[2a - 30 lines; 2b - 35 lines]
1)[line 2]שנולדהSHE'NOLDAH- that was laid
2a)[line 3]תאכלTE'ACHAL- one may eat it
b)[line 3]לא תאכלLO TE'ACHAL- one may not eat [nor move it] it [as it is Muktzah (see below, entry #6)]
3)[line 4]שאור בכזית וחמץ בככותבתSE'OR B'KEZAYIS V'CHAMETZ BEK'KOSEVES (BAL YERA'EH / BAL YIMATZEI)
(a)Aside from the negative commandment which prohibits the eating of Chametz or Se'or (sourdough; a very heavily fermented dough that is mixed with fresh dough as a leavening agent) on Pesach, two negative commandments regulate the owning of Chametz or Se'or during Pesach. These are "Bal Yera'eh" - a commandment which prohibits one from allowing Chametz or Se'or to be seen in his possession, and "Bal Yimatzei" - a commandment which prohibits one from allowing Chametz or Se'or to be found in his possession.
(b)The prohibition of Bal Yera'eh is derived from the verse, "Lo Yera'eh Lecha Chametz v'Lo Yera'eh Lecha Se'or b'Chol Gevulecha" - "Chametz shall not be seen by you, and Se'or shall not be seen by you, in all of your boundaries" (Shemos 13:7). The Rishonim discuss whether this prohibition applies only to Chametz or Se'or which is actually seen, or whether it applies even to Chametz or Se'or which could theoretically be seen (see Minchas Chinuch 20:1).
(c)The prohibition of Bal Yimatzei is learned from the Pasuk, "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem" - "[For] seven days Se'or shall not be found in your houses" (Shemos 12:19). The Gemara teaches that this verse does not mean merely that Se'or should not be found in one's house, but rather that it should not be in one's general possession, whether it is in his house or not. Furthermore, this prohibition applies not only to Se'or, but to all Chametz. One who keeps Chametz or Se'or in his possession over Pesach transgresses this prohibition even if the Chametz or Se'or is hidden away.
(d)The disagreement between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel quoted in our Mishnah concerns the minimum size of Chametz and Se'or for which one transgresses the prohibition of Bal Yera'eh. Beis Shamai maintains that one does not transgress the prohibition of having Chametz apparent in one's possession with Chametz less than the size of a date (see Daf 7b). The reason why this disagreement, as well as the next, are listed in our Mishnah is because they belong to the same rare category as their disagreement regarding an egg laid on Yom Tov - one in which Beis Shamai is more lenient than Beis Hillel. The three times that this is true when they disagree regarding Yom Tov are quoted together here.
4)[line 7]יחפור בדקרYACHPOR B'DEKER- he should dig with a shovel (O.F. pele)
5)[line 7]ויכסהV'YECHASEH (KISUY HA'DAM)
(a)It is a Mitzvah to cover the blood of slaughtered birds and Chayos (non-domesticated Kosher animals) (Vayikra 17:13). The blood must be surrounded from above and below with earth or any other granular substance.
6)[line 8]עפר מוכןAFAR MUCHAN (MUKTZAH)
(a)Muktzah literally means "set aside" or "designated". With regard to Shabbos, this term is used to describe items which one has no intention of using on Shabbos, such as wood stacked in a barn. Anything that a person had no intention to use during Bein ha'Shemashos (twilight) at the start of Shabbos (or Yom Tov) - for any reason - is included in the category of Muktzah and may not be moved on Shabbos.
(b)An item that is not Muktzah is called Muchan - prepared. Beis Hillel maintain that earth must be prepared from before Yom Tov for the express purpose of covering the blood of a bird or Chayah that one plans on slaughtering the next day in order for it to be permissible to do so.
(c)Should that which was Muktzah at Bein ha'Shemashos prove to be useful at a later point on Shabbos, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon disagree as to its status. Rebbi Yehudah rules that Migo d'Iskatza'i l'Vein ha'Shemashos, Iskatza'i l'Chulei Yoma. This means that since it was set aside as Muktzah during twilight, it remains categorized as such for all of Shabbos, even if the reason for why it was Muktzah then no longer applies. Rebbi Shimon maintains that since one realizes during Bein ha'Shemashos that the object may become useful on Shabbos, then he may utilize or move the object at the point at which it becomes usable (Shabbos 44a, 46b). Practically, this means that the object is not Muktzah. The Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah.
7)[line 9]ומודיםU'MODIM- and they agree (i.e., Beis Hillel concede to Beis Shamai)
8)[line 10]אפר כירהEFER KIRAH- the ash from an oven (the Gemara will explain this statement)
9)[line 12]אוכלא דאפרתUCHLA D'IFRAS- food that has [from food]
10)[line 14]לית להו מוקצהLEIS LEHU MUKTZAH- do not [agree that there is] a concept of Muktzah (i.e., they agree with Rebbi Shimon; see above, entry #6)
11)[line 17]בנולד אסרB'NOLAD ASAR (NOLAD)
(a)That which came into being on Shabbos or changed significantly from the form which it took during Bein ha'Shemashos (twilight leading into Shabbos) is Halachically termed "Nolad" (born). Examples of this category include the pieces of utensils that broke on Shabbos, eggs laid on Shabbos, and fruit pits -- previously considered part of the fruit- that are separated from the fruit on Shabbos.
(b)The question dealt with in our Gemara is whether or not this is similar to the case of Muktzah in which Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon disagree. Perhaps Rebbi Shimon maintains that in such a case the item is not Muktzah, as advance designation for use on Shabbos is not necessary. Or, conversely - since one could not possibly have realized that the item may be useful on Shabbos prior to its onset, as it did not then exist in its present form - such an item may be Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon.
12)[line 19]לגדל ביציםL'GADEL BEITZIM- a) to lay eggs (most RISHONIM); b) to raise chicks (BA'AL HA'MA'OR)
13)[line 22]ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי?U'MI AMAR RAV NACHMAN HACHI?- did Rav Nachman indeed say that [Beis Hillel is stringent like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, and it is Beis Shamai who rule according to the lenient opinion of Rebbi Shimon]?
14)[line 24]קליפיןKELIPIN- a) nutshells; b) fruit peels [that are fit to be animal food) (TOSFOS)
15)[line 24]מסלקMESALEK- he should remove
16)[line 24]הטבלאHA'TAVLA- the breadboard [upon which the bones and shells are lying]
17)[line 25]מנערהMENA'ARAH- shake it off
18)[line 25]אין לנוEIN LANU- do not have [the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai as they are stated in this Mishnah]
19)[line 27]דסתם לן תנאD'SASAM LAN TANA (HALACHAH K'STAM MISHNAH)
(a)Certain Amora'im maintain that whenever a Mishnah records an anonymous opinion, the Halachah follows that opinion. The reason for this is that Rebbi, who systematically organized the Mishnayos, agreed with this opinion. He therefore presented it anonymously so that it appears as the consensus opinion. Since Rebbi, the last of the Tana'im, favored that opinion, we accept it as the Halachah.
20)[line 28]מחתכין את דלועיןMECHATCHIN ES HA'DELU'IN- one may cut up [detached] gourds [even though a) it is a lot of work (RASHI to 2b); b) it seems that he is making them into food through doing so (TOSFOS to 2b DH d'Tenan)]
21)[line 29]הנבלה לפני הכלביםHA'NEVEILAH LI'FNEI HA'KELAVIM (MUCHAN L'ADAM LO HEVEI MUCHAN L'KELAVIM)
(a)A food item that is fit for human consumption (though not in its present state) -- and is therefore not designated dog food (even though it is fit for them in its present state) - is termed "Muchan l'Adam v'Eino Muchan l'Kelavim".
(b)The Mishnah quoted in our Gemara discusses one type of food item that falls under this category; namely, an animal which was alive when Shabbos began (and was therefore fit for human consumption as its owner planned on slaughtering it in a Halachically valid manner) and then died on Shabbos as a result of anything other than Halachically valid slaughter (a Neveilah). Rebbi Yehudah maintains that such an item may not be fed to dogs on Shabbos (Muchan l'Adam Lo Hevei Muchan li'Kelavim), since it is a form of Nolad (see above, entry #17). Rebbi Shimon disagrees and permits feeding it to dogs under such circumstances (Muchan l'Adam Hevei Muchan li'Kelavim).
22)[line 2]מבקעין עציםMEVAK'IN ETZIM- chop [fire]wood
23)[line 2]הקורותKOROS- beams [designated as building material]
24)[line 3]הקורה שנשברה ביום טובHA'KORAH SHE'NISHBERA B'YOM TOV- a beam that [was cracked before Yom Tov, causing one to realize that it might break on Yom Tov (TOSFOS DH Ein), which then] broke on Yom Tov [rendering it unusable for building]
25)[line 4]מאן סתמיה למתני'?MAN SASMEI L'MASNISIN?- who transcribed Mishnayos with anonymous authorship (see above, entry #19)?
26)[line 7]ולא אתי לזלזולי בהV'LO ASI L'ZALZULEI BAH- and one will [therefore] not come to treat [the prohibitions associated with] it lightly
27)[line 14]וכ"ת כח דהתירא עדיףV'CHI TEIMAH KO'ACH D'HETEIRA ADIF
(a)When a far-reaching disagreement that affects more than one possible case is recorded, there are two possible ways in which to demonstrate the disagreement. One is by detailing the case that highlights one opinion, while the other is to detail the case that highlights the other opinion. For example, in our Gemara Rav Nachman maintains that Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai disagree regarding whether or not both a hen and the egg that it lays on Yom Tov are Muktzah. The disagreement can be recorded using the egg as an example, which would highlight the opinion of Beis Shamai. This is because the egg is not Muktzah, even though it is Nolad (see above, entry #11). The disagreement can also be recorded using the hen as an example, which would highlight the opinion of Beis Hillel. This is because the hen is Muktzah even though it is not Nolad.
(b)It is generally better to highlight the lenient opinion, as this teaches us more than the stringent one. If one rules stringently, we do not know his true opinion on the matter. He may have decided that the stringent ruling is the correct one. He may, however, have been in doubt regarding the correct ruling, and ruled stringently out of doubt. One who rules leniently clearly maintains that such a ruling is correct, and must have the necessary proof to back it up. This is termed "Ko'ach d'Heteira Adif" - "the power of leniency is greater".
(a)Rabah maintains that there is a biblical injunction to verbally designate food for Shabbos or Yom Tov on a weekday preceding it. This is known as "Hachanah".
(b)The designated food need not be prepared or even edible prior to the onset of Shabbos or Yom Tov, but it must exist. Therefore, if an egg is laid on Shabbos and the next day is Yom Tov, or vice versa, then according to this opinion it may not be eaten until after Shabbos or Yom Tov is over. This is because the egg never existed on a weekday, and was therefore unable to be designated properly (see Background to Eruvin 38:4c).
(c)The Halachah does not follow the opinion of Rabah in this matter.
29a)[line 20]דמתילדא האידנאD'MISYALDA HA'IDNA- that was laid today
b)[line 21]מאתמול גמרה להME'ESMOL GAMRAH LAH- was completed (see below, entry #32) yesterday
30)[line 22]"וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, וְהֵכִינוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יָבִיאוּ ...""V'HAYAH BA'YOM HA'SHISHI, V'HECHINU ES ASHER YAVI'U ..."- "And it will be on Friday, that they will designate that [Manna] that they will bring [home as that which they wish to use for Shabbos] ..." (Shemos 16:5).
31)[line 26]בעלמאB'ALMA- that falls following a weekday
32)[line 30]ביצים גמורותBEITZIM GEMUROS- a) eggs whose yolk is developed [even without an egg white or a hard shell] (RASHI to Daf 6b); b) eggs whose yolk and egg white is developed [even without a hard shell] (RASHBA, RAN)
33)[line 31]דמתילדן ביומיהןD'MISYALDAN B'YOMEIHEN- that are laid on Yom Tov [that follows Shabbos]
34)[line 32]במעי אמןB'MA'I IMAN- in their mother's stomach
35)[line 32]מילתא דלא שכיחאMILSA D'LO SHECHICHA- that which occurs infrequently
36)[line 34]פירות הנושריןPEIROS HA'NOSHRIN- fruits that have fallen [from a tree on Shabbos or Yom Tov, which one may not eat