(a)Why did Chazal forbid declaring something Hekdesh on Shabbos and Yom-Tov?
(b)What is the source for the prohibition?
(c)They also forbade the separation of Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov. Why is it not obvious that this is Asur, seeing as it resembles 'Tikun Mana'?
(d)Which kind of tithes is one permitted to separate on Shabbos and Yom-Tov?
1)
(a)Chazal forbade declaring something Hekdesh on Shabbos and Yom-Tov - because it resembles a business transaction, which is forbidden ...
(b)... either because of the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Mim'tzo Cheftzecha", or because one may come to write.
(c)They also forbade the separation of Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, even if one intends to give it to the Kohen on the same day. In that case, it is not necessarily obvious that he is doing it in order to rectify his crops (which would obviously be forbidden because of 'Tikun Mana' - since he may well be doing it in order to give it to the Kohen.
(d)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 not be tithed earlier.
2)
(a)Our Mishnah refers to the first group as 'Shevus', the second as 'Reshus' and the third, as' Mitzvah'. What problem do we have with that?
(b)How do we resolve it?
(c)It appears from the Tana of our Mishnah that whichever prohibitions apply on Shabbos, also apply to Yom-Tov. What is the problem with this from the Mishnah of 'Mashilin Peiros'?
2)
(a)Our Mishnah refers to the first group as 'Shevus', the second as 'Reshus' and the third, as' Mitzvah'. The problem with this is - that - all three groups fall under the category of 'Shevus' (since that is the term that is used in connection with Rabbinical decrees connected with Shabbos and Yom-Tov).
(b)We resolve the problem by explaining the Tana to mean - that not only plain Shevus is forbidden, but even Shevus that pertains to Reshus, too; and not only Shevus that pertains to Reshus, but even Shevus that pertains to Mitzvah.
(c)It appears from the Tana of our Mishnah that whichever prohibitions apply on Shabbos, also apply to Yom-Tov. The problem with this is from the Mishnah of 'Mashilin Peiros' - which permits lowering fruit via a skylight on Yom-Tov, but not on Shabbos.
3)
(a)To resolve the discrepancy, Rav Yosef cites a Beraisa, which discusses an animal and its baby that fell into a deep pit on Yom-Tov. Rebbi Eliezer permits taking one of the animals out and Shechting it. What about the second one?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?
(c)How does Rav Yosef connect the two Mishnahs to the two opinions?
(d)Abaye however, queries Rav Yosef's comparison. Why might ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (who is strict in the case of 'Oso v'es B'no') concede that lowering fruit via the skylight might be permitted on Yom-Tov?
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua (who is lenient by 'Oso v'es B'no') concede that lowering fruit might be forbidden?
3)
(a)To resolve the discrepancy, Rav Yosef cites a Beraisa, which discusses an animal and its baby that fell into a deep pit on Yom-Tov. Rebbi Eliezer permits taking one of the animals out and Shechting it - and feeding the one on the pit.
(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 now explains 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 equates Yom Tov with Shabbos; whereas Rebbi Yehoshua, who permits bringing up both animals due to the financial loss, is the author of the Mishnah of Mashilin, which differentiates between them.
(d)Abaye however, queries Rav Yosef's comparison. In his opinion ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer) may well concede that lowering fruit via the skylight will be permitted on Yom-Tov - because whereas here (in the case of 'Oso v'es Bno'), one has the option of feeding the second animal, there one has no alternative (to save the fruit).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua may well concede that lowering fruit will be forbidden - because unlike here, the owner does have the possibility of 'Ha'aramah' ('cheating'), in the way that he does here (since everyone knows that he has no intention of eating the fruit that he threw down the skylight).
4)
(a)Rav Papa finally equates our Mishnah and the Mishnah of Mashilin Peiros with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding carrying a child ... (which we already cited in the first Perek). How does he do this? What exactly is the connection?
(b)On what grounds do we overrule the suggestion 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 (carrying the fruit), they will concede that Chazal are lenient?
4)
(a)Rav Papa finally equates our Mishnah and the Mishnah of Mashilin Peiros with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding carrying a child ... (which we already cited in the first Perek). He explains - that Beis Shamai, who forbids doing so on Yom-Tov because he does hold of 'Mitoch' on Yom-Tov, is the author of our Mitzvah, which confines 'Ochel Nefesh' on Yom-Tov to the preparation of food; whereas, according to Beis Hillel, who permits it on account of 'Mitoch' - is also more lenient on Yom-Tov with regard to 'Mashilin Peiros'.
(b)We overrule the suggestion 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 regarding carrying, they will also be stringent regarding Tiltul.
5)
(a)How does our Mishnah define the Techum of animals and vessels on Yom-Tov?
(b)What if the owner hands them to a shepherd or to his son on Yom-Tov?
(c)And what will be the Techum assuming that the father dies, and his property now falls to his heirs?
(d)Under which circumstances will vessels or clothes share the Techum of just one of the brothers?
5)
(a)Our Mishnah defines the Techum of animals and vessels on Yom-Tov as - the same Techum as their owners ...
(b)... even if the owner hands them to a shepherd or to his son on Yom-Tov.
(c)If a father dies - the animals or objects that currently belong to his heirs may go only up the furthest point that all they are permitted to go.
(d)Vessels or clothes will share the Techum of just one of the brothers - if they are designated for his specific use.
6)
(a)When does a vessel share the Techum of the borrower, and when does it share the Techum of the lender?
(b)What will be the Din if a woman borrows spices, water or salt from her friend on Yom-Tov? To whose Techum is the cooked dish bound?
(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about water?
(d)What kind of dish is Rebbi Yehudah referring to?
6)
(a)A vessel shares the Techum of the borrower - if he borrowed it before Yom-Tov; whereas if he borrowed it only on Yom-Tov, then it shares the Techum of the lender.
(b)If a woman borrows spices, water or salt from her friend on Yom-Tov - the cooked dish may go only where both women are permitted to go.
(c)Rebbi Yehudah says that we ignore the water - since it is not visible in the dish.
(d)Rebbi Yehudah is referring to - a thick stew, as we shall later.
37b----------------------------------------37b
7)
(a)Rebbi Dosa (or Aba Shaul) says that if someone purchases an animal before Yom-Tov, the animal shares the Techum of its new owner, even though he only received it on Yom-Tov. What does he say about a shepherd?
(b)Is it possible to reconcile Rebbi Dosa with our Mishnah (which holds that, if one gave the animal to the shepherd on Yom-Tov, then it shares the Techum of the original owner)?
(c)How do we prove that our Mishnah must be speaking in such a case?
(d)Like whom does Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan rule?
7)
(a)Rebbi Dosa (or Aba Shaul) says that if someone purchases an animal before Yom-Tov, the animal shares the Techum of 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 shares the Techum of 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 shares the Techum of the original owner) - by establishing the latter by a town where there are two shepherds, and there is no indication 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.
8)
(a)Which principle of Rebbi Yochanan concerning a Stam Mishnah (based on our Mishnah) seems to create a problem with the previous ruling?
(b)On what basis do we reject this Kashya outright?
8)
(a)The principle of Rebbi Yochanan rules that seems to create a problem with the previous ruling is - 'Halachah ki'Stam Mishnah, seeing as our Mishnah (which is a Stam Mishnah) rules 'ha'Behemah v'ha'Kelim k'Raglei ha'Be'alim'.
(b)We reject this Kashya outright - based on what we just said to explain Rebbi Hoshaya, that our Mishnah is speaking where there are two shepherds ... .
9)
(a)What does the Beraisa say about 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) in the event that one of them made an Eruv ...
1. ... fifteen hundred Amos to the north, and the other, fifteen hundred Amos to the south?
2. ... two thousand Amos to the north, and the other, two thousand Amos to the south?
(b)If two people purchased 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. What does Shmuel say?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
9)
(a)The Beraisa rules that if two people borrowed a coat on Erev Yom-Tov (one to go to Shul in the morning, the other to go to a Se'udah in the evening) in the event that one of them made an Eruv ......
1. ... Eruv fifteen hundred Amos to the north, and the other, fifteen hundred Amos to the south - it may be carried 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. ... two thousand Amos to the north, and the other, two thousand Amos to the south - it is confined to the town itself, and may not be taken even one Amah in either direction.
(b)If two people purchased 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. 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)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we hold 'Yesh Bereirah' (Rav) or 'Ein Bereirah' (Shmuel).
10)
(a)On what grounds does Rav concede that if they purchased 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?
(b)Why did Rav's disciples Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, query his distinction between a barrel of wine and an animal ('le'Isur Muktzeh Lo Chasheshu ... ')?
(c)How did Rav react to their query?
10)
(a)Rav concedes however, that if they purchased 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 his borders.
(b)Rav's disciples Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, queried his distinction between a barrel of wine and an animal ('l'Isur Muktzeh Lo Chasheshu ... ') - on the grounds that if that argument is insufficient to render the animal Muktzeh (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!?
(c)Rav reacted to their query by remaining silent (though it is not clear whether he did so because he did not agree with it or because he conceded that they were right).
11)
(a)Rav Hoshaya holds 'Yesh Bereirah' (like Rav, in spite of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi's objection). What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(b)We query the opinion of Rav Hoshaya however, on the basis of the Mishnah in Ohalos (which we already quoted in the first chapter and) which talks about a Mes that is lying in a house with a number of exits. What does the Tana rule there with regard to objects that are lying in the exits (outside the door, assuming that ...
1. ... all the doors are either open or shut)? Why is that?
2. ... one of the doors is open, and all the rest are shut)?
(c)There where the owner decides to take out the Mes through one of the exits or through a window that measures four by four Tefachim, Beis Shamai confines the Tana Kama's ruling declaring all the other exits Tahor, to where he made this decision before the Mes died. What do Beis Hillel say?
(d)How does Rebbi Hoshaya restrict Beis Hillel's ruling, to contradict his earlier ruling?
(b)We query the opinion of Rav Hoshaya however, on the basis of the Mishnah in Ohalos (which we already quoted in the first chapter and) which talks about a Mes that is lying in a house with a number of exits. The Tana rule there that objects that are lying in the exits (outside the door, assuming that ...
1. ... all the doors are either open or shut) - are all Tamei, since we do not know through which of the exits the Mes will be taken out.
2. ... one of the doors is open, and all the rest are shut - then only the objects in that doorway are Tamei.
(c)There where the owner decides to take out the Mes through one of the exits or through a window that measures four by four Tefachim, Beis Shamai confines the Tana Kama's ruling declaring all the other exits Tahor, to where he made this decision before the Mes died. Beis Hillel maintain that it applies even where he made it afterwards.
(d)Rebbi Hoshaya restricts Beis Hillel's ruling - to vessels that are placed after the decision (because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'), contradicting his earlier ruling.
12)
(a)How do we try to solve the problem, by reassessing the opinions of Rebbi Hoshaya and Rebbi Yochanan?
(b)What does Rebbi Asi (or Rav Ashi) citing Rebbi Yochanan say about brothers who divided the property that they inherited from their father?
(c)Why is that?
(d)How does that now leave us with a discrepancy in Rebbi Yochanan (like jumping from the frying-pan into the fire)?
12)
(a)We try to solve the problem - by switching the opinions of Rebbi Hoshaya ('Ein Bereirah') and Rebbi Yochanan ('Yesh Bereirah').
(b)Rebbi Asi (or Rav Ashi) citing Rebbi Yochanan - declares brothers who divided the property that they inherited from their father as Lekuchos (purchasers), who are obligated to return the divided property to the kitty in the Yovel year ...
(c)... because he holds 'Ein Bereirah' (otherwise, they would be Yorshim (heirs) who inherit the property permanently ...
(d)... leaving us with a discrepancy in R. Yochanan (who, we just explained, holds 'Yesh Bereirah').
13)
(a)How do we try to resolve it?
(b)We refute this answer however, from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan, in connection with a Beraisa cited by Ayo, which deals with placing an Eruv in order to hear a Derashah from a Chacham, who is due to arrive near his town, but outside the Techum. On what grounds would a person require two Eruvin in order to hear him?
13)
(a)We try to resolve it - by drawing a distinction between matters that are d'Oraisa (such as Yerfushah), Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah' and matters that are d'Rabanan (such as Techumin), where he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.
(b)We refute this answer however, from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan, in connection with a Beraisa cited by Ayo, which deals with placing an Eruv in order to hear a Derashah from a Chacham, who is due to arrive near his town, but outside the Techum. A person would require two Eruvin in order to hear him - if he was not certain whether the Chacham was due arrive to the east of his town or to the west.
14)
(a)What distinction does Rebbi Yehudah draw there between making two Eruvin in order to hear one Chacham, and making two Eruvin to hear one of two Chachamim? Why does Rebbi Yehudah forbid the latter?
(b)What problem do we have with this distinction?
(c)How does Rebbi Yochanan resolve the discrepancy?
(d)How does this refute the answer we gave earlier to resolve the Kashya on Rebbi Hoshaya? What does Rebbi Yochanan really hold?
14)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah there - permits making two Eruvin in order to hear one Chacham, but forbids it if it is to hear one of two Chachamim - since this constitutes Bereirah.
(b)The problem with this distinction is - that if the latter is forbidden because of Bereirah, then the former ought to be forbidden for the same reason!
(c)Rebbi Yochanan resolves the discrepancy - by establishing the earlier ruling, where the Chacham had already arrived when Yom-Tov came in, in which case it is merely a question of discovering from which direction the Chacham had already arrived (and discovering the facts does not constitute Bereirah).
(d)This refutes the answer we gave earlier to resolve the Kashya on Rebbi Hoshaya - in that Rebbi Yochanan clearly holds 'Ein Bereirah' even in matters that are d'Rabanan.
15)
(a)How do we therefore finally resolve the original discrepancy in Rebbi Hoshaya? What does he hold?
(b)Like whom does Mar Zutra rule?
15)
(a)We finally resolve the original discrepancy in Rebbi Hoshaya - by establishing his opinion as we just tried to establish that of Rebbi Yochanan (i.e. 'Ein Bereirah' by matters that are d'Oraisa, and 'Yesh Bereirah' by matters that are d'Rabanan.
