Implied Question: Rashi explains that despite the fact that one is forbidden to take T'rumos and Ma'asros on Yom-Tov, and this is similar to 'T'rumas Goren', since he could have separated Chalah on Erev Yom-Tov ...

Implied Question (cont.): Seeing as the time to take Chalah began yesterday, as we learned in the Mishnah (in Chalah, Perek 3) 'The Chiyuv Chalah takes effect from the time that one rolls the dough?

Answer #1: Nevertheless, one is permitted to separate it, because the Chachamim did not issue an enactment on the T'rumah of dough, since one is permitted to roll it on Yom-Tov and to bake it, in order to eat fresh, warm bread, in which case one is (certainly) permitted to separate Chalah from it, since it was kneaded it on Yom-Tov.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, separating Chalah was not included in the Isur of taking T'rumah, even if one rolled it before Yom-Tov came in.

Answer #2: Furthermore, according to the Yerushalmi it is fine, since it speaks where he did not finish the kneading on Erev Yom-Tov.

Implied Question: Even though, when all's said and done, he could have separated it before Yom-Tov whilst kneading ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since he only finished the kneading on Yom-Tov, it is as if all the kneading was performed on Yom-Tov, because one does not usually separate Chalah before the conclusion of the kneading.

Conclusion: It therefore transpires that Hafrashas Chalah is included in the Isur of separating T'rumah, there where one could have yaken it yesterday.

Refuted Answer: One cannot however, explain that Rabah differentiates between Kisuy and Hafrashas Chalah because not perforing Kisuy does not prevent Simchas Yom-Tov, seeing as it is not crucial to eating the meat, whilst on the other hand, not separating Chalah prevents one from eating the bread.

Refutation: This is incorrect, because this Sugya is speaking in chutz la'Aretz, as the Gemara will say shortly, in which case one is permitted to eat and to separate Chalah afterwwards.

Answer #3: The Tosfos however, gives Rabah's reason as the fact that it speaks in Chutz la'Aretz and it does not resemble Mesaken (rectifying), seeing as one is anyway allowed to eat. But in Eretz Yisrael, Rabah would concede (that it is forbidden).

Refutation: This is not correct however, since the shortly will shorty imply that that that reason does not apply - when it says 'Does Shmuel not concede that if one designated it ... ?'

Refutation (cont.): And since it falls under the category of Chalah it inevitably resembles Mesaken and is forbidden to Zarim. And the Lashon of the Gemara indicates that this S'vara is obvious.

Conclusion: Therefore the correct explanation is as Tosfos explained earlier - that Rabah permits even in Eretz Yisrael, whereas Shmuel's father forbids even in Chutz la'Aretz.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the Yerushalmi, which definitely speaks about Eretz Yisrael, yet it only forbids taking Chalah where one actually kneaded the dough, but if one merely performed 'Irus' (which is equivalent to 'Gilgul' [rolling it]), it is permitted.

Halachah: The Halachah is like Rabah, who is the last opinion. And specifically if one only performed Gilgul, where the kneading has not yet been completed, because once the dough has been completed, even Rabah will concede that taking Chalah from it on Yom-Tov is forbidden

Proof: And so it says in the Yerushalmi 'Whoever kneads a dough on Erev Yom-Tov, may not take Chalah from it on Yom-Tov ...

Proof (cont.): 'Kneads', yes, rolls, no.

Explanation: Meaning that specifically if he kneaded the dough, in which case it was finished on Erev Yom-Tov, is he forbidden to take Chalah, but if he rolled it, he is not; because since the kneading was not completed on Erev Yom-Tov, he is permitted to separate it.

Conclusion: And our Sugya too, is speaking about rolling it (Gilgul, which is the same as 'Irus').

Halachah: If someone forgot to separate Chalah from the bread on Erev Yom-tov, we Pasken regarding Chalas Chutz la'Aretz, one may eat first and separate Chalah afterwards ...

Halachah (cont.): In which case, he should leave a small piece of each loaf, eat he rest and separate Chalah on the following day.

Conclusion: It needs to be sufficiently large that it is still recognizable after the separation,

Source: Because the Torah writes in Bamidbar, 15) "Reishis", implying that what remains must be recognizable.

Halachah: And if one baked a dish-full of dough on Erev Yom-Tov, and forgot to separate Chalah from it, he should leave over one loaf to cover of all of them till tomorrow, because he kneaded them all togther.

Halachah (cont.): However, regarding Matzos on Erev Pesach, if he forgot and did not separate Chalah, he must leave from each Matzah ...

Reason: Since he kneaded each Matzah separately. Then tomorrow, he places all the pieces in one basket, thereby combining them for Chalah, and separate one on behalf of all of them.

Alternative: Should he prefer however, to make it easier, he can prepare one Matzah and bake it, before combining them. Then he separates from it on behalf of all of the others.

Reason: Because it only became Chayav now (See Maharshal).

Question: Even if he prepared them yesterday, why is not forbidden due to Tzeidah (trapping)?

Source: As we will learn later (Daf 24.) 'Someone who traps doves in a dove-cot or in the attic is Chayav'?

Answer: It speaks here about fledglings which cannot fly yet, whereas the Gemar later is referring to grown-up birds.

Implied Question: Even though Rav is an Amora?

Answer: The Gemara is nevertheless justified in asking from him, because, bearing in mind that Rav was the leader of his generation and the Rosh Yeshivah over the whole of Yisrael, with the exception of Shmuel, Rav Chanan is unlikely to have disagreed with him.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara now queries Rav Chanan from Rav, since, according to him Beis Hillel do not hold like Rav, and in the R'shus ha'Rabim, all agree that it is Asur, because even Beis Hillel forbid it, permitting it only in the R'shus ha'Yachid.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But Rav will not hold like that, because he would not rule against the Halachah ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But rather that Beis Hillel permit even in the R'shus ha'Rabim - since his dove-cot indicates why he needs the ladder.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that it is a Machlokes Tana'im - meaning that Rav Chanan will say 'Granted that according to Rav, Beis Hillel permits in the R'shus ha'Rabim, and he disagrees with me.

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, I hold like the Tana of 'Shotchan' who does not hold like Rav, and that Tana establishes Beis Hillel like him, in that they only permit it in the R'shus ha'Yachid.

Explanation #2: Some commentaries explain that it is on Rav that the Gemara is asking.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara answers that Rav will establish it as a Machlokes Tana'im, and they hold like Beis Shamai; 'but I hold like the following Tana'im ... '.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because what advantage do Rebbi Elazer and Rebbi Shimon have over Beis Hillel? After all, Beis Shamai too, comprise many Tana'im, yet the Halachah is not like them?

Question: What about the principle that 'ba'Meh' always comes to argue?

Answer: That is confined to a Mishnah, but does apply to a Beraisa.

Clarification: Because even by other ladders only bending the ladder (from place to place) is permited.

Question: Like whom does Rebbi Dosa hold, seeing as everone agrees that carrying other ladders is permitted?

Answer: According to Rebbi Dosa, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do not argue over that.

Halachah: Apparently, the Halachah is Like Rebbi Dosa.

Question: The Gemara in Perek Chalon (Eruvin, Daf 77: and 78.) permits moving a ladder', whereas throughout the Sugya here forbids moving the ladder of an attic, whilst Rebbi Dosa forbids even that of a dove-cot?

Answer #1: There are two kinds of ladders, as is specifically implied in in Perek Chalon (Ibid, Daf 77:). Consequently, there it is speaking about small ladders, whereas here it is speaking about large ones.

Answer #2: R. Avraham from Bourgul explains that whereas there it is referring to Shabbos, where the reason that 'It looks as if one is going to cement one's roof' does not apply, since it forbidden to carry it outside ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas here it it refers to Yom Tov, where it is permitted to carry it outside, in which case that reason is applicable.

Halachah: According to this answer, it will be forbidden to carry a our ladders on Yom Tov, even in the house, in case the Halachah is like Rebbi Dosa. But this needs looking into.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask from an egg that is laid on Yom Tov?

Answer: Rashi (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) explains that an egg does not give that much joy and that Simchas is not so applicable.

Implied Question: And the reason that Beis Shamai permits it ...

Answer: Is because he does not hold of Hachanah and because it is not really similar to 'fruit that falls off a tree and to 'liquid that flowed from fruit'.

Explanation #1: This refers to the case of 'T'risin', which Beis Hillel now forbid removing on Yom Tov.

Explanation #1 (cont.): All the Mishnayos that the Gemara cited are now switched, whereas the case 'ha'Shochet' remains unchanged.

Question #1: This explanation is very difficult, because if that is so, then all the forced answers that we gave earlier still stand, since the Gemara has not switched the case of 'ha'Shochet'?

Question #2: Another Kashya is why regarding the case of 'skin', the Gemara gives the reason as being 'because it is fit to recline on it', seeing as it the Gemara (on Daf 11:) specifically ascribes it to the fact that 'they decreed the end on account of the beginning'?

Question #3: Furthermore, if it is true that the case of 'ha'Shochet' remains intact, then Rabah and Rav Yosef (above on Daf 7:) will be arguing according to Beis Shamai, which is big Dochek?

Question #4: And finally, since it is the case of 'T'risin' that is switched round, Beis Hillel will hold that one may not remove them because 'Yesh Binyan be'Keilim' ...

Question #4 (cont.): Whereas in Perek Kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos, Daf 122: & 123.) The Tana holds S'tam that 'Ein Binyan u'Setirah be'Keilim'?

Explanation #2: Therefore Rabeinu Tam explains that it is the case of 'ha'Shochet' that one switches round: Beis Hillel now hold 'Yachpor be'Deker vi'Yechaseh".

Conclusion: Now all the questions are answered.

Question: Rabeinu Tam wonders why people require Hachanah?

Answer: 'I remember', he says, how in my youth we did not require Hachanah. But nowadays, because they mistakenly think that that 'Muchlefes' does not refer to 'ha'Shochet', and Beis Hillel is therefore le'Chumra, that is why they necessitate Hachanah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, since even according to his (Rabeinu Tam's) explanation, Beis Hillel at least hold what Beis Shamai held originally, and Beis Shamai required a Deker Na'utz ...

Refutation (cont.): And even in soft earth, they (clearly) needed Hachanah, since the Gemara says here 'Till now, Beis Shamai only permitted there when there was a Deker Na'utz' - implying that even in soft earth Beis Shamai needs a spade to be stuck in the earth because of Hachanah, as Rashi explains.

Proof #1: And a proof for this is otherwise, what Rav Yehudah said earlier, that it speaks when he has a Deker Na'utz, will not go according to Beis Hillel, according to the Gemara's conclusion.

Proof #1 (cont.): Where Beis Hillel say that one may dig with a peg Lechatchilah, and Shecht ...

Implied Question: Even though Rav Yehudah's statement was said with reference to 'u'Modim' ...

Answer: nevertheless in reality, he is referring to the entire Mishnah, as Tosfos explained.

Support: It also makes sense to explain that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are only arguing in that what Beis Shamai permits only Bedi'eved, Beis Hillel permit Lechatchilah, in which case he will need a Deker Na'utz because of Hachanah.

Proof #2: Another proof lies in the statement made by Rav Yehudah himself above (on Daf 8.) permitting a person to fill up a box full of earth and to do whatever he needs to do; implying that Halachically, one needs Hachanah.

Refuted Explanation: Even though one could explain that he is speaking with reference to one's other needs, such as covering excrement, but as far as Kisuy ha'Dam is concerned, no Hachanah is required ...

Refutation: The Gemara above does not seem to say that with regard to the Sugya's conclusion.

Refutation (cont.): And even though we now say 'Muchlefes ha'Shitah', this is not to say that one should also switch the words of the Amora'im.

Conclusion: In that case, the people are acting correctly when cover with soft earth that has been prepared, such as from a pile of ashes or that is fit to roast an egg ...

Conclusion (cont.): And not from soft earth that is lying on the ground which is Bateil to the ground; nor from the ashes of an oven that has been heated on Yom Tov, unless it is fit to roast an egg in it.

Question: If indeed, 'Muchlefes' refers to the case of 'ha'Shochet', and Beis Shamai goes le'Chumra, how can the Tana in Iduyos list it together with cases where Beis Shamai is le'Kula and Beis Hillel, le'Chumra?

Answer: He does so according to the erroneous way that the Mishnah was learned before they changed it.