Previous daf

1)

(a) Lechem ha'Panim is eaten on the ...

1. ... tenth day - when Yom-Tov falls on Friday (since the baking of the Lechem ha'Panim over-rides neither Shabbos nor Yom-Tov).
2 ... eleventh day - when Rosh Hashanah falls on Thursday and Friday.

(b) If Rosh Hashanah fell on Thursday and Friday, the eleventh day was not Yom Kipur - because when the Beis Hamikdash stood, two days Rosh Hashanah meant that the witnesses came after Minchah on the first day, in which case the first of Tishri fell on the *second* day, and not on the first; but in any event, even if the eleventh day had been Yom Kipur, they would still have been able to eat the Lechem ha'Panim on the eleventh day, since they could could have eaten them on Motza'ei Yom Kipur (and in the realm of Kodshim, the night is considered part of the previous day).

(c) According to Rav Chisda, who holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin be'Yom-Tov' - leaving only an Isur de'Rabbanan of preparing on Yom-Tov for Shabbos - we will not say here that Isurim de'Rabbanan do not apply in the Beis Hamikdash, because they only permitted Shevus Kerovah (what was needed for that day Yom-Tov or for a Shabbos which followed immediately), but not a Shevus Rechokah (such as in our case, where the Lechem ha'Panim were only eaten only *two* Shabbasos later). Note: The Sugya ignores Eruv Tavshilin altogether; Presumably this is because it is obvious that by Eruv Tavshilin, Chazal would not permit a Shevus Rechokah.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben ha'S'gan - that it was permitted to bake the Lechem ha'Panim on Yom-Tov which fell on Friday (because in his opinion, they even permitted a Shevus Rechokah), but not if *Yom Kipur* (which has the Din of Shabbos) fell on Friday.

(a) The Sh'tei ha'Lechem were eaten - on the second day after they were baked (when Shavu'os fell from Monday to Shabbos), or on the third day (if it fell on Sunday).

(b) Since Rav Chisda holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin be'Yom-Tov' - why could they not bake the Sh'tei ha'Lechem on Yom-Tov itself, since, even though it is not yet fit to eat (until the lambs that were brought with it have been Shechted), it will however, become fit to eat later in the day.

(c) This is not a Kashya on Rabah, who holds that cooking on Shabbos is permitted because of 'Ho'il' - because 'Ho'il' only applies if it is fit at that moment, which as we just explained, the breads are not. Consequently, since it is possible to bake them the day before, there is no reason to permit baking them on Yom-Tov.

4)

(a) If we hold of 'Ho'il', Rav Chisda asks Rabah, why should the Tana include plowing on Yom-Tov among the cases of Malkos? Why should someone who plows on Yom-Tov receive Malkos, seeing as the plowed earth is fit for the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam, for which it may conceivably be required?

(b) The Gemara rejects the answer that the Tana is speaking about a field which consists predominantly of sharp stones - because even then, sharp stones can be ground.

(c) The Tana is speaking, contends the Gemara, about grinding the stones in an unusual way, for which there is no Malkos.

(d) A rocky field, counters the Gemara, is not fit for sowing, and if the Tana is speaking when the top layer is rocky, but underneath the soil is soft, then he ought to be Patur from Malkos because of the soft soil, which is fit for the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam.

(a) If the Mishnah was speaking about muddy land, counters the Gemara, then it would not be fit for sowing?

(b) The Gemara finally establishes the Mishnah - by wet clay, which is fit for sowing, but not for Kisuy ha'Dam.

(a) According to Rabah, why does someone who cooks a Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and eats it, receive *five* Malkos? Why is he not Patur for lighting a fire, since a fire can be used for his own needs, and he should therefore be Patur because of 'Ho'il'?

(b) The Gemara rejects the suggestion to replace making a fire with that of eating Gid ha'Nasheh of Neveilah - because then he would receive *three* Malkos for eating, and *two* for cooking, and Rebbi Chiya quoted a Beraisa, which said that, in this case, he will receive *two* Malkos for eating and *three* for cooking.

(c) If the fuel that they used was wood from Muktzah (which is Asur be'Hana'ah, then 'Ho'il' that the fire is fit for his own private use will no longer apply.

(d) Atzei Muktzah here means wood that was stored, and therefore not designated for use as fire-wood (as most wood tended to be). The La'av referred to is that of "ve'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Shishi, ve'Hechinu es Asher Yavi'u" (Beshalach).

(a) Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) learns from the word ...

1. ... "Seh" that one cannot declare a Bechor, Hekdesh - because "Seh" implies that the animal may be either a male or a female, whereas a Bechor can only be a male.
2. ... "Achas" that one cannot declare an animal of Ma'aser Beheimah, Hekdesh - because "Achas" implies that it is a single animal, and not that it came from a group of ten.

(b) A Palgas is a sheep between the ages of twelve months (up to which time it is called a lamb) and thirteen months (when it becomes a ram). A Palgas is neither the one nor the other.

(c) 'mi'Mosar Sh'tei Mei'os she'Nishtayru be'Bor' - means that Orlah (and K'lai ha'Kerem) is Batel in two hundred.

(d) And from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" he learns 'min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael' - that Nesachim cannot be brought from Tevel (and in a wider application, that one may not use anything that is forbidden for a Mitzvah).

(a) No - one is not Chayav for Shechting a Muktzah lamb (one that was brought from the fields outside, in which case it was definitely not intended to be used on Yom-Tov) as a Korban Tamid (as we shall now see).

(b) Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) declines to include Muktzah among the Isurim from which an animal cannot be declared Hekdesh mi'd'Oraysa - because it is not an *intrinsic* Pesul, like that of Tevel, but is the result of the Isur of Shabbos, which is an *extrinsic* one.

(c) Rabah said earlier that Muktzah is d'Oraysa. If that were so, then why should there be a difference between Tevel and Muktzah (so from the fact that the Gemara makes such a distinction, we can conclude that Muktzah is de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk of "ve'Hechinu is perhaps an Asmachta).

(d) And besides, Abaye asked Rabah, was *he* not the one to say that although someone who performs a number of Melachos (with one act - be'Shogeg) *on Shabbos*, is Chayav a Chatas for each Melachah, on *Yom-Tov* (should he do the same thing be'Meizid), he will only receive *one* set of Malkos. So how can Rabah himself now insert 'wood of Muktzah', to sentence the perpetrator to *two* Malkos for contravening the laws of Yom-Tov, one for making a fire and one for cooking Gid ha'Nasheh?

(a) The problem with inserting the case of making a fire with wood of an Asheirah in the Beraisa - is that then we would have, not just *one* set of Malkos, but *two* ("ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem" and "ve'Lo Savi So'eivah El Beisecha" - Va'eschanan), and the Beraisa ought then to have listed *six* sets of Malkos, instead of *five*.

(b) We finally insert making a fire with wood of Hekdesh as the fifth case of Malkos in the Beraisa, and the warning is from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Esh ... Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokeichem" - Re'ei.