Question: What sort of reason is that? If it is Muktzah, then it ought to be forbidden even to other Yisre'eilim too, and the same should apply if it is forbidden to him because something was done to it that is forbidden?

Source: Like we say in Shabbos (Daf 122.) 'If a Nochri kindled a light on behalf of a Yisrael, it is forbidden, and no distinction is drawn between the Yisrael on whose behalf it was performed and any other Yisrael?

Answer: Rashi answers that - perhaps with regard to the Isur of Techumin, which is only de'Rabbanan, they were not so strict, and it will suffice if Chazal confine the prohibition to the one on whose behalf it was brought.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the first one acquired them with Hagbahah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, seeing as Hagbahah is not applicable here.

Explanation #2: But like we say (in Bava Metzi'a) - that 'Looking at a Hefker article acquires it', provided one also does something to them as well.

Question: Why did the Gemara not present this answer earlier?

Answer: An Amora needs to explain himself, and since he (Rav Chisda or Rabah bar Rav Huna) did not explain, he must be speaking whether it is close to the town or not.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is a Chezkas Isur Eiver min ha'Chai.

Refutation: But this is not correct, because if it was, then why does one need to know how it was Shechted

Refutation (cont.): Since we see that it is dead, the Isur of Eiver min ha'Chai is not applicable, seeing as it only applies to an animal that is alive?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Chezkas Isur refers to the Chazakah that it has not been Shechted, until one knows ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Due a the Isur that it has not been Shechted, as the Torah says "Tizbach ve'Achalta" - Shecht and eat.

Conclusion: And this explanation will go even according to the opinion (in Chulin) that an animal in its lifetime is not meant to be cut up into limbs.

Clarification: Rashi explains that it is not account of T'reifus.

Question: The Gemara shortly implies there is an Isur involved here, when it says that 'Planting Orlah cuts the feet of the butchers ... '?

Answer: To be sure, there is no Isur, because once the snimal is Shechted it has a Chezkas Heter ...

Answer (cont.): If however it is found to be T'reifah after one eats from it, he is punished like a Shogeg, and not like an Oneis, since he should not have rushed so much to eat it.

Rashi's Uncertainly: Rashi is unable to define its 'strength'.

Explanation #1: The Tosefta however explains, ascribes it to the fact that it produces three different fruits in the form of the leaves, the actual fruit and the flowers (all of which are edible).

Explanation #2: Moreover, it produces fruit every day, which other fruits do not.

Explanation #3: Furthermore, the Ri explains, its strength lies in the fact that one soaks (an item) in Kafrisin (caper) wine in order to strengthen its flavor, as we say in ‘Pitum ha’Ketores’ - ‘Why does one bring Kafrisin wine?’ To soak in it the Tziporen (the onycha spice) so that it should be strong.

Conclusion: Not as Rashi explains in K'risus (Daf 6.) that Yein Kafrisin is wine that comes from Kafras (Cyprus?).

Question: But did they not permit it only in case of public need, as we said earlier?

Answer: Perhaps this is also considered a public need, since she (Yalsa) was the daughter of the head of the Golah, and many people needed her.

Clarification: One needs to establish the case by a B'chor that had a fixed blemish since Erev Yom-Tov, only the owner had not yet shown it to a Chacham by the time Yom-Tov arrived.

Clarification (cont.): Because had the blemish occurred on Yom-Tov, Rebbi Yehudah would most certainly not have permitted it, since it is Muktzah because of an Isur, and the owner did not have his mind on it from yesterday ...

Conclusion: And Rebbi Yehudah holds of Muktzah.

Conclusion (cont.): And this is what the Gemara means - a B'chor that blemished, only it was not shown to a Chacham before Yom-Tov, and which then falls into a pit on Yom-Tov, an expert may descend into the pit ...'

Reason: Because Rebbi Yehudah holds that one may examine blemishes on Yom-Tov.

Rebbi Shimon's Opinion: Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, this is not considered prepared ... (cont. on next Amud).