Clarification: Between Sh'ma Yisrael and the Name of Hash-m, implying that one is asking Hash-m to listen to Yisrael and answer them.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the entire Sugya speaks where the fruit was detached on Yom-Tov, and 'specifically with regard to the fruit that is lodged in the upper branches did the Rabbanan decree that one might climb up and detach.

Question #1: Granted, the B'nei Yericho did not decree on the fruit in the upper branches that one might climb up and detach, why is not forbidden anyway, because one is using something that is attached?

Source: Do they not hold of the Mishnah in Beitzah (Daf 36:) 'Ein Olin be'Ilan ... '?

Question #2: And regarding the fruit that is lodged in the lower branches too, why is it not forbidden because one is using something that is attached?

Proof: As we say in Perek Kirah (Shabbos Daf 45.) 'One may not place a lamp on a date-palm, in case one comes to use the tree when one removes it? And so it is implied in Eruvin (Daf 100.) and in many other places (See Maharsha)?

Question #2: Moreover, even the fruit that is lodged in the lower branches is no different that an egg that is laid and that is lying on the ground (yet it is forbidden)?

Suggested Answer: Nor can one establish it below three Tefachim, where one is permitted to use was is attached ...

Refutation: Because, in that case, the Gemara ought to have differentiated by 'among the lower branches', between less than three Tefachim and more.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore establishes the Gemara where the fruit became detached on Erev Yom-Tov, when it fell into the upper or lower branches where it remained lodged till dusk.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara now states that the Machlokes is with regard to the fruit that lodged in the upper branches, which the Rabbanan declare forbidden, even if it subsequently fell to the ground on Yom-Tov. This is because, since the upper branches also contain attached fruit, we decree that he might climb the three and pick fruit, since the fruit was still on the tree at dusk, despite the fact that it is detached.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Where the men of Yericho did not decree, since it was detached from before Yom,-Tov.

Explanation #2 (cont.): but regarding the fruit that fell into the lower branches, which do not contain attached fruit, there is no justification in issuing a decree, in case he climbs the tree to detach fruit from the location from which they did not drop.

Clarification: Now the Kashya from the case of an egg also falls away, since there we decree, because it was laid on Yom-Tov, whereas here the fruit was detached on Erev Yom-Tov.

Question: How can one possibly distinguish between the fruit which dropped from the tree yesterday and the fruit which dropped from the tree today; and between the fruit that fell from the lower branches and the fruit that fell from the upper branches?

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara now asks 'But ie it not Muktzah?' - Seeing as it was still on the tree at dusk, in which case it could not be removed on account of the prohibition of using what is attached?

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi at the end of the Perek asks 'What is the case? If it fell on Erev Yom-Tov, everyone will agree that it is permitted; whereas if it fell on Yom-Tov, everyone will agree that it is forbidden?

Yerushalmi (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where we don't know' - i.e. one cannot issue a decree in case one climbs the tree and picks fruit unless one knows for sure that it fell on Yom-Tov, but where one does, then even the fruit in the lower branches is forbidden.

Yerushalmi (cont.): On which the Gemara asks - 'But are they not Muktzah' - i.e. Safek Muktzah.

Question: The question remains however, why they are not forbidden due to the prohibition to use what is attached?

Question: It is not designated for a human, seeing as one is forbidden to Shecht it on Shabbos?

Answer #1: Rav Yosef explains that the Gemara (Rabah) extrapolated his Kashya from the extra Lashon, since, having already stated that it is Asur, the Tana did not need to add 'L'fi she'Einah min ha'Muchan'.

Answer #1 (cont.): What he therefore means is that even if it would be prepared inasmuch as we would not hold of Muktzah Machmas Isur, it would not be designated for dogs.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains that 'Muchan le'Adam' means that it is designated to be eaten by humans ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because, even though it is not fit to be eaten by them on that Shabbos, that is only on account of the Isur, not because of its rejection (i.e. that he did not want people to benefit from it).

Implied Question: Nor do we say that designation for a person is like designation for an animal - because if it was designated for dogs like it is for man and it became a Neveilah on Shabbos, it would be permitted ...

Answer: Because regarding dogs, Muktzah Machmas Isur does not apply, since things such as birds and the like can be given to them alive.

Implied Question: And we do not say that it is prepared for dogs now even though in the end it will be prepared for them.

Answer: To the contrary, since S'tam, it is designated for humans, the owner is Maktzeh it from dogs.

Conclusion: In our case too, whatever is designated for ravens, is not designated for humans, even though eventually, it will be designated for them.

Clarification: Even if it is only permitted for somebody who owns ravens, the Gemara at the beginning of Beitzah (Daf 3.) finds it necessary to forbid fruit that drops off a tree due to the decree 'Shema Ya'aleh Veyislosh' ...

Clarification (cont.): Since it is not possible there to present the Isur as that of Muktzah ...

Clarification (concl.): Since the Gemara there establishes the Mishnah by a chicken that stands to be eaten. Consequently, the Isur Muktzah does not apply there, only the decree 'Shema Ya'aleh Veyislosh'.

Clarification: It seems to Rabeinu Tam that min ha'Torah, only olives, vines and fields, which are all written explicitly, are subject to Pe'ah. And all other trees are only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, whatever is not preserved, they declined to institute Pe'ah because it is not Chashuv.

Clarification (cont.): A fig-tree and whatever is similar to it, they did not decree, even though it is Chashuv, because, seeing as it is not picked all at once, it wastes the poor man's time, causing him a loss that outweighs the gain.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas mushrooms they did not institute Pe'ah, since we do not find anything of the same species (which does not grow from the ground) that is subject to Pe'ah.

Implied Question: And as for the D'rashah in Toras Kohanim, which precludes cucumbers and pumpkin from Pe'ah from the Pasuk "u've'Kutzr'chem es K'tzir Artz'chem" - 'Katzir is food, guarded and grows from the ground, to preclude vegetables ... ', implying that all species other than vegetables are min ha'Torah?

Answer: This is merely an Asmachta.

Precedent: Just as the Gemara there Darshens Ma'aser Yerek from a Pasuk, even though Ma'aser Yerek is only mi'de'Rabbanan.