov.
2. ... not however, smear them with lime or earth - because this is the method used by tanners to tan the skin.
3. ... remove the hair with scissors - because it looks as if he is doing this for the hair.

(b) One is not permitted to cut the leaves off vegetables with the scissors with which one usually cuts them from the ground - because people will think that he cut them from the ground on Yom-Tov.

(c) On Yom-Tov, one may ...

1. ... prepare even vegetables whose preparation entails a lot of effort.
2. ... heat up and cook (a large amount of food) in a Purni (an extra large oven - which entails more work than a regular one, because the door is on the *side* rather than *on top*), or in a large water-kettle - because that is what is needed.

(d) One may not, on the other hand, use a *new* Purni - because it might crack from the heat (and one will have undertaken a lot of trouble in vain).

(a) One may not fan the flames of a fire using bellows - because it looks like a professional job.

(b) One may however, fan the flames by blowing through a tube. (c) One is not permitted to prepare a spit-rod for roasting, repair it or sharpen it, if it could have been done before Yom-Tov - even according to Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) One may ...

1. ... not break up a bamboo into strips to use as a base for frying - because it constitutes 'Tikun Mana'.
2. ... break a nut wrapped in a cloth, even if there is a good chance that the cloth will tear - because even if it does, tearing which destroys is not a Tikun and only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (in which case, to forbid it, would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah).

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer permits standing by a Muktzah on Erev Shabbos in the Shmitah-year and designating it verbally - he is referring to a food which is partially ready to eat (i.e. which some people will eat as it is and others will not), and designating it, demonstrates that he is among those who do eat it as it is (as we learned above on 26b).

(b) This Din applies specifically to the Sh'mitah-year - because, in any other year of the cycle, the fruit would need to be Ma'asered first, and would therefore not be fit to eat.

(c) The reason that the Tana mentions a Muktzah - is because fruit in a Muktzah is generally not Ma'asered (which explains in turn, why he has to speak specifically about the Sh'mitah year.

(d) The Rabbanan say that verbal designation is not sufficient, but that one must actually mark the fruit that he intends to use on Yom-Tov, because they hold 'Ein Bereirah; whereas Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.

7)

(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros, which states that if children put away figs on Erev Shabbos and then, and then forgot about them, one is forbidden to eat them on Motza'ei Shabbos without Ma'asering them first - comes to teach us that, although fruit only becomes Chayav be'Ma'asros (i.e. one may no longer eat even a casual meal) once one brings it into the house or the courtyard, Shabbos has the same effect as bringing it into the house (because each meal on Shabbos is considered fixed - and eating a fixed meal is forbidden even *before* the food enters the house or the Chatzer).

(b) The reason that the Tana mentions specifically children - is to teach us that as long as it is accompanied by a clear-cut act (such as in this case), the Machshavah of a child effectively determines what a fruit is to be used for (such as in our case, where the children's Machshavah, in conjunction with their having put it away for Shabbos, determined it as a Shabbos food).

(c) Another Mishnah there teaches us that if someone puts out figs in the Chatzer to dry, his family are permitted to eat them casually without having to separate Ma'asros - because, a Chatzer only fixes fruit for Ma'asros, if it is ready to eat (and it is only figs that one intends to eat as they are, that are ready to eat, but not figs that one puts out to dry).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg" - that whatever one eats on Shabbos is considered fixed (i.e. that there is no such thing as a casual meal on Shabbos).

(b) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether Shabbos causes Muktzah to become fixed - he was asking him whether Shabbos fixes by something that has not yet reached the stage of Ma'asros (which is what is meant here by 'Muktzah'), just like it fixes by something that has not yet entered the house or the Chatzer.

(c) Rav Nachman replied that is *is*. Consequently - once one *designates* the food for Shabbos, it becomes forbidden to eat even on Motza'ei Shabbos (without Ma'asering it first); if one does *not*, then it is forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos (even just a snack), but is permitted the moment Shabbos goes out.

(d) Rava queried Rav Nachman - on the grounds that he saw no reason that Shabbos should fix for Ma'aser before the food is ready to eat, any more than Chatzer does.

(a) Mar Zutra, Rav Nachman's son, tries to prove his father's point from our Mishnah, where Rebbi Eliezer permits verbal designation on Erev Shabbos in the Sh'mitah-year - implying that, on any other year of the cycle, verbal designation would not help. Is that not because Shabbos fixes for Ma'aser even by something that has not yet reached the stage of Ma'aser (such as a Muktzah)?

(b) We refute this proof however - because it may well be that it is not *Shabbos* that fixes there, but the *verbal designation* that he made.

(c) The Gemara asks that, if it is the designation that renders them fixed, then why does the Tana need to mention Shabbos, seeing as the same will apply on a weekday? In other words, let the Tana not mention Shabbos, and move the Mishnah from here to Ma'asros.

(d) We answer that the Tana found it necessary to teach us this Din specifically with regard to Shabbos - to include the additional Chidush that Tevel is Muchan regarding Shabbos, and is not Muktzah (as we shall now see).

(a) Tevel is not 'Muktzah Machmas Isur' (as a result of the prohibition of separating Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov) - because the Isur of separate Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov is only mi'de'Rabbanan (i.e. if it would be an Isur d'Oraysa, then it would indeed, be Muktzah).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah means to imply that one is *not permitted to separate Ma'asros* in any other year (but not that the fruit is forbidden). If he had meant to imply that the *fruit is forbidden in the other years (because it is Muktzah Machmas Isur) - then he should have said something like 'ha'Omed al ha'Muktzah ... ve'Omer ... le'Machar, *Harei Zeh min ha'Muchan*' (from which we would be able to imply that in other years, it would *not be* min ha'Muchan).