Question: But this is Me'amer, which is an Av Melachah?

Answer: Imur (Me'amer) is only applicable in the location where the fruit grew, as is evident in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, 73a).

Text: We do not have the text, "Rebbi Yosi is lenient (if this is the case) or stringent (if the case is different)."

Proof: If this would be the text, the implication would be that we are unsure whether Rebbi Yosi is more stringent than the Tana Kama. This is incorrect, as we also have a doubt regarding what exactly Rebbi Yehudah said (and therefore it is not appropriate for the Gemara to ask whether Rebbi Yosi is stringent or lenient, as we are just trying to figure out what they are saying).

Text: Rather, the text should read "What is Rebbi Yosi saying etc.?"

Explanation #1: The explanation of (the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi, based on Rebbi Yosi's statement) "whatever is close to the city and has an enclosure" is that Rebbi Yehudah said two stringencies, that even though it is next to the city it must have an enclosure (in order for the wood not be to Muktzah).

Implied Question: Rebbi Yehudah did not say explicitly that an enclosure is required. (How, then, can we say he requires it?)

Answer: This is because he holds that Karfifos are generally closed (and therefore it does not have to be said that it must be enclosed).

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rebbi Yosi would say (according to this explanation of Rebbi Yehudah) that since it is enclosed, even though it is far away from the city it is permitted (to take wood from it). If so, we understand from his leniency that one may take wood from an enclosed Karfeif that is not close to the city that if it is close to the city it is even permitted without being enclosed. This would mean Rebbi Yosi is saying two leniencies: It is permitted if it is close to the city without being enclosed, and it is permitted when it is not close to the city if it is enclosed.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Alternatively, Rebbi Yehudah perhaps holds that any place close to the city, whether it is enclosed or not, it is permitted. The assumption would be that a Karfeif generally is not enclosed. Rebbi Yosi argues that even if it is close it needs an enclosure in order for wood to be taken from there, and certainly if it is far it must be enclosed! However, Rebbi Yosi would hold that a field close to the city that is not enclosed may not be used for taking wood. This is the explanation of Rashi.

Question: The Sar mi'Kutzi asks that even if we will say that Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning requires that it be close to the city and that whether it is enclosured is irrelevant, why don't we deduce in Rebbi Yosi's opinion as we did earlier in the first possible explanation? We should say that since Rebbi Yosi says it is permitted when far away if it is enclosed, it should be permitted when close even when not enclosed!

Question (cont.): According to the first version of Rebbi Yehudah that he requires both close and enclosed, it is understandable that Rebbi Yosi will require one of these. Certainly, then, according to the second version that Rebbi Yehudah only requires that the field is close and not enclosed (we should say that Rebbi Yosi says either one, close or enclosed, is fine)!

Answer: The Sar mi'Kutzi explains that we obviously cannot say that Rebbi Yosi holds that either leniency, close or enclosed, is valid in the second version as it indeed is in the first version.

Answer (cont.): According to this version we must say that Rebbi Yehudah doesn't care whether the field is enclosed, and he does not understand that Kerfeifs generally are closed. Rather, he holds that the wood of any field that is close to the city, whether it is enclosed or not, may be used.

Answer (cont.): If so, Rebbi Yosi should not have said, "any place that is entered through an enclosure." Rather, the Mishnah should have said, "Rebbi Yosi says that if it has an enclosure, it is even permitted if it is at the end of the Techum." This implies that if it is close by it is permitted without an enclosure. Since Rebbi Yosi says, "Any" he is implying that there are some Karfeifs that are not enclosed. Rebbi Yosi is therefore saying his reason is that it is permitted to take from any enclosure, whether or not it is close to the city (as long as it is within the Techum, but being close to the city does not make it permitted if it is not enclosed).

Answer (cont.): However, according to the first version this is understandable, as we can explain that Rebbi Yosi is giving two different leniencies. The words, "Any place one enters" are understandable. What should he have said, "If it has an enclosure?" On the contrary, if he would say this he would imply that Rebbi Yehudah is not even addressing enclosed areas. This is not true, as Rebbi Yehudah must be referring to enclosed areas.

Answer (cont.): However, according to the version that "Any place one enters with an enclosure" the implication is that Rebbi Yehudah was addressing enclosures. If you will say Rebbi Yehudah was not referring to an enclosure then there will be a difficulty saying Rebbi Yosi is saying two distinct leniencies. How can Rebbi Yosi start with the word "Any," implying that Rebbi Yehudah is referring to enclosures? On the contrary, Rebbi Yehudah must not be referring to enclosures, as if he was Rebbi Yosi should have said, "If it (continuing the discussion about enclosures) has an enclosure."

Question: This is not the implication of Rashi's explanation later. The Gemara brings a proof that "since Rebbi Yosi says etc." that Rebbi Yosi implies by saying, "Any place where they enter," and concluding by saying that this is "even within Techum Shabbos," that he is saying two different leniencies.

Question (cont.): If Rebbi Yosi is specifically referring to an enclosure and that an enclosure is always required even if the area is nearby, he should not have concluded, "And even within Techum Shabbos!" Rather, he should have said, "Any place that is entered through an enclosure." Do you think Rebbi Yosi needs to conclude, "And even within Techum Shabbos" to permit an enclosure that is far away? This is already derived from his statement, "Any place one enters!" By saying this he clearly means that anyone who goes into an enclosure may take wood even if the enclosure is far away. Therefore, he would not have to end off by saying, "Even if this is within the Techum Shabbos!"

Question (cont.): Rather, it must be that he only says the case regarding an area far away in order to permit an area that is close. When he says, "Any place one enters etc." he means that we only require an enclosure to permit a place that is far away (and is at the end of Techum Shabbos). However, a place that is close by is permitted even if it is not enclosed.

Question (cont.): This proves that Rebbi Yosi is saying two separate leniencies. If this is Rebbi Yosi's opinion, we can understand that Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is that he has two stringent requirements.

Question: Since Rebbi Yosi says, "Any place one enters" we see that Rebbi Yehudah requires both a place that is close and enclosed. If not, the term "Any" is difficult. If you will tell me that when Rebbi Yehudah said "All," he was including all Karfeifos as requiring enclosures, this is impossible, as if so Rebbi Yosi should have stated, "If etc." (as Rebbi Yehudah was already discussing enclosures). (All of) This is was explained by Rabeinu Shimshon mi'Kutzi. (The Maharsha explains that some of the terminology in this latter part of Tosfos is difficult. He therefore explains Tosfos at length based on this Tosfos and the Tosfos Yeshanim.)

Explanation: The Gemara currently thinks that the reason behind the Mishnah is because, even though the wood is designated for burning, forbidden to chop it, because of the work and the excessive trouble involved.

Explanation: The Gemara currently thinks that the reason behind the Mishnah is because, even though the wood is designated for burning, forbidden to chop it, because of the work and the excessive trouble involved.

Explanation (cont.): And this is a matter of "Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' - in that even if the wood stands to be burned on Erev Yom-Tov it is forbidden, how much more so a beam that broke on Yom-Tov

Conclusion: That is why the Gemara asks 'But did'nt you say that chopping is forbidden ... ?'

So Rashi explained.

Halachah: Tosfos explains that, since nowadays we are not conversant with how the axes of those times were made, we are only permitted to break-up wood by hand.

Rashi: It speaks of when it broke by itself.

Question: Why may he take from where it broken? Bearing in mind that, since it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan to open it on Yom-Tov, it was Muktzeh Bein-ha'Shemashos mi'de'Rabbanan; and is therefore Muktzeh all day?

Rashi's answer: Since the Isur to open it is only mi'de'Rabbanan - as the Gemara establishes it 'by a row of bricks' - now that it broke it is permitted to take from it to eat.

Proof: And so the Gemara says in this Perek in connection with Shabbos - 'Since, if one transgressed and rectified the Tevel, it is rectified, and it is only Muktzeh mi'de'Rabbanan, we do not say 'Migu de'Isketza'i.

Rejection #1: This is not correct! Since on Daf 43a, with regard to Shabbos, the Gemara applies 'Migu de'Isketza'i' in connection with a basket that is placed in front of chicks - even though it is only Muktzeh mi'de'Rabbanan.

Rejection #2: And the same question applies with regard to a wheel of a 'Muchni' (a machine to lower a wash-basin into a well) on which money has been placed.

Answer: ha'Rav R. Moshe explains that they only said 'Migu de'Isketza'i' where the Muktzeh is not removed from the world - such as the case of the money on the cushion, where, even though he removed it, it is still in the world; as opposed to Tevel, which immediately disappears as soon as it has been rectified.

Question: But the Gemara says in Chulin, 14a & b 'If someone Shechts on Shabbos, it may not be eaten on the same day'.

Answer: Since Bein ha'Shemashos it was Muktzah due to a lack of work, we apply 'Migu de'Isketza'i', even though the Muktzeh was removed from the world.

Question: The question remains however, that here the break is still there - similar to the wheel with money on it, where the Muktzeh is still in the world, even though it is not in the same location; and that is also the case here by the break?

Answer: It therefore seems to me that this S'tam MIshnah goes like R. Shimon who does not hold of Muktzeh.

Question: Why did the Gemara say above at the beginning of the Masechta on 2b in connecton with Yom-Tov - that the Mishnah is a S'tam Mishnah like R. Yehudah, seeing as the Mishnah here is a S'tam Mishnah lik R. Shimon?

Answer: This not considered a S'tam Mishnah!

Reason: It would be a S'tam if the Mishnah could have said 'Divrei R. Shimon' and didn't, because then the Tana would be a S'tam statement like him; But the Gemara could not say 'Divrei R. Shimon' here, since the Reisha stated 'He takes from the location of the break', implying specifically Bedieved, and that Lechatchilah, one is not permitted to break it, in which case it could not have said 'Divrei R. Shimon', because R. Shimon allows breaking it even Lechatchilah.

Reason (cont.): Whereas above, in connection with Yom-Tov, when the Gemara established the Mishnah like R. Yehudah, that is not a problem - since the Mishnah is only discussing Muktzeh, in which case it could have said 'Divrei R. Yehudah' - and since it did not, it is indeed a S'tam Mishnah like R. Yehudah.

Explanation: This means that they permitted Muktzah on account ot Ochel Nefesh, but not on Shabbos.

Proof: This is a support for the Ritzba who stated earlier (28b DH 'G'rifas') that the Chachamim permitted moving Muktzah on account of Ochel Nefesh.