Clarification: This implies that it is possible to make a hole in soft earth.

Question: Whereas in Shabbos In Perek Kirah (Daf 39. And 39:) the Gemara forbids placing an egg in sand. According to Rabah it is 'Shema Yatmin be'Remetz' (in case one places it in ashes); according to Rav Yosef, it is 'Shema Yaziz Afar mi'Mekomo' (in case one moves earth from its location)'.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara gives the difference between them as 'soft earth'. According to the one who says 'Shema Yatmin ... ', it applies; but not according to the one who says "Shema Yaziz ... '.

Answer: It speaks there where the entire area consists of soft earth, in which case when he picks up the egg, the earth falls into the hole, so that one cannot tell that there is a hole there.

Answer: (cont.): Whereas here it speaks where the earth round the hole is hard, and it is only the earth in the middle that is soft, Consequently, as soon as one picks up the peg, the hole is recognizable.

Clarification: Because it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufa (he does not need the hole), for which one is Patur.

Question: In that case, it ought to be Patur Aval Asur (Lechathilah).

Answer: They permitted it Lechatchilah on account of Simchas Yom Tov).

Question: In that case, why does one need a peg stuck in the ground?

Answer: We nevertheless require that it should be prepared from before Yore Yom-Tov.

Question: The Gemara in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 88: & 89.) cites Beis Shamai, who forbids performing Kisuy ha'Dam with ashes, since ashes are not considered earth. So how can Rabah here declare ashes of an oven prepared to perform Kisuy ha'Dam unanimously; seeing as thei is mentioned in the Mishnah with regard to 'Shavin' (where Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree)?

Answer #1: What Rabah means is that this is an independent statement: meaning that Eifer Kirah (the ashes of an oven) are prepared with regard to other issues, such as covering excrement and things like that, but not with regard to Kisuy.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara there is speaking about the ashes of food, which does not sprout plants, which is why one cannot use them for Kisuy ha'Dam; whereas her it is speaking about the ashes of wood, which do sprout plants. Consequently, one may cover with them, even though they are not called 'Afar'.

Reason: Since we Pasken that one may cover with whatever sprouts plants even if it is not called 'Afar' ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas if is is called 'Afar' in whichever context, one may cover with it even if it does not sprout plants.

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa 'Someone who is walking in a desert and has no earth with which to make Kisuy ha'Dam, may grind a a golden Dinar and cover with it.

Source (cont.): And if he he is traveling in a boat and has no earth with which to cover, he may burn his cloak and cover with it'.

Question: The Gemara asks there 'Granted, we find that ashes are called earth, as the Pasuk says "And they shall take from the earth of the burning of the Chatas", which explains why the person in the boat is permitted to burn his cloak and cover with it.

Question (cont.): But from where does the Tana learn the Heter to use a golden Dinar?

Answer: And the Gemara answers by citing the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Afros Zahav lo".

Conclusion: And it is obvious that gold dust and a burnt cloak do not sprout plants.

Conclusion (cont.): Which is why a Pasuk is needed to teach us that they are called 'earth'.

Source: Because anything that sprouts plants we include there from the Pasuk (in Acharei Mos) "ve'Chiseihu", even though it is not called Afar, such as the thin saw-dust of carpenters, flax shavings and the shavings of ground metal.

Conclusion (cont.): Consequently, the ashes of an over, fine sans, flax shavings and lime and a lid that have been ground may all be used to perform Kisuy ha'Dam.

Halachah: This appears to be the Halachah ...

Reason #1: Firstly, because the Gemara supports his opinion from a Beraisa ...

Reason #2: Secondly, nobody argues with him.

Reason #2 (cont.): Since even Rebbi Shimon will concede that what has been heated on Yom-Tov is genuine Nolad ...

Reason #2 (cont.): Seeing as initially it was wood and now is has become ashes.

Precedent: This can be compared to water that is absorbed in the clouds (Eruvin 45:), which Rebbi Shimon agrees is forbidden.

Question: How come that we remove the ashes from the oven on Yom-Tov, in order to bake a pie in it, even though the ashes are no longer fit to roast an egg?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that Muktzah is not forbidden to move on Yom-Tov, if it is for Ochel Nefesh and Simchas Yom-Tov.

Proof: And proof for this is to be found later in perek Ein Tzadin (Daf 28:)

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi explains that it is speaking here where the Shechitah has not yet taken place.

Question: What is Rav Yehudah coming to add to the Beraisa, which permits 'even bringing earth into one's garden or yard', how much more so a box-full?

Answer #1: According to Rashi, who explains there that he brings a lot of earth, and as long as it is piled up, he has in mind to use it for all his needs, in which case, it does not become Bateil to the ground ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas here is speaks where he brought (not a lot of earth, but) only a box-full, in which case we would have thought that it becomes Bateil to the ground.

Answer #2: Alternatively, ir speaks there where he brought it is specifically for kisuy ha'Dam, but not for anything else, whilst here Rav Yehudah comes to teach us that since it is a box-full, he may use it for whatever he wants.

Explanation #1: Apparently, it pertains to the Seifa ('ve'Im Shochto ... '), and that is how Rashi too, explains it.

Proof: In fact, it must refer to the Seifa, because as far as the Reisha is concerned, how can the Gemara retort 'Let him cover him with a Deker Na'utz (a peg that is stuck in the ground)?' seeing as Beis Hillel holds that Lechatchilah, one may not Shecht ...

Conclusion: Would the Gemara ask according to Beis Shamai?

Question: This is difficult however, from the Gemara which will ask shortly 'But the Seifa ... ', implying that until this juncture, it has been referring to the Reisha?

Answer #1; Explanation #2: In fact, the Gemara pertains to the Reisha, and the text reads, not 'Let him cover it with a Deker Na'utz?', but ' ... with ashes of an oven?'

Answer #2: Reinstating Explanation #1: Moreover, the question is also answered according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains later (on Daf 9: DH 'Amar Ri') that we switch the opinions, in that Beis Hillel permit digging with a peg and covering, and Beis Shamai forbid it.

Conclusion: Because in this way, the Kashya goes according to Beis Hillel after all.

Question: How does 'I Amrat bi'Shelama' (it would be fine were it not for Rav Yehudah) apply here?

Question (cont.): Even without Rav Yehudah, it is possible to ask here 'Let him cover it with a Deker Na'utz?' ...

Conclusion: And it would be necessary to answer that it speaks where he doesn't have any?

Answer: What the Gemara means is - If we did not hold like Rav Yehudah, there would be no Kashya on the Beraisa, since we would be able to say that he does not have a Deker Na'utz or ashes of an oven (that were burned yesterday) ...

Answer (cont.): Since people do not generally have these things handy ...

Answer (cont.): So, although Rav Yehudah holds that it speaks where he has earth, which is more common ...

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, on cannot cover (with earth) like Rav Yehudah, since we do not hold like him.

Refuted Question: Nor can one ask 'Why the Beraisa mentions a Safek' ...

Refutation: Since we certainly hold like Rav Yehudah with regard to using it to cover a definite Chayah or bird.

Conclusion: And it is inasmuch as Rav Yehudah permits him to do 'whatever he wants with it', that we do not hold like him.

Conclusion (cont.): But since Rav Yehudah (himself does permit it) he will be forced to explain that he doesn't have these things, in which case the Kashya remains 'Even a Vaday too?'

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask that 'If he doesn't have (with what to cover it), then it is obvious that he cannot Shecht, since what will he cover it with?

Answer: Rashi therefore explains that if it would refer to the Reisha, we would have thought that he should Shecht it and not cover it, due to Simchas Yom-Tov.

Answer: But on the Seifa where it says 'Ein Mechasin', if he does not have any of the aforementioned items, why does it need to say that one may not cover it?

Answer: Now that where one is Vaday Chayav, one does not cover it, like Beis Hillel who forbid it unless one has a pe that is stuck in the ground, hoe much more so a Safek.

Answer: Therefore it must be speaking where he does have, where Vaday he does cover it, but not Safek ...

Conclusion: In which case the Kashya returns 'Why can one cover it like Rav Yehudah or with the ashes of an oven?

Question: Here it is implied that Rava considers Yom Tov an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, since he takes the trouble to answer the Kashya ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos, Daf 24:) Rava Darshens "Hu" - 've'Lo Machshirav'; "Levado" - 've'Lo Milah she'Lo bi Zemanah'.

Question (concl.): Whilst Rav Ashi says that 'Yom Tov is an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh', implying that Rava does not hold of that reason?

Answer: The Gemara pushes itself to establish Rava according to the Halachah - that Yom Tov is an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, even though Rava himself does not actually hold like that.

Question: Since when do Beis Din have the right to negate someone that is min ha'Torah, seeing as the Torah obligates "covering it (the blood) with dust"?

Answer: They do indeed, since they have a mandate to uproot Mitzvos with a Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh (negatively).