Question: But we learned in Eruvin (Daf 39. & 39:) that Rebbi Yossi forbids an egg that is laid on the first day, on the second day?

Question (cont.): So how can the Neherdai argue with Rebbi Yossi, who is a Tana?

Answer: Rebbi Yossi merely forbids it if it occurs, whilst all the Neherda'i say that it cannot happen.

Question: The Gemara in Mo'ed Katan (Daf 8: and 9.) forbids digging a Kuch (a sculptral chamber) on Yom-Tov, whereas here it is implied that that is not a Melachah?

Answer: We must establish the Gemara there like R. Chananel, who explains that they used to dig many Kuchin simultaneously, to be ready for use when needed. And it is on that context that the the Gemara forbids digging on Yom-Tov for use after Yom-Tov.

Clarification: Rashi explains that they force Jews to work, but not on Yom-Tov. Consequently, when they see that Yisrael bury their dead, they will force them to perform tasks for them too.

Refutation #1: Nowadays, when there are no Chavri, it is permitted.

Implied Question: One cannot argue that one needs another count to permit it?

Answer: Because since the reason is given as 'a suspicion ... ', and that suspicion no longer exists, the reason ho longer applies.

Precedent: And so we say that water which has been left uncovered, which the Chachamim forbade because a snake may have drunk from it - is permitted to drink nowadays, even Lechatchilah, since there are no snakes among us, despite the fact it was a Davar she'be'Minyan (specifically forbidden by the Sanhedrin).

Reverse Ruling: Yet Rabeinu Tam (himself) used to forbid it.

Put Into Effect: And when somebody once died in Mela'oun on the second day of Yom.-Tov, and they wanted to deal with his burial, Rabeinu Tam scolded them and sent them a message that if the B'nei Bashchar were not B'nei Torah, what made them think that they were?

Proof: As we learned in Shabbos (Daf 139.) where they desisted from burying someone on the second day of Yom-Tov, because they were not B'nei Torah, and they would therefore come to be more lenient.

Refutation: The Ri however rejected the comparison, since we see that on a number of issues we find that we are B'nei Torah (even though they weren't) ...

Source: as we find in Yevamos (Daf 46.) where 'He saw them eating Turmus beans which Nochrim had cooked, and he forbade them ...

Source (cont.): The Gemara asks there that it can be eaten raw, and whatever can be eaten raw is not subject to Bishul Akum (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), and answers that they were not B'nei Torah.

Conclusion: Yet we are not concerned about that, since we Pasken that 'Whatever can be eaten as it is, raw, is not subject to Bishul Akum?

Refutation: Whereas R. Yechiel says that they are not comparable, because here (regarding the Turmus bean) which one eats in one's own home, does not create a stir ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): Whereas to bury one's dead publicly creates a stir, and it is therefore not correct to permit it.

Refutation #2: Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam said - that nowadays there are also Yehudim who work for the government, such as regarding tax-collecting and the like.

Conclusion: Consequently, if they see that they bury their dead (on the second day Yom-Tov) they will also force them to work for the government.

Clarification: It seems that it speaks where they opened their eyes on the same day

Reason: Because otherwise, they would be forbidden, even during the week.

Clarification: Rashi explains that, by hatching, it causes itself to become permitted via Shechitah, whereas before it was hatched, it was forbidden.

Clarification (cont.): And since it has been rectified regarding Shechitah, it is also rectified regarding Muktzah.

Question: Why do Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan need to give this reason? Why will the fact that they do not hold of Muktzah, as we learn in 'Mi she'Hichshich' (Shabbos, Daf 156:), where Ze'iri, Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel all hold like Rebbi Shimon?

Answer #1: The Gemara is giving a reason here that even Rebbi Yehudah who holds of Muktzah, will agree to, and this is why we need this reason.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they need it even according to Rebbi Shimon, who, although he does not hold of Muktzah as a rule, concedes here, because it is like 'G'rogros u'Tzemukin'.

Support: And this answer is evident in Shabbos (Daf 45.).

Clarification: Since there, one cannot say that it is Muchan via its mother, seeing as it is Mutar even though its mother is a T'reifah.

Question: Why is it not Muchan, based on the Gemara in Chulin (Daf 75.), which rules that 'A ben Peku'ah is permitted with four Simanim, either via the Shechitah of its mother or via its own Shechitah' ...

Question (cont.): That being the case, one could stretch one's hand inside the mother's womb and Shecht it? Why is that not considered Muchan?

Answer #1: The Gemara here is speaking according to Rebbi Oshaya, who asks there (in Chulin, Daf 74.) 'whether a ben Peku'ah becomes permitted with four Simanim'?

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is not called Muchan, because, bearing in mind that one cannot see what one is Shechting, it is comparable to Shechting at nighttime, which is forbidden Lechatchilah.

Answer #3: Moreover, there it speaks where the full period of pregnancy passed, whereas her it is speaking where the full period of pregnancy terminated on the same day, and since it was not yet fit when Bein-ha'Shemashos arrived, it is not considered Muchan.

Question: How is this called 'Muchan le'Adam? On the contrary, seeing as Bein ha'Shamashos he could not have Shechted it, in case it was Shabbos, it is not Muchan le'Adam?

Question (cont.): So how can one extrapolate from here that 'Muchan le'Adam Lo havi Muchan li'Kelavim'?

Answer: Explanation #1: Therefore the Ri amends the text to 'If it was not a Neveilah from Erev Yom-Tov'.

Refutation: That is not correct however, since the Gemara specifically stated earlier that this Mishnah is speaking about Shabbos, seeing as it said there 'Regarding Shabbos, where the Tana presents a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon' - and it then cites this Mishnah.

Explanation #2: It is indeed speaking about Shabbos, and the Gemara makes its point from the extra section, because had it wanted to teach us the Din with regard to Shabbos exclusively, it ought to have said 'Rebbi Yehudah says, "If it was not a Neveilah on Erev Shabbos, it is Asur" ', and stop there. And we would then have known that it is Asur because it is not Muchan.

Explanation #2 (cont.): So why did it see fit to add 'Because it is not from what is Muchan'?

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, since it is not needed for Shabbos, which we already know, explain it with regard to Yom-Tov, and it is nevertheless Asur, although it is Muchan for a person Bein-ha'Shemashos ...

Conclusion: Because 'Muchan le'Adam Lo havi Muchan li'Kelavim'.

Question: We learned in Shabbos (Daf 42: & 43.) that 'One is forbidden to place a receptacle underneath a lamp on Shabbos to catch the oil. One is however, permitted to place it there before Shabbos, though if one did, one may not benefit from it, since it is not min ha'Muchan'.

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that it cannot be coming to include Yom-Tov, what is the extra section ('since it is not min ha'Muchan') coming to teach us?

Answer: There too, we can learn from the extra section that even though the lamp was already extinguished, it remains forbidden because it is not min ha'Muchan.

Explanation #3: R. Ya'akov mi'Kurbil explains that the Mishnah can well be speaking about Shabbos, and it is nevertheless evident from there that 'Muchan le'Adam Lo havi Muchan li'Kelavim'' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Because if it was Muchan li'Kelavim, then on Erev Shabbos before Shabbos came in, if it was Muchan le'Adam it would also be Muchan li'Kelavim (at that stage).

Explanation #3 (cont.): In that case, after it became dark and it is Shabbos, even though the Hachanah le'Adam has been removed, seeing as it is not fit for Adam now, the fact remains that it was Muchan li'Kelavim before Shabbos, in which case, it would remain Muchan for them now as well.

Question: In that case, a chick ought to be permitted too, since it is Muchan li'kelavim?

Answer: It needs to be Omeid (designated for them) as well as Muchan, and chicks are not.

Question: Why is it not forbidden because it is Nolad, like an egg?

Answer: The Isur of Nolad only applies to a type of food, similar to fruit that falls off a tree and liquid that flows from grapes, but not to animals.

Question: The Mishnah says in Iduyos (5:1) regarding the egg of a Neveilah, that if it is at a stage where it can be sold in the market (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), Beis Shamai permit it, Beis Hillel forbid it.

Question (cont.): So how can the Gemara here permit eating them with milk?

Answer: Because to eat the meat of fowl together with milk (as opposed to Neveilah) is only mi'de'Rabbanan, in which case even Beis Hillel concedes that it is permitted.

Question: The Gemara says in Eruvin (Daf 62: & 63.) that 'One may not permit even an egg in milk in the vicinity of one's Rebbe'.

Question (cont.): Why is it not obvious (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), seeing as Rebbi Ya'akov will shortly rule that it is forbidden?

Answer: Everyone agrees that one is permitted to eat complete eggs that are not attached (to the body of he chicken) together with milk. And the reason that Beis Hillel forbids the egg of a Neveilah is because he decrees it on account of the egg of a T'reifah, as we learned in Iduyos.

Conclusion: And they all agree that the egg of a T'reifah is forbidden since it grew be'Isur (See also Tosfos Eruvin 62: DH 'Afilu', Kesuvos 60: DH 'Afilu', Bava Kama 47. DH 'Mai Ta'ama' and Chulin 58. DH 've'Shavin').

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'And Rebbi, by virtue of not citing the S'tam Mishnah like that, indicates that the Beraisa is incorrect, because if Rebbi did not know it, from where would Rebbi Chiya know it?

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara infer 'Ha Noldah Asurah?' and then to ask that this goes neither like Beis Shamai nor like Beis Hillel?

Question (cont.): Why does it go to the trouble to establish a Machlokes Tana'im, seeing as the Beraisa is erroneous?

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain it thus: 'And if you say that the Beraisa comes to teach us what the Beraisa does not - i.e. what the Mishnah leaves out the Beraisa learns

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because had the Tana only learned the Mishnah, we would have said that Beis Shamai permits it only after it is born, but as long as it is inside the mother's womb, it is forbidden.

Conclusion: But the Gemara asks on that 'We learned in the Mishnah ... 'On the contrary, when it is born it is stricter than when it is still inside its mother's womb, in which case it can also go like Beis-Hillel - seeing as inside its mother's womb, everyone agrees that it is permitted.

Implied Question: One cannot explains that the Beraisa mentions what the Mishnah leaves over ...

Answer: Since the Gemara currently thinks that when it is born it is more stringent than when it is still in the mother's womb.