Previous daf

1)

(a) Chazal forbid declaring something Hekdesh on Shabbos and Yom-Tov - because it is resembles a business transaction (which in turn is forbidden, either because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Mim'tzo Cheftzecha", or because one may come to write - and they included Hekdesh, because of the similarity between them).

(b) They forbade separating Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov - even if it is one's intention to give it to the Kohen on the same day, in which case, it is not at all evident that he is separating the Ma'asros in order to rectify his own crops; maybe he is doing it in order to give it to the Kohen (Consequently, Tikun Mana will not necessarily apply).

(c) One is permitted to separate tithes on Shabbos and Yom-Tov - from fruit which only became obligated on Yom-Tov (such as a dough which was kneaded on Yom-Tov), and which could therefore be tithed earlier.

(a) Our Mishnah refers to the first group as 'Shevus', the second as 'Reshus' and the third, as' Mitzvah'. But surely - all three groups are called 'Sh'vus (since that is the term by which all Rabbinical decrees connected with Shabbos and Yom-Tov are called)?

(b) We answer that the Tana means to say here - that not only plain 'Sh'vus' is forbidden, but even 'Sh'vus' that pertains to 'Reshus', too; and not only 'Sh'vus' that pertains to 'Reshus', but even 'Sh'vus' that pertains to 'Mitzvah'.

(c) How can the Tana of our Mishnah write that whichever prohibitions apply to Shabbos, also apply to Yom-Tov - when we learned above in the Mishnah of Mashilin, that one may lower fruit via a skylight on Yom-Tov, but not on Shabbos?

(a) Rav Yosef initially reconciles the two Mishnahs by establishing the Mishnah of 'Mashilin' like Rebbi Eliezer, who rules that if an animal and its baby fell into a pit on Yom-Tov - one may bring up one of them, and feed the other one still in the pit; whereas the author of *our* Mishnah, is Rebbi Yehoshua.

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua permits bringing up the one animal (to Shecht and eat), and then deciding that the other one is probably better, and bringing that one up, too.

(c) Rav Yosef maintains that Rebbi Eliezer, who is strict regarding the animals that fell in the pit (in spite of the loss involved), is the author of our Mishnah, which forbids Yom-Tov no less than Shabbos (and he will consequently hold that they forbade lowering the fruit through the skylight even on Yom-Tov); whereas Rebbi Yehoshua, who permits bringing up both animals due to the loss that the owner will sustain, is the author of the Mishnah of Mashilin, which differentiates between them.

(d) Abaye queries Rav Yosef's comparison, however. In his opinion ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (who is strict in the case of 'Oso ve'es Be'no') may well concede that lowering fruit via the skylight will be permitted on Yom- Tov - because one does not have any alternative there, in the way that one has of feeding the second animal in the pit.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua (who is lenient by 'Oso ve'es Be'no') may well concede that lowering fruit will be forbidden - because one does not have the loophole of 'cheating', of making out that the second animal is better than the first (since everyone knows that he has no intention of eating the fruit that he threw down the skylight).

(a) Rav Papa finally connects our Mishnah and the Mishnah of Mashilin Peiros with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding carrying a child etc. - Beis Shamai, he maintains, who forbids 'Mitoch' on Yom-Tov, is the author of our Mitzvah, which permits only Ochel Nefesh on Yom-Tov, but nothing else; whereas, according to Beis Hillel, Yom-Tov is more lenient than Shabbos, both with regard 'Mitoch' and with regard to 'Mashilin Peiros'.

(b) We overrule the objection that Beis Shamai are only strict when it comes to *carrying* on Yom-Tov, but maybe in the case of Mashilin, which is only a matter of *Tiltul*, they will concede that Chazal were lenient - on the grounds that 'Tiltul' is a decree because one may come to carry. Consequently, whenever Chazal are stringent with regard to carrying, they will also be stringent with regard to Tiltul.

(a) Animals or vessels share the same Techum as their owners?

(b) The fact that the owner hands them to a shepherd or to his son on Yom- Tov will not make any difference.

(c) If the father dies - the animals or objects that currently belong to all the brothers, may go only up the furthest point that all they are permitted to go.

(d) Vessels (or clothes) that are being used by one of the brothers may go wherever he may go.

(a) If someone borrows a vessel *before* Yom-Tov, then it may go wherever the borrower may go; whereas if he borrowed it *on* Yom-Tov, then it follows the lender.

(b) If a woman borrows spices, water or salt from her friend on Yom-Tov - the cooked dish will be permitted to go only where both women are permitted to go.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah says that we ignore the water - because it is not visible in the dish.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah is speaking about a thick stew, as we shall see in the Gemara.

7)

(a) Rebbi Dosa (according to others, Aba Shaul) says that if someone buys an animal *before* Yom-Tov, the animal follows its new owner, even though he only received it *on* Yom-Tov - likewise, if someone gives his animal to a shepherd (even) on Yom-Tov, it follows the shepherd.

(b) It is possible to reconcile Rebbi Dosa with our Mishnah, which holds that, if one gave the animal to the shepherd *on* Yom-Tov, then it will follow the owner and not the shepherd - by establishing our Mishnah in a town where there are *two* shepherds, and it is not obvious before Yom-Tov as to which of the two the owner intends to give it.

(c) We prove that our Mishnah must be speaking in such a case - because the Tana says that he gave the animal to his son or to a shepherd (clearly indicating that he had two options).

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Dosa.

(a) The Techum of a coat which two people borrowed on Erev Yom-Tov (one to go to Shul in the morning, the other to go to a Se'udah in the evening) ...

1. ... if *one of them* made an Eiruv fifteen hundred Amos to the north, and the *other*, fifteen hundred Amos to the south - is the thousand Amos (five hundred Amos to the north and five hundred Amos to the south) that is common to both of them (not counting the town itself).
2. ... if *one of them* made an Eiruv two thousand Amos to the north, and the *other*, two thousand Amos to the south - is confined to the town itself, and not even one Amah in either direction?

(b) If two people bought a barrel of wine on Erev Yom-Tov, Rav permits each one, to take his share of the wine to wherever *he* is allowed to go, because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'. According to Shmuel - each one may take it only within the area that is common to both of them, because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(c) Rav concedes however, that if they bought an animal (to Shecht and divide the meat), that they may only take their respective portions to whichever area they are *both* permitted to go - on the grounds that each one's portion in the animal feeds from the other's (and therefore forbids the other one to carry beyond that owner's borders.

(d) Rav's disciples Rav Kahana and Rav Asi query his distinction between a barrel of wine and an animal ('le'Isur Muktzah Lo Chasheshu ... ') - on the grounds that if that argument is insufficient to render the animal Muktzah (to say that each one was Maktzeh (withheld) his portion from the other one's use), then why should we apply it with regard to the Isur of Techumin?

(a) Rav Hoshaya holds 'Yesh Bereirah' (like Rav - after Rav Kahana and Rav Asi's objection). Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(b) We query the opinion of Rav Hoshaya however, on the basis of a Mishnah in Ohalos (which we already quoted on Daf 10a, and) which he explains in the light of 'Ein Bereirah'. To answer this, we initially switch the opinions of Rav Hoshaya and Rebbi Yochanan, so that Rav Hoshaya now holds 'Ein Bereirah', to conform with his opinion regarding the Mishnah in Ohalos.

(c) The Mishnah in Ohalos states that a corpse in the house renders all the doorways (together with any vessels that are lying there) Tamei. If however, they decided (according to Beis Hillel, even *after* the man died), that they would carry him out through a specific doorway, then *that* doorway is Tamei, but not the others. This applies exclusively, to vessels that are placed there from now on, says to Rav Hoshaya, but vessels that where there beforehand remain Tamei - because Rav Hoshaya holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

(d) But that leaves us with a problem in Rebbi Yochanan - who now holds 'Yesh Bereirah' - clashing with what he himself says with regard to brothers who divided the property that they inherited from their father. Rebbi Yochanan says there that they have the Din of buyers (as if they had bought from one another whichever section each one owned), and the property returns to the kitty in the Yovel year (which it would not do if they had they had the Din of heirs). This indicates that he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

Next daf