Question: Why did the Gemara not say that the Halachah is like the Tana Kama?

Answer: Had it done so, we would have thought that the Halachah is like him in all his points, even regarding his ruling that one concludes with Shabbos.

Answer (concl.): Which is not the case, since we Pasken like Rebbi, according to whom one concludes 'Baruch ... Mekadesh ha'Shabbos Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim'.

Question: Why do we need this reason, when there is the reason of 'Hachanah', as we learned in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 38. & 38:) 'Why may one not prepare on Yom-Tov for Shabbos - because of Hachanah'?

Answer: Because were it not for the reason of 'Makni Shevisah be'Shabsa', we would not forbid it on account ot 'Hachanah' ...

Answer (concl.): Seeing as there is a doubt as to whether it is not completely Chol.

Question: The question remains however, why the Gemara in Eruvin needs to come on to the reason of 'Hachanah', why not because 'Lemikni Shevisah be'Shabsa, Lo'?

Answer (Explanation #1): Because there it is speaking about Eruvei Chatzeros, where 'acquiring Shevisah' does not apply?

Question: It is nevertheless difficult from the Gemara in Gitin, Perek ha'Zorek (Daf 77:) where, in the case of a Sh'chiv-Mera, the Gemara says that 'She should enter the room and lock the door (in order to acquire the Get)'.

Question (concl.): And that is speaking about Shabbos, where the Gemara permits a Kinyan, even though here, it forbids being Koneh Shevisah even on Yom-Tov?

Answer: A Sh'chiv-Mera is different, since they permitted it in order not to cause him to lose his sanity and die.

Proof: And proof of this distinction lies in the fact that they permitted him to divorce his wife on Shabbos, whereas we neither betroth nor divorce.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara later does not mention a prohibition to divorce ...

Answer #1: Nevertheless, why should there be a difference between Kidushin and Gerushin in this regard?

Answer #2: Moreover, the Tosefta specifically forbids both.

Refutation: This (establishing the Sugya in Eruvin by Eruvei Chatzeros) is not correct however, because since the Gemara says there 'Do you not agree', it implies that nobody disagrees with him; But Rebbi said earlier that 'One may make an Eruv Chatzeros'.

Explanation #2: We must therefore say that the reason in our Sugya (too) is because of 'Hachanah', and when the Gemara forbids being Koneh Shevisah, it means because of 'Hachanah', since it is forbidden to prepare on Shabbos for Yom-Tov'.

Question: Rebbi Yochanan stated earlier (on Daf 4.) 'Noldah ba'Zeh, Muteres ba'Zeh', and the Gemara there attributes this to the fact that he does not hold of 'Hachanah'?

Question (cont.): How can Rebbi Yochanan argue with all the Tana'im and Amora'im in both Sugyos?

Answer: The Tana'im and Amora'im in both Sugyos are speaking about Hachanah that is done with the hands, such as Eruvei Techumin, to even Rebbi Yochanan agrees; whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking about an egg, whose Hachanah is done by the Hand of Hash-m (i.e. automatically).

Question #1: Since his flour is forbidden, what does it help to be Makneh it to others, how will that remove the Isur, to allow him to eat it himself after it has become Asur?

Question #2: Moreover, since it is forbidden, on what basis are others permitted to bake on his behalf? How can others do for him what he is not allowed to do for himself?

Answer (Change of Text):Therefore the correct wording is that of the B'hag - 'If you say that he is forbidden but his flour is not, then he can be Makneh his flour to others' - because then the Kinyan will be effective.

Answer (Change of Text [cont.]): But if you say that he is forbidden and so is his flour, then he cannot be Makneh his flour to others', since the Kinyan will not take effect.

Conclusion: And the Gemara shortly concludes 'So we see that he is forbidden, but his flour is not'.

Clarification: Rashi explains this in connection with cooking in two pots, that he says 'I need to invite guests ir 'Guests are coming'.

Clarification (cont.): But in one pot one is permitted to 'cheat' and to add.

Proof: Since we see earlier that this is even permitted from the first day of Yom-Tov for the second.

Question: How does this differ from the case of Rav Ada, who 'cheated' and salted bone by bone?

Answer #1: It is different there, since it was only a matter of Ibud Ochlin (tanning), which they permitted on account of Simchas Yom-Tov ...

Answer (con.) #1: Because otherwise, he will be afraid that the Basar will become putrid, and will refrain from Shechting the animal in the first place.

Answer (concl.) #1: Whereas her it is referring to cooking, which is stricter.

Answer #2: Furthermore, he could have rectified the problem by making Eruv Tavshilin before Shabbos came in.

Text #1: And the fish and the egg on it are only considered one cooked dish.

Text #1 (cont.): Whereas Beis Hillel say 'Tavshil Echad' - meaning that one dish consisting of a fish with egg on it is considered two cooked dishes.

Question: This is not what the wording implies?

Text #2: It therefore seems that one needs to invert the text as follows: Beis Shamai say 'Tavshil Echad' - meaning that a fish with the egg that is on it is considered only one cooked dish, and one therefore needs to add another cooked dish.

Text #2 (cont.): Whereas Beis Hillel say 'Sh'nei Tavshilin', meaning that a fish with egg on it is considered two cooked dishes.

Clarification: Rashi explains - according to Beis Hillel, who says 'one Tavshil' (according to the original text [See previous DH]).

Halachah: Rabeinu Tam rules that in order to bake, one requires an Eruv of bread, and that one cannot bake on an Eruv of a cooked dish.

Source: Since we Pasken like Rebbi Eliezer, who says that one may only bake on something is baked and cook on a cooked dish ...

Proof: Since the Gemara cites him S'tam, earlier in the Perek, when it says that 'The Tana cites it from here ... '.

Implied Question: And when Beis Hillel above permitted placing one Eruv and doing with it whatever one wishes?

Answer: He is referring to Beis Shamai there, who says that one may only wrap hot foods if he had foods already wrapped before Shabbos ... '.

Answer (con.): And he maintains that even cooking three dishes requires an equivalent dish that was prepared beforehand.

Answer (concl.): And it is to that ruling that Beis Hillel is referring and says that 'On one cooked dish one can do as one pleases' i.e. a variety of cooked dishes, such as hot foods and the likes.

Implied Question: And when Abaye said 'They only permitted one cooked dish, but not bread'?

Answer: That is only where one doesn't intend to bake. But someone who does requires (an Eruv of) bread.

Refutation: R. Yitzchak however, does not agree with this.

Proof: Because all the above-mentioned cases indicate that one only requires one cooked dish, both in order to bake and in order to cook?

Implied Question: And when the Gemara earlier cited Rebbi Eliezer ...

Answer: It was not because the Halachah is like him, but just to hint at Eruvei Tavshilin.

Proof: Because to the contrary, we pasken like Rebbi Yehoshua against Rebbi Eliezer, seeing as Rebbi Eliezer is (branded as) a Shamuti.

Proof (cont.): And Rebbi Yehoshua, in the Yerushalmi, argues with Rebbi Eliezer and permits baking and cooking on a cooked dish.

Conclusion: Nevertheless, the Ri concludes, 'I dare not contravene a ruling of my uncle (Rabeinu Tam), and that one therefore requires two cooked dishes - bread and a cooked dish'. And this is the accepted Minhag.