1)

(a)We query the previous answer from a Mishnah in Ma'asros. 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 - (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), the Tana Kama there obligates separating Ma'asros.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer obligates the olives to be Ma'asered - only 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)Rebbi Avahu establishes the Reisha of Rebbi Eliezer by a Tahor Ma'atan and a Tamei person and the Seifa, vice-versa - to explain why, in the Reisha, he may not return the olives, whereas in the Seifa, he may.

2)

(a)There is no problem with the fact that the remaining olives in the Ma'atan became Tamei when he took some of them - since they can be removed.

(b)We have now proved - that as long as one is able to return those that one does not need, it is not considered Achilas Keva (so if Rebbi Eliezer is speaking about verbal designation, why is he stringent regarding the other years of the Shemitah?).

(c)We refute the suggestion that there too, Rebbi Eliezer is speaking where the Muktzeh is Tahor and the person, Tamei - because even if it is, since he only designated the figs verbally, they do not even require returning to be considered Arai, so why are they forbidden?!

3)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi therefore cites a Mishnah in Ma'asros - where Rebbi Eliezer forbids fruits that one Ma'asered even prior to the Gmar Melachah (the final stage that causes them to become subject to Ma'asros).

(b)The Rabanan - permit it.

(c)Rav Shimi bar Ashi now learns from there - that if Terumah is considered Keva, 'Kal-va'Chomer', Shabbos (whose eating is Chashuv, as we learned above, based on the Pasuk "v'Karasa la'Shabbos Oneg").

(d)He therefore refute Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman's proof from our Mishnah - in that whereas we already know that Rebbi Eliezer forbids fruits that one Ma'asered even prior to the Gmar Melachah, Rava's initial She'eilah is according to the Rabanan.

4)

(a)We try to prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Rabanan permit the fruit in the Muktzeh in the Shemitah-year, when one designated it specifically and said 'mi'Kan v'Ad Kan' - implying that, in other years of the cycle, the fruit is forbidden, presumably because Shabbos fixes - (the resolution to Rava's She'eilah).

(b)We refute this proof, too however - by suggesting that it is not Shabbos that fixes, according to the Chachamim, but the fact that one both designated and marked the fruit.

5)

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

(b)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 Motzei Shabbos and continue eating ...

(c)... because he did not fix the grapes for Seudas Shabbos ...

(d)... like the children did in the case that we cited at the beginning of the Sugya - where the fruit was forbidden, even on Motzei Shabbos (See also Tosfos DH 'v'Lo').

6)

(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 before the Gmar Melachah.

(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.

(c)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 of Gmar Melachah.

(d)He said this with regard to Shabbos, in order to preclude from Hillel; with regard to Chatzer, from Rebbi Yakov, and with regard to Terumah, from Rebbi Eliezer (with regard to Mekach, we shall see later).

1. Hillel - forbids fruit that was put out to dry and Shabbos arrived.

2. Rebbi Yakov - forbids the family of someone who put out fruit to dry in his courtyard to eat of it without separating Ma'asros.

3. Rebbi Eliezer - forbids someone who separated Terumah before the Gmar Melachah to eat from it, even casually.

7)

(a)According to R. Yehudah in a Beraisa, if someone who transports fruit from one place to another to be cut when Shabbos arrives - Hillel 'himself' forbids it.

(b)'Hillel himself' means - that although he himself forbade it, his contemporaries disagreed with him.

(c)In the Mishnah in Ma'asros, the Tana Kama permits the family to eat Arai without Ma'asering, figs that the owner transported to the Chatzer to be cut. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this ruling. Rebbi Yakov - forbids it.

(d)In another Mishnah in Ma'asros, the Chachamim permit fruit that was Ma'asered before the Gmar Melachah to be eaten Arai. Rebbi Eliezer - forbids it.

8)

(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'. The Beraisa goes on to say - b'Makom she'Rov Bnei Adam Dorsin, Ochel Meihen Arai, u'Me'asran Demai'.

(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)The basic Chidush that the Tana is coming to teach us is - that Mekach does not fix fruit for Ma'asros before it reaches the stage of Gmar Melachah.

(d)The Tana teaches us two additional Chidushim. One of them is that the majority of Amei ha'Aretz tend to separate Ma'asros. The other - that the obligation to separate Demai from the produce of an Am-ha'Aretz extends even to something that has not yet reached the stage of Gmar Melachah.

9)

(a)We derive from this Beraisa that most Amei ha'Aretz separate Ma'asros - since the Tana says 'Me'asran Demai (implying that it is only a Chumra), and not just 'Me'asran'.

(b)'Me'asran Demai' actually means - that one is exempt from separating Terumah Gedolah (which even an Am ha'Aretz certainly separated).

10)

(a)Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement with regard to Mekach comes to preclude from Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Ma'asros - who rules that if two friends exchange fruit, they are both obligated to separate Ma'asros, irrespective of whether they both intended to eat it or to put it out to dry (which renders it inedible) 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 exchanges 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 ...

(d)... which is how Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan (on the previous Amud) rules.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah 'Mashilin Peiros Derech Arubah' - is referring to someone who places grain on the roof to dry, and he then sees that a thunder-storm is brewing. The Mishnah permits him to throw the grain through a skylight to the floor below, in spite of the trouble (Tircha) that one is taking on Yom-Tov.

(b)This concession applies on Yom-Tov - but not to Shabbos.

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

12)

(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 Kli me'Heichano' (rendering a vessel unusable by making it a base for Muktzeh to fall into) see Tosfos Yom-Tov.

13)

(a)One opinion proves from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "Ki Yishal Zeisecha" - that those who have the text in our Mishnah of 'Mashilin Peiros' have not erred.

2. ... the Mishnah in Bechoros 'ha'Shechol v'ha'Kesul' (both blemishes of an animal) - that those who have the text 'Mashchilin' have not erred. 'ha'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 Kelim 'ha'Shechor v'ha'Zug shel Saparim ... Teme'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 that they (his clothes) fell down into the water.

(c)We might also learn this latter Lashon from the Mishnah in Pe'ah - 'Eizehu Leket - ha'Nosher b'Sha'as Ketzirah' (What is Leket? -- That which falls at the time of the harvest).

14)

(a)The Mishnah in Shabbos gives two reasons for permitting one to clear away four or five boxes of straw to make room to sit. One of them is in honor of one's guests ('Kavod Orchim') - the other because of 'Bitul Beis-Hamedrash' (to make for the Talmidim to sit whist learning).

(b)Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Asi (or Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan) learn from there - that our Mishnah too, will permit lowering four or five boxes down a skylight on Yom-Tov.

(c)We refute this comparison however, for one of two reasons, one of them because neither Bitul Beis-Hamedrash nor Kavod Orchim apply here. The other - because people tend to treat Shabbos more seriously than Yom-Tov (where the Torah permits Ochel Nefesh). Consequently, if the Chachamim are lenient with regard to Shabbos, it does follow that they are equally lenient with regard to Yom-Tov.

(d)It may well be that Our Mishnah will not allow quite so many boxes.

(e)On the other hand, the Tana might permit even more than four or five boxes - because of Hefsed Mamon (loss of money), which applies here on Yom-Tov, but not in the case of Shabbos.