Previous daf

1)

(a) One may dip olives in salt and still eat them without having to separate Ma'asros - because salting does not fix for Ma'asros?

(b) If one takes ten olives from a Ma'atan, the Tana Kama in a Mishnah in Ma'asros obligates separating Ma'asros. A Ma'atan - is a large vat into which one places the olives before pressing, to become hot. This in turn, causes the oil to boil inside them, to be ready to emerge when they are subsequently placed in the oil-press.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer obligates the olives to be Ma'asered - if the Ma'atan from which he took out the olives was Tahor (since then he can no longer re-place them - as we shall now see), but not, if it was Tamei.

(d) We are speaking about a Tamei person - which explains why he cannot return the olives to a Tahor Ma'atan.

(a) In light of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion in the Mishnah in Ma'asros (that as long as one is able to return the fruit, it is not considered fixed) - how can we ascribe Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah to the verbal designation (and not because of Shabbos, as Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman contends), seeing as there too, one can return the remainder of the figs to the Muktzah?

(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish our Mishnah too, by a Muktzah which is Tahor and a person who is Tamei (proving our rebuttal of Mar Zutra's proof for his father to be correct)?

(c) This explanation however, is unacceptable - because technically, the figs have in fact, already been returned (irrespective of whether the Muktzah is Tamei or Tahor), seeing as he did not even take them out, but only designated them verbally. Consequently, our Kashya in a. remains unanswered (and Mar Zutra's proof for his father's statement, acceptable).

(d) Rav Shimi bar Ashi refutes Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman's proof from our Mishnah by pointing out that the author is *Rebbi Eliezer*, who says in a Mishnah in Ma'asros that Terumah fixes - and if Terumah fixes, then Kal va'Chomer Shabbos (whose eating is Chashuv - from the Pasuk "ve'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg"). Rava asked his original She'eilah from Rav Nachman according to the *Rabbanan*, in whose opinion Terumah does *not* fix.

(a) We try to prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Rabbanan permit the fruit in the Muktzah in the Sh'mitah-year, when one designated it specifically and said 'mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Ka'an', implying that, in other years of the cycle, the fruit would be forbidden. Is this not because Shabbos fixes - the resolution to Rava's She'eilah?

(b) This proof, too, is refuted however - on the grounds that it is not Shabbos which fixes, according to the Chachamim, but the fact that he both designated and marked the fruit.

(c) In a Mishnah in Terumos, Rebbi Eliezer holds that if someone enters a Chatzer eating a cluster of grapes, he may continue to eat - and the same applies to someone who is eating a cluster of grapes and Shabbos enters.

(d) We reconcile this statement with his earlier one that Shabbos fixes for Ma'asros by establishing *this* Mishnah according to Rebbi Nasan - who explains that Rebbi Eliezer does not permit him to continue eating in the Chatzer (in the Reisha) or on Shabbos (in the Seifa), but only to leave the Chatzer or to wait for Motza'ei Shabbos and continue eating. (This is because he did not fix the grapes for Se'udas Shabbos, like the children did in the case that we cited at the beginning of the Sugya - where the fruit was forbidden, even on Motza'ei Shabbos. See also Tosfos DH 've'Lo').

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Mishnah in Terumos, holds that if someone enters a courtyard eating a cluster of grapes, he must stop eating until he has Ma'asered them - because, in his opinion, a Chatzer fixes for Ma'asros, even fruit that has not yet reached the stage where it is ready to eat.

(b) And he holds the same with regard to eating from a cluster of grapes where he has to stop with the entry of Shabbos - for the same reason (Note: This seems to resolve Rava's She'eilah, and it is not clear as to why the Gemara does not say so.)

(a) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that Shabbos, Terumah, Chatzer and Mekach, all have the same Din regarding fixing for Ma'asros - inasmuch as they only fix something that has reached the stage where it is ready to eat.

(b) He said this with regard to Shabbos, in order to preclude from Hillel, with regard to Chatzer, from Rebbi Ya'akov, and with regard to Terumah, from Rebbi Eliezer (with regard to Mekach, we shall see later).

1. Hillel - forbade fruit that was put out to dry and Shabbos arrived.
2. Rebbi Ya'akov - forbade the family of someone who put out fruit to dry in his courtyard to eat of it without separating Ma'asros.
3. Rebbi Eliezer - forbade someone who separated Terumah before the G'mar Melachah (the final stage that causes them to become subject to Ma'asros) to eat from it, even casually.

6)

(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to Mekach conforms with the Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Te'einim me'Am ha'Aretz, be'Makom she'Rov B'nei Adam Dorsin, Ochel Meihen Ara'i, u'Me'asran D'mai'.

(b) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan is lenient in this case as well as in all the other cases - provided the fruit was not taken into the house or the Chatzer (because if it was, then one is immediately forbidden to eat from it until Ma'asros have been separated.

(c) Besides the current Chidush (that Mekach does not fix fruit for Ma'asros before it reaches the stage of G'mar Melachah), the Beraisa also teaches us - that the majority of Amei ha'Aretz tend to separate Ma'asros and that the obligation to separate D'mai from the produce of an Am-ha'Aretz extends even to something that has not yet reached the stage when it is ready to eat.

(d) We derive from this Beraisa that most Amei ha'Aretz separate Ma'asros - since the Tana says 'Me'asran *D'mai* (which implies a leniency), and not just 'Me'asran'.

(a) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to Mekach comes to preclude from Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'asros - which says that if two friends exchange fruit, they are both obligated to separate Ma'asros, irrespective of whether they both intended to eat the fruit, to put it out to dry (which renders it not ready to eat) or if one of them intends to eat it, and the other, to put it out to dry.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - it is only if the person who exchanged fruit intends to *eat* it, that he needs to separate Ma'asros, but not if he intends to put it out to dry.

(c) According to The Tana Kama, Mekach fixes for Ma'asros even by something that is *not* yet ready to eat; whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it only fixes something that *is* ready to eat (which is how Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules).

8)

(a) 'Mashilin Peiros Derech Arubah' - speaks about grain that the owner has placed on the roof to dry, and he then sees that a thunder-storm is brewing - Chazal permitted him to throw the grain through a skylight to the floor below, in spite of the trouble that one is taking on Yom-Tov.

(b) This concession is restricted to Yom-Tov - and does not extend to Shabbos.

(c) Even on Yom-Tov however - this concession is restricted to throwing the grain through a skylight that is set horizontally in the floor of the roof (since that entails a minimal exertion); it does not extend to throwing it through a window, since it needs to be picked up before throwing it.

(a) If rain threatens to spoil one's fruit, jars of wine or of oil - one may cover them with overturned vessels.

(b) Even though none of these things constitute excessive bother, they require a special dispensation in order to be permitted - because they are not being performed for the needs of Yom-Tov.

(c) If water is dripping into one's house - one is permitted to place a vessel underneath the leak, in order to keep one's house clean. Note: The water must be drinkable, or at least usable; otherwise, this would be forbidden because of the prohibition of 'Bitul K'li me'Heichano' (rendering a vessel unusable by making it a base for Muktzah to fall into) see Tosfos Yom-Tov.

(a) One opinion proves from the Pasuk "Ki Yishal Zeisecha" - that those who have the text in our Mishnah of '*Mashilin* Peiros' have not erred; and another from the Mishnah in Bechoros '*ha'Shechol* ve'ha'Kesul' (both blemishes of an animal) - that those who have the text 'Mashchilin' have not erred. 'Shechol' - means that one of the animal's thighs became dislocated and dropped.

(b)

1. A third opinion learns that 'Masirin' would be appropriate - from the Mishnah in Nazir - where Rebbi Yishmael forbids a Nazir to rub his head with clay - 'Mipnei she'*Meisir* es ha'Se'ar' (because it removes - *takes down* - the hair).
2. A fourth, from the Mishnah in Keilim '*ha'Shechor* ve'ha'Zug shel Saparim ... Temei'im', that 'Mashchirin' is appropriate. A Shechor - is a razor (so- called because it removes (*takes down*) the hair.
3. A fifth, from the Mishnah in Shabbos 'Mi she'*Nashru* Keilav ba'Mayim' that 'Manshirin' is appropriate - because 'Nashru' means - *fell down* into the water.

(c) We might also learn this latter Lashon from the Mishnah in Pei'ah - 'Eizehu Leket, *ha'Nosher* be'Sha'as Ketzirah'.

(a) The Mishnah in Shabbos permits clearing away four or five boxes of straw to make room to sit - either because of the guests ('Kavod Orchim'), or because of 'Bitul Beis-Hamedrash' (the Talmidim do not have sufficient room to sit).

(b) The Gemara tries to compare our Mishnah to the Mishnah in Shabbos, to permit lowering four or five boxes down a skylight on Yom-Tov. We decline to apply the leniency from the Mishnah in Shabbos to our Mishnah for one of two reasons, one of them because the reason of Bitul Beis Hamedrash does not apply here. The other reason is - because people tend to treat Shabbos more seriously than Yom-Tov (where the Torah permits Ochel Nefesh). Consequently, there are occasions where Chazal can afford to be lenient with regard to Shabbos (in the knowledge, that people will not take advantage of the leniency), whereas by Yom-Tov, they are afraid to make the same concession.

(c) On the other hand, we suggest that perhaps in our case, even more than four or five boxes will be permitted - because of Hefsed Mamon (a loss of money), which applies here on Yom-Tov, but not in the case of Shabbos.