Question: Why can we not say that he holds that they are two Kedushos, and his reason (for saying 'Noldah be'Shabbos Asurah be'Yom-Tov') is on account of 'Migu de'Iskatza'i le'Bein has'Shemashos (since it Muktzah during Bein-ha'Shamashos - seeing as may still be Shabbos)', Isketza'i le'Kula Yoma (it remains Muktzah the entire day)'?

Answer: We don't say 'Migu ... ' on account of the day that has passed, only on account of the day that is ahead, such as Bein-ha'Shemashos at the beginning of Yom-Tov or of Shabbos, which may already be (Yom-Tov or) Shabbos.

Question: But in Succah (Daf 10.) The Gemara says that the ornaments of Succah are forbidden until the end of the last day of Yom-Tov, which is the ninth day, Safek eighth day. And there the explanation can only be because of Iskatza'i Bein-ha'Shemashos, since maybe it is still the eighth day, which is in the past?

Answer: Muktzah Machmas Mitzvah is different, as the Gemara explains there - 'in case he decides to have a meal and therefore eats in the Succah. And in such a case we even say 'Migu' in the past ///

Answer (cont.): whilst here, where it is a case of Muktzah Machmas Isur, we don't say it.

Question: We say that 'Whatever is born today was completed yesterday'. In that case, when Yom-Tov falls after Shabbos, and the egg was laid on Shabbos, it was completed yesterday (which was a weekday).

Question (cont.): So why is it Hachanah?

Answer #1: nevertheless, when it is laid on Shabbos that is called Hachanah, since the term 'Hachanah' also applies to the laying.

Answer #2: Furthermore one can say that since, if it was laid on Yom-Tov it would be forbidden, if we were to say that if it is laid on Shabbos it is permitted on due to the fact that it was laid on shabbos, it transpires that Shabbos has prepared for Yom-Tov.

Implied Question: Even though Tosfos explained earlier that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not dispute this matter ...

Answer: There is no Kashya from here, since one statement is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah himself, the other, in the name of his Rebbe.

Clarification: even though min ha'Torah one is Bateil in two ...

Clarification (cont.): That is only where it gets mixed up automatically; but to actually be Mevateil it with one's hands is forbidden.

Source: And so we learned in Maseches T'rumos (Perek 5, Mishnah 9) 'If a Sa'ah of T'rumah falls into ninety-nine Sa'ah of Chulin, and another Sa'ah of Chulin falls into the mixture, creating a Rov, be'Shogeg it is permitted, be'Meizid, it is forbidden'.

Source (cont.): The Gemara answers 'that is only by a d'Oraysa, but by a de'Rabbanan, it is permitted'.

Conclusion: That explains why (in the Mishnah in T'rumos) if one threw it in, it is forbidden; but here we don't say that, and one is permitted to be Mevateil it Lechatchilah.

Question: Earlier (on Daf 3:) in the case of 'Igul', which is T'rumah de'Rabbanan, why can one not add on to it and render it Bateil?

Answer: When we say by de'Rabbanan Mavatlin, that is specifically with regard to something that is basically mi'de'Rabbanan, such as Muktzah, which falls into that category ...

Answer (cont.): But something that is basically mi'd'Oraysa, such as T'rumah, where there is such a thing as T'rumah d'Oraysa (such as corn, wine and oil, then we say 'Ein Mevatlin', even as regards other fruit, which are only de'Rabbanan.

Proof: And so it is implied in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, 98.) in the case of half a k'Zayis of fat that fell into a basket, where Mar bar Rav Ashi wanted to assess it in thirty half-k'Zeisim (to permit it) ...

Proof (cont.): But his father told him not to be so lenient with Shi'urim, in which case it remained Asur.

Proof (cont.): Why didn't he simply add Heter to make up sixty?

Conclusion: We can therefore learn from there that wherever the basic Isur is min ha'Torah - such as when there is a k'Zayis, then one cannot be Mevateil Isur even when it is only mi'de'Rabbanan.