Question: Chalitzah and Yibum should be categorized as a Mitzvah, not a Reshus!?

Answer: We are speaking where there is an older brother.

Question: Why, indeed, are all of the above not permitted?

Answer: Lest one come to write.

Making something Hekdesh, pledging the value of an individual and consecrating an object are prohibited owing to their similarity to a business transaction.

Question: Is this prohibition not obvious?

Answer: We might have permitted it when one intends to give them to the Kohen that day (which is indeed the case when the produce became Tevel on Shabbos or Yom Tov, not the day before).

Question: The Reshus activities (once prohibited) are Shevus prohibitions, as are the Mitzvah activities!?

Answer: The Tana is building the statement of prohibition from the obvious (Shevus) to even Mitzvah.

Question: But the Mishnah (speaking of lowering fruit via a skylight) permits on Yom Tov but not on Shabbos!?

Answer (R. Yosef): The Mishnah of Mashilin is the view of R. Yehoshua (who permits, on Yom Tov, bringing up both animals with a Ha'aramah) whereas our Mishnah is the view of R. Eliezer (who does not permit bringing up the second animal, which may not be slaughtered on that day) [see explanations for the relationship between this Machlokes and the distinction between Shabbos and Yom Tov].

Question (Abaye): Perhaps even R. Eliezer would permit the Ha'aramah if there were no way to sustain the other animal in the pit, or R. Yehoshua would prohibit if there were no reasonable Ha'aramah (as in our Mishnah where all would prohibit)?

Answer (R. Papa): Our Mishnah (prohibiting lowering through the skylight even on Yom Tov) is actually the view of Beis Shamai (who prohibit carrying items not needed for Ochel Nefesh on Yom Tov) while the previous Mishnah is Beis Hillel (who permits such carrying, and the associated Muktzah, making Yom Tov more lenient than Shabbos).

Question: Perhaps Beis Shamai are only strict when it comes to carrying on Yom Tov (but not by Mashilin, which is only a matter of Tiltul)?

Answer: Tiltul itself is prohibited because one may come to carry (so that the stringency of carrying will always be associated with an Isur Tiltul).

Animals and vessels share the same Techum as their owners and handing them to another (on Yom Tov) will not alter their Techum.

Articles associated with one (inheriting) brother bear his Techum while those not specifically associated with one brother are restricted to the common Techum of all the brothers.

If someone borrows a vessel before Yom Tov, its Techum is that of the borrower; whereas if he borrowed it on Yom Tov, then its Techum remains that of the lender.

If one woman borrows spices, water or salt from another on Yom Tov the cooked dish will be restricted to the common Techum of both women.

(R. Yehudah): We discount the water since it is not noticeable in the cooked dish.

Question: Our Mishnah appears to disagree with R. Dosa (or Aba Shaul) who allows the Techum of an article to follow the recipient even if received on Yom Tov!?

Answer: Our Mishnah speaks in a town where there are two shepherds (and thus his intent is not obvious before Yom Tov), as indicated by the options 'shepherd or son' mentioned in the Mishnah.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah follows R. Dosa.

Question: But R. Yochanan ruled that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah (which states that the Techum follows the owner unless it was transferred before Yom Tov)!?

Answer: This has already been addressed above (by differentiating between one shepherd and two).

(Beraisa): A coat which two people borrowed on Erev Yom Tov is restricted to the Techum which is common to both of them (with the given illustrations).

(Rav): If two people jointly purchased a barrel of wine on Erev Yom Tov each one may take his share of the wine to his Techum (Yesh Bereirah) while a jointly purchased animal would be restricted to the common Techum.

(Shmuel): The barrel is also restricted to their common Techum (Ein Bereirah).

Question: Rav seems inconsistent to either position regarding Bereirah!?

Answer: He holds Yesh Bereirah but the animal is one unit (each portion in the animal is nourished by the other) and is thus restricted to the common Techum.

Question (R. Kahana and R. Asi) If this 'oneness' does not create an Isur Muktzah then it should not either create the Isur of Techumin!?

Answer (Rav): No answer (see Rif and Meiri for various interpretations of Rav's silence).

Question: What, in the end, is the decision?

Answer: R. Hoshaya holds Yesh Bereirah; R. Yochanan holds Ein Bereirah.

Question: But we find that R. Hoshaya holds Ein Bereirah (since he explains Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai in Ohalos as speaking from this point forward, but one's thoughts will not retroactively select the opening)!?

Answer: Switch the opinions of R. Hoshaya and R. Yochanan.

Question: But we can show that R. Yochanan does not hold of Bereirah (the divided properties are not viewed as retroactively divided)!?

Answer: R. Yochanan would allow Bereirah in a d'Rabanan.

Question: But we see (from his position regarding conditional Eruvei Techumin) that R. Yochanan does not hold of Bereirah even in a d'Rabanan!?

Answer: Indeed, do not switch their positions.

Question: Then what of R. Hoshaya?

Answer: He does not hold of Bereirah for a d'Oraisa, but he allows Bereirah in a d'Rabanan (e.g. Techumin).

(Mar Zutra): The Halachah follows R. Hoshaya.