Implied Question: The Gemara might just as well have said that the author is Rebbi Akiva, who does not hold of 'mi'Toch' either

Answer: Only it prefers to establish it like Beis Shamai, who states that opinion more emphatically.

Question: Since we establish it like Beis Shamai, it ought rather to have said that 'Someone who Shechts (even) an Olas Chovah on Yom Tov Tov receives Malkos

Question (cont): Since Beis Shamai holds later (on Daf 19:) that one receives Malkos for Shechting an Olas Re'iyah, based on the word "va'Chagosem", from which we Darshen 'a Chagigah, yes, an Re'iyah, no!'?

Answer: The Gemara mentions (Olas Nedavah) on account of the inference. Because, had it mentioned Olas Chovah, we would have thought that one is Chayav for an Olas Chovah, but for a the corresponding Shalmei Chovah one is Patur. This because a. they are a Chovah, and b. they involve a human need.

Answer (cont.): But on a Shalmei Nedavah, one will be Chayav, since it is possible to bring it on the following day.

Conclusion: But now that the Tana mentions 'Olas Nedavah', he teaches us a Chidush, in that it is specifically for an Olas Nedavah that one is Chayav, because it is all burned, but for a Shalmei Nedavah, one is Patur, even though one is not obligated to bring it, and he could well have waited until the next day to bring it.

Reason: Since a Hedyot has a need for it.

Question: But even Beis Hillel concedes that one receives Malkos, since they hold later (Ibid.) that Nedarim and Nedavos may not be brought on Yom-Tov, so why establish it like Beis Shamai.

Answer: They learn the prohibition of bringing Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom-Tov from "Lachem", 've'Lo li'Gavohah', in which case it is a La'v that stems from an Asei, which is not subject to Malkos.

Question: Now that the Torah reverts to Isur, it reinstates the original prohibition (which is a La'v).

Source: Like we find with regard to someone who shears Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, who receives Malkos even though we only know the prohibition of shearing from the Pasuk (in Devarim, 12) "Tizbach", 've'Lo Gizah' - a La'v that stems from an Asei, which is not generally subject to Malkos ...

Source (cont.): So we see that once the Torah reverts to Isur, it reinstates the original prohibition.

Question (concl.): So why do we not say by Nedarim and Nedavos too, that the Torah reinstates the original Isur, which is subject to Malkos?

Answer: The case of 'Gizah is different, inasmuch as the Heter of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is not mentioned explicitly. Consequently, since we find an Isur regarding them, we establish it by the original Isur (which is a La'v).

Answer (cont.): Whereas here by the case of Yom-Tov, where Ochel Nefesh is specifically permitted, when the Torah writes "asher Ye'achel" (Sh'mos 12), incorporating Nedarim and Nedavos, 'Since it is permitted for a Hedyot ... '.

Conclusion: That being the case, they are specifically permitted; and once they are, we do not say that the Torah reinstates the original Isur, leaving us with only an Asei.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Eruvei Chatzeros'.

Refutation: What need for an Eruv Chatzeros is there on Yom-Tov, bearing in mind that one is permitted to carry from one Chatzer to another anyway?

Explanation #2: Therefore R. Chayim Kohen states the correct text as 'Eruv Hotza'ah' (without a 'Vav''), and what the Gemara means is ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is speaking about a case where the Isur of carrying is mixed together with other Isurim, even though it is a weak Isur, and they are arguing over whether the Isur of Hotza'ah applies or not.

Reinstatement of Explanation #1: It is possible however, to reinstate the text 'Eruv ve'Hotza'ah', and the Eruv is required to enable one to carry things that are not needed for Yom-Tov at all.

Explanation #1: And this is the explanation: 'But according to this, that Beis Hillel does not hold of an Isur Hotza'ah, why don't they argue over carrying stones (i,e. Muktzah), to teach us the Chidush that he doesn't hold of the Isur of carrying regarding them.

Explanation #1: Because there is no Isur of Muktzah, even with regard to things that are used for an Isur, and even if they are not needed at all for Yom-Tov - only out of concern that one may come to take them out into the street, as we learned specifically in Perek Kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos, Daf 124:).

Explanation #1 (cont.): In fact, it would have been fitting to forbid even tings that are needed for Yom-Tov, in case one comes to carry into the street, But they did not, because one does not decree on the Tzibur something that the majority cannot cope with.

Explanation #1 (concl.): And since they are not arguing over carrying stones, they must be arguing over the Isur of carrying (when it is not necessary) - where Beis Hillel holds 'Mitoch ... '.

Question: If Beis Hillel holds 'Mitoch', why do they not permit carrying even stones and anything else that is not needed for Yom-Tov?

Answer: To be sure, min ha'Torah 'Since it is permitted, it is permitted completely', only the Rabbanan decreed on whatever is not needed for Yom-Tov.

Conclusion: Till here is the explanation of Rashi, who did not accept the text written in all the Sefarim 'But according to this, if somebody carries stones according to Beis Hillel, will he not receive Malkos'?

Reason: Because according to this text, the conclusion will be that that somebody who carries stones in the street will be Chayav ...

Reason (cont.): And Rashi has a tradition that Beis Hillel hold 'Since it is permitted, it is permitted completely', and it is the Rabbanan who decreed on something for which there is no need on Yom-Tov.

Question #1: Firstly, we say in Pesachim (Daf 46:) that 'Someone who bakes on Yom-Tov for a weekday receives Malkos; - without applying 'Mitoch'.

Question #1 (cont.): And even according to Rabah who holds that he does not, that is only because 'Guests might turn up (Ho'il)', but not on account of 'Mitoch'.

Question #2: Moreover, Rashi erases the text that appears in all the Sefarim.

Explanation #2: Therefore, it would seem that the correct text is the one that appears in all the Sefarim 'But according to this, if according to Beis Hillel, will he not be Chayav (mi'd'Oraysa) Malkos'?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And in case you will say that indeed, he is not, then why do they not argue over carrying stones? And since they don't ... '.

Halachah: And it is specifically where there is a slight Tzorech Yom-Tov that we say 'Mitoch she'Hutrah le'Tzorech Yom-Tov ... ' (since all Ochel Nefesh is permitted) Hutrah Nami she'Lo le'Tzorech Ochel Nefesh', seeing as there is a slight need.

Halachah (cont.): But where there is no Tzorech Yom-Tov at all, it is certainly Asur min ha'Torah, such as where one bakes on Yom-Tov for a weekday, or where one carries stones, both of which entail neither Tzorech Ochel Nefesh nor Simchas Yom-Tov. And one is therefore Chayav mi'd'Oraysa.

Halachah (cont.): And Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue over things that are not Tzorech Ochel Nefesh, but there is a binu Chananelit of Tzorech Yom-Tov, such as carrying a baby to circumcise him, where the Mitzvah is called Tzorech Yom-Tov, and a Lulav in order to be Yotzei the Mitzvah, and a Seifer-Torah in order to Lein from it. And this is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel.

Amendment: This explanation is incorrect however, and carrying a baby to circumcise is 'La'v Davka', because it is permitted (according to Beis Hillel) even if one takes him for a walk.

Source: Just as Chazal permit playing with a ball in the street on Yom-Tov, even though it is merely a form of Tiyul (i.e. there is no element of Mitzvah involved).

Question: What (personal) need does someone who Shechts an Olah have?

Answer: Here too - the fact that 'Your table should not be full and that of your Rebbe, empty', is considered Simchas Yom-Tov, as is evident later (on Daf 20.).

Question: What Tzorech Yom-Tov can there be in cooking the Gid, considering that it is forbidden.

Answer: Since the person had in mind to eat it, that is the Tzorech Yom-Tov.

Clarification: La'v Davka 'Molichin', because even if the Kohen comes to the house, he may not give it to him.

Support from Yerushalmi: And so is clearly implied in the Yerushalmi of D'mai (Perek ha'Loke'ach Peiros), where it says that someone who verbally designated T'rumas Ma'aser of D'mai and Ma'aser Ani of Vaday, may not separate them on Shabbos. If however a Kohen or a poor man regularly come to be eat by him, they may come and eat them, provided he informs them (before Shabbos).

Support from Yerushalmi: Commenting on the prohibition of separating them on Shabbos, the Yerushalmi equates it with the Mishnah 'Lo Yitneim', citing the Mishnah here 'Ein Molichin ... '.

Support from Yerushalmi: And it concludes there that we learn 'Hu' from 'Hahi' and 'Hahi' from 'Hu'.

Support from Yerushalmi (cont.): Meaning - that we learn the case of Shabbos from that of 'Ein Molichin', which speaks about Yom-Tov.

Support from Yerushalmi (cont.): And we learn Shabbos from Yom-Tov - permitting specifically what Beis Hillel permit - i.e. where the Kohen or the poor man regularly eat by him.

Support from Yerushalmi (cont.): And the case of the Yerushalmi it refers to as 'Hi'.

Conclusion: So we see that if he does not eat regularly by him, he is not permitted to give it to him, even if the Kohen comes to his house ...

Reason: Because a person doesn't simply go and eat his bread at somebody else's table, so people will think that he must have taken T'rumah on Yom-Tov, which explains why he is eating by him.