Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to taking food out of the vessel that is in front of one animal and putting it in the vessel that is in front of another animal. This is also the explanation of the Aruch in his Erech of the word "Perek."

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this, as this is already clearly stated in the Mishnah regarding an animal (140b).

Explanation #2: The Ri understands that this means to pour water and animal feed from one vessel to another so that it should become mixed together well.

Observation: The Aruch gives many definitions for this word.

Implied Question: Rava states in Moed Katan (28a) that children, life, and food are not given due to merit but rather due to one's Mazal. (How can this be if there is no Mazal for Jews?)

Answer: He agrees that this can change if a Jew has a tremendous merit.

Observation: However, sometimes a Mazal cannot change, as stated in Yevamos (50a) that if one merits they add, but if they do not merit he receives less.

Explanation #1: In our entire Gemara, the implication is that Kaldai refers to astrologers.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi's explanation in Pesachim (113b) regarding the Gemara that says, "How do we know that one should not consult Kaldaim? This is as the Pasuk states, "you should be whole etc." Rashi there explains Kaldai refers to an Ov.

Question: There is another question on Rashi, as a different Pasuk explicitly states, "Do not turn to the Ovos etc." The Sifri derives, "How do we know that one cannot consult Goralos? This is as the Pasuk states, "you should be whole etc." A Goral and an astrologer are the same thing.

Question: How is it apparent to the Gemara in Pesachim (56b) and Beitzah (6b) from this Mishnah that what is prepared for a person is not deemed prepared for dogs? Perhaps it is considered prepared for dogs, and in our Gemara the reason it is forbidden for dogs is because it was Muktzah due to a prohibition, as it was not fit to be used by people when raw!

Answer #1: The Ri answers that there are some things that are fit to give to dogs when they are raw, such as birds and the like. Therefore, if it would not be for the fact that what is prepared for people is not prepared for dogs, it would be permitted to give it to dogs.

Answer #2: Rebbi Yitzchak the son of Rebbi Meir's text of our Mishnah is, "If it was not a Neveilah from Erev Yom Tov it is forbidden." This is very understandable in a simple manner, as it indeed is prepared for a person, and it is not Muktzah due to a prohibition.

Question: This does not appear correct to me, as in the beginning of Beitzah (2a) we deduce from this Mishnah that regarding Shabbos the Tana rules like Rebbi Shimon. This implies that it is stated regarding Shabbos (and not Yom Tov, unlike the answer above).

Answer #3: Rabeinu Porat explains that the deduction is from an extra Mishnah. The Mishnah should have said, "If it was not a Neveilah from Erev Shabbos, it is forbidden" and it did not have to add anything else. Why does it add, "because it is not prepared?"

Answer #3 (cont.): Rather, it was said for the reason that even if it was completely prepared for people, and it was not Muktzah due to a prohibition, it is not considered prepared for dogs.

Question: The Ri asks, why do we need both statements of Shmuel? We should derive this from his statements regarding coverings of cargo, a goat used for milk, and a sheep used for shearings (19b)?

Answer: The Muktzah there (Machmas Mius) is more lenient than the Muktzah being discussed here (Machmas Issur).

Question: The Ri asks, how is it apparent from here that he holds like Rebbi Shimon? He must say that the case is regarding an animal of Kodshim in any event, as it is apparent from the Mishnah in Beitzah (27b) that this is the case.

Question (cont.): This is because regarding the other case in the Mishnah regarding Chalah that became impure we say that just as Chalah is holy, so too the case of the animal is regarding an animal that is holy. Based on this deduction, the Gemara there asks a question on Mar bar Ameimar who says that Rebbi Shimon admitted regarding animals that died that they are forbidden.

Answer: The Ri was forced to answer that the Gemara must have known that Zeiri only said this because he wanted to say the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Shimon.

Question: The Ri asks, how is it apparent from here that he does not hold like Rebbi Shimon and that the Mishnah quoted is clearly according to Rebbi Yehudah?

Question (cont.): Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan holds of the rule that if something is Muktzah Bein Hashemashos, it is Muktzah for the entire day. A beam that broke had been Muktzah Beis Hashemashos even according to Rebbi Shimon, as it was Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis during Bein Hashemashos. Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis is indeed Muktzah! However, in our Mishnah it was not Muktzah during Bein Hashemashos as Rebbi Shimon does not say the food is Muktzah for animals if it was prepared for people.

Answer: Rebbi wanted to answer that if Rebbi Yochanan holds of the rule that if something was Muktzah Bein Hashemashos etc., he would certainly prohibit carrying an animal that became a Neveilah on Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): Even though it was ready for dogs without being slaughtered, as we explained earlier, it is still forbidden to be carried according to everyone, as everyone agrees that live animals are Muktzah. We should therefore say since it was forbidden Bein Hashemashos etc.

Question: I asked Rebbi that since it was ready for the dogs, we should not forbid a Neveilah just because it was Muktzah because it was a live animal Bein Hashemashos.

Proof: This is similar to fruit that falls off a tree. We say in Beitzah (3a) that we decree that they are Muktzah because perhaps one will climb the tree and tear off a fruit. We do not say that they are Muktzah because they were attached to a tree when Shabbos entered. This is because they were fit for ravens to eat when they were on the tree, despite the fact that they were forbidden to be carried when they were on the tree.

Answer: Rebbi answered the general terminology in our Mishnah implies that it is whether it is referring to an animal that was fit or not fit to be eaten by dogs while alive. Rebbi Shimon permits all of them, and Rebbi Yochanan is referring to all such animals when he says that the law follows Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, and he is not referring to only half of the cases. This implies he does not hold of the rule that since it is Muktzah Bein Hashemashos etc.

Observation: In Beitzah (2a), we say regarding Shabbos that the Tana made the Mishnah "Stam" like Rebbi Shimon. This implies that it considers our Mishnah to be a Stam Mishnah in favor of Rebbi Shimon!

Answer: Rebbi says that this is not because it is a Stam Mishnah. It is certainly not a Stam Mishnah as Rebbi Yehudah argues on the Tana Kama. The Gemara does not literally mean "Stam," but rather that this is the Tana Kama's opinion which is like the opinion of the majority.