1)

(a)We finally revert to the initial version of the Beraisa's statement, in which the Rabbanan prove that one may skin the Pesach, from our Mishnah, which permits saving the bag of a Sefer together with the Sefer. And we circumvent the Kashya 'Mi Dami, Hasam Tiltul, Hacha Melachah' - by establishing the Beraisa in a case where the owner has no need for the skin (in which case he has not performed a Melachah).

(b)And the reason that it is still not forbidden because of 'P'sik Reisha' is - because he speaks further when he tore off the skin in thin strips, rendering it useless.

2)

(a)In defining a Mavoy Mefulash (permitted by ben Beseira in our Mishnah), Rav Chisda defines a Mavoy she'Eino Mefuleshes as one with three walls and two Lechaya'im (vertical posts) at the entrance. Whereas a Mavoy Mefulash is - one with only one Lechi.

(b)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah -only permits saving the Tik ha'Sefer ... in to a Mavoy which has two Lechaya'im at the entrance.

(c)This is the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa. Beis Shamai there requires a Lechi and a Koreh (a horizontal post) in order to permit a Mavoy. Beis Hillel suffice with - either a Lechi or a Koreh.

(d)Rabah objects to Rav Chisda's explanation in that even Rebbi Eliezer would not refer to a Mavoy with a Lechi as a Mavoy Mefulash. And besides, he asks, even according to the Rabbanan - since the Mavoy is perfectly Kasher, why can one not save even food and drink in it?

3)

(a)So Rabah tries to establish the Machlokes Tana'im according to Rebbi Yehudah - who permits someone who owns two houses facing each other on either side of the Reshus ha'Rabim to arrange either a Lechi or a Koreh at either end (one for each entrance), and to carry in between them.

(b)ben Beseira now holds - that Rebbi Yehudah concedes that in order to save a Sefer-Torah, one Lechi or Koreh will suffice, whereas the Rabbanan maintain that he does not.

(c)Abaye raises the same objection to Rabah's explanation as Rabah raised to Rav Chisda's - namely, that if, as the Rabbanan hold, there are two Lechaya'im, then why can one not save food and drink there as well?

4)

(a)Rav Ashi finally explains - that the Mishnah refers to a Mavoy of three walls and one Lechi as Mavoy she'Eino Mefulash (which the Rabbanan permit), and without a Lechi as Mefulash (which ben Beseira permits).

(b)And he establishes this like Rebbi Eliezer - who holds that the Chachamim permitted saving a Sefer Torah into a Mavoy Mefulash (but not food and drink); whereas according to the Rabbanan, there is no such dispensation.

5)

(a)If there is a fire on Shabbos according to ...

1. ... the Tana Kama, one is permitted to save - as much food as one needs from the time of the fire: three meals before the meal on Friday night; two meals, between the Friday-night meal and the Shabbos morning one, and one meal between the morning meal and Se'udas Shelishis.

2. ... Rebbi Yossi - Chazal permitted three meals whenever the fire occurs.

(b)Rava explained that despite the fact that one is carrying food, which is not Muktzeh, Chazal did not give a blanket Heter to save as much food as one can - because they were afraid that, in one's confusion, one may come to put out the fire.

(c)And by the same token, when Abaye asked him why Chazal restricted someone whose barrel of wine broke, to placing a vessel underneath it to collect the wine that is dripping out (but did not allow bringing a second vessel to collect it from the air, or to place a bowl at the roof's edge, to collect the wine as it flows off) - he replied that they were afraid that, were they to permit bringing other vessels, one might rush home to fetch more vessels, and then carry them through the street, in order to save as much wine as possible.

6)

(a)The ...

1. ... Beraisa permits bringing other vessels to collect the spilt wine from the air or from the roof's edge - so as to have sufficient wine to serve his guests.

2. ... the same Beraisa forbids even that - if he saves the wine first and invites the guests afterwards.

(b)When the Tana Kama forbids Ha'aramah, he means - that it is forbidden to invite guests merely in order to save his wine.

(c)What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - permits it.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Eliezer, if an animal with its baby fell into a pit on Yom-Tov, one is permitted to bring one of them to the surface in order to Shecht it, but not the second one (due to the La'av of "Oso ve'es Be'no"). As for the second one - he is allowed to feed it in its place, but no more.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua holds - that one may first bring up the one, having in mind to Shecht it. However should he discover the slightest fault, he is permitted to 'change his mind' and brings up the other one (in case it is better than the first) and Shecht that instead.

(c)It is not evident that ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer, who holds 'Ein Ma'arimin' here, holds like the Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa - because his stringent view here may well be based on the fact that it is possible to feed it where it is (in the pit, whereas in our case, where he has no other option, he may well concede to Rebbi Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah that Ha'aramah is permitted).

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds 'Ma'arimin' here, holds like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah there - because his concession here may well be based on 'Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim (whereas there, where there are no animals concerned, he may concede to the Tana Kama that Ha'aramah is Asur).

8)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that someone white saved white bread from a fire - is not permitted to then save black bread, since black bread is inferior to white bread (though many people today will disagree with that [like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids Ha'aramah; otherwise he coould always say that he prefers black bread). Vice-versa is therefore permitted.

(b)One may ...

1. ... save from Yom Kippur (which falls on Friday) for Shabbos, but not vice-versa (since he is able to bake on Motzei Yom Kippur, which is when he wants it for [and the same reason applies in the next two cases]).

2. ... certainly not save from Shabbos for Yom-Tov, or ...

3. ... even from one Shabbos for the next.

(c)And yet a third Beraisa - permits someone who forgot to take the bread out of the oven when Shabbos began before Shabbos (Redi'as ha'Pas) - to take out sufficient for three meals for himself - and then to announce that whoever requires food for Shabbos to follow suite.

9)

(a)The Tana only permits removing the bread with a knife, but not with a baker's shovel. The problem with this is the Pasuk "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" - which implies that whatever is not a Melachah is permitted, and removing bread from an oven using a baker's shovel is a Chochmah, and not a Melachah.

(b)Besides removing bread from the oven with a baker's shovel, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael also consider blowing the Shofar a Chochmah, and not a Melachah.

(c)We resolve the Kashya regarding Redi'as ha'Pas - by turning into an Isur de'Rabbanan (to perform Chochmos of this nature without a Shinuy). Blowing the Shofar they forbade anyway as part of the decree not to play instruments, which they forbade for a different reason).

10)

(a)We learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Shishi, ve'Heichinu Eis Asher Yavi'u" - that as soon as they brought the Manna, they prepared it; from which we learn that we too, are obligated to prepare the food for Shabbos, early on Friday morning (Rav Chisda).

2. ... "(Liktu) Lechem Mishneh" - the obligation of making ha'Motzi on two whole breads (Rebbi Aba).

3. ... "Liktu" - that it is not necessary to eat both loaves, only to recite ha'Motzi over them (Rav Ashi, as he observed Rav Kahana doing).

(b)When Rebbi Zeira broke off a large piece of Chalah, sufficient for the whole meal, it did not look like gluttony - since he did not do this during the week. So it was clear that what he did was purely li'Chavod Shabbos.

(c)He did not break off a small piece, like he did during the week - because breaking off a large piece gives the impression that one endears the Shabbos meal, which is a Mitzvah.

(d)Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi made a point of using the bread that had been used for an Eiruv, for ha'Motzi, whenever it was available - to show their love for Mitzvos. 'Since one Mitzvah was performed with the bread', they said, 'let us use it for another Mitzvah'.

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, one is obligated to eat three meals on Shabbos. Rebbi Chidka requires - four.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im learn their respective opinions from the Pasuk which repeats the word "ha'Yom" three times. According to ...

1. ... The Tana Kama - this incorporates the Friday night meal, whereas ...

2. ... Rebbi Chidka, it refers to the day meals exclusively.

(c)We try to prove from our Mishnah from the words 'Naflah D'leikah be'Leilei Shabbos, Matzilin Mazon Shalosh Se'udos' and from 'Shacharis, Matzilin Mazon Sh'tei Se'udos' - that, according to our Mishnah, on Friday night, before one has eaten, there only three meals to go and on Shabbos morning, only two (and not four and three respectively, like the opinion of Rebbi Chidka).

(d)We refute these proofs however - by establishing both cases after they have eaten (the night meal and the day meal respectively).

12)

(a)We answer the Seifa 'be'Minchah, Matzilin Se'udah Achas' in the same way, but we refute all the answers on the basis of Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah., who says - that one may always save sufficient for three meals ...

(b)... implying that the Tana Kama requires three Se'udos (and not four, since that in not their bone of contention).

(c)We therefore conclude - that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Chidka.