Clarification: Rashi explains that deriving benefit from the shade is not prohibited, since that is not the way one generally benefits from it.

Question: Since the Torah does not mention 'Achilah' in connection with it, it ought to be forbidden to do so even in an unusual manner.

Answer: We learn Me'ilah "Chet" "Chet" from T'rumah, and by T'rumah, the Torah does mention 'Achilah'.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Tzelamim' (Avodah-Zarah 48:) to sit underneath an Asheirah-tree?

Answer #1: Is because an Asheirah is planted for its shade.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Torah does not mention 'Achilah' in connection with Avodah-Zarah.

Alternative Answer: Abaye could have established it like Rebbi Shimon, since the Machlokes is according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that since the Torah permits it, why did the Rabbanan trouble him (to be lowered in a box)?

Question: The Ri queries this however, from the case of dragging a bench, where there is no Isur min ha'Torah either, yet Rava argues and forbids it by Lo Efshar u'Mechaven?

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means is that - since the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, where it is necessary, such as to repair the Kodesh Kodshim, it is logical to say that the Rabbanan should waive the Isur.

Question: The Beraisa in Perek ha'Chalil (Succah 53. & 53:) states that 'A woman is permitted to select wheat by the light of the Simchas Beis ha'Sho'evah, even tough the oil and the wicks were from Kodesh, as we learned there in the Mishnah ...

Conclusion: And the Yerushalmi extrapolates from there that 'Kol, u'Mar'eh ve'Re'ach Ein bahem Mishum Me'ilah'?

Halachah: It is only forbidden to move closer to the Azarah in order to increase one's enjoyment of the aroma ...

Source: Since we learned (in Yoma Daf 38:) that 'A bride did not need to wear perfume in Yerushalayim, because of the smell of the Ketores.

Question: The Ri asks why we need two Miy'utim, when one would suffice - to teach us not to learn a Binyan Av from them?

Answer: Had the Torah would have written only one Miy'ut, we would only have been able to preclude things that are less likely to be forbidden, but not things that are more likely. Therefore we need both.

Context: The Tosefta learns this Beraisa in connection with Parah.

Clarification: The Gemara cites this because it is the Mishnah in connection with which Rav Papa makes his statement.

Question: Why is it Pasul,seeing as the owner is certainly not pleased tolose a cow which is so valuable, for such a small benefit?

Answer: Since, if it would be Kasher, he would be pleased, we cannot declare it Kasher.

Question: In the case where he took it (the Eglah Arufahor the Parah Adumah) in to threshing-floor and it threshed, why is it Kasher. In what way does this differ from where a male went up on it', where it is Pasul?

Answer #1: Because in that case, he is not particularly pleased about its threshing, seeing as the corn is being threshed anyway (by the other animals), he gains nothing by the fact that this calf threshes too.

Answer #2: Whereas Rebbi Yehudah explains that a S'tam Parah is a young one, and he probably does not want to trouble it to thresh.

Question: We learned in the Mishnah (in Parah) with regard to a pregnant cow 'Rebbi Eliezer Machshir, va'Chachamim Poslin'. Whereas here we learned (seemingly unanimously) that if a male comes on it, it is Pasul?

Answer #1: Our Sugya goes according to the Chachamim, who declare it Pasul.

Support: For so too, we find that Rebbi Yehudah argues (with the Chachamim); They say that it is only if the owner actually brings the male on it that it is Pasul, but that if it goes by itself, it is Kasher.

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Mishnah here says that it is Pasul, that is specifically where he actually witnessed the male going up on it, and he was pleased at the time, just as the Gemara says there in Bava Metzi'a ''If the dew is still on it, and he rejoiced, it is 'b'chi Yutan'.

Answer #2 (conclusion): Whereas if it has already dried, it is not, since we need 'Yutan' similar to "Yiten"; even though if he would have known when the dew was on it he would have rejoiced

Implied Question: And that what we say in Perek Eglah Arufah (Sotah 46.) 'A yoke invalidates both whilst the calf is working and whilst it is not; whereas other P'sulim only invalidate whilst it is working?

Answer: The male being intimate with it is considered work.

Word Meaning: Rabeinu Chananel explains that it is similar to the Gemara in Eruvin (94.) 'He spread out the coat'.

Clarification: He holds that 'The benefit of the wood goes into the bread'. Likewise here 'The benefit of the wood goes into the oven'.

Clarification (cont.): 'Yesh Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas' refers to the fact that it is the wood that causes the bread to bake, when the flame is directed on to it.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan hold 'Ein Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas' - even if the flame is directed on to the bread ...

Clarification (cont.): Because the flame goes into the bread only on account of the wood that has already been burned, which is considered like coal, in which case, the Isur is no longer there. And this is also how Rashi explains it.

Question: Rebbi Aharon asked on Rebbi (See Maharsha) from the Mishnah in T'rumos (Perek 2, Mishnah 3) that 'If somebody cooks on Shabbos be'Shogeg, he may eat it, even on Shabbos'. Why is that, he asks? Bearing in mind that the coals are Muktzah, why do we not say that the benefit of the Muktzah wood goes into the bread?

Answer: The Ri answers that 'Ein Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas is confined to Isurei Hana'ah exclusively.

Support: And this is also what Rashi says in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 66. And 66:) in connection with the case of 'An oven that one lit with cumin of T'rumah'.

Halachah: 'Bishlah' implies specifically Bedi'eved.

Implied Question: In spite of the principle that 'Whatever has to be burned is permitted' - even Lechatchilah?

Answer: One needs to differentiate between 'ashes' and 'coals'.

Reason: Because 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is Mutar'.

Implied Question: Even though Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is only Mutar Bedi'eved, as is evident at the end of Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 48:) ...

Source: Where Rebbi Yossi forbade re-planting a nut of Orlah, though he admits that Bedi'eved it is permitted, because of 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem'.

Answer: Here it is considered like Bedi'eved, because if we were to obligate the oven to be demolished, he would lose the oven.

Implied Question: Even though 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem is permitted?

Answer: Nevertheless, seeing as the old oven only needs to cool down and the owner loses nothing other than the Isur Hana'ah, he must let it cool down.