Question: Why does the Mishnah not say 'Osrin u'Matirin'?

Refuted Answer: If you will suggest that 'Osrin u'Matirin' implies permanently ...

Refutation: This is not the case

Source #1: As we will learn later (Daf 6.) 'A chick that is born on Yom-Tov is Asur - on that day only!

Source #2: Furthermore, we say (later on Daf 30:) 'The leftover oil in the lamp, Rebbi Yehudah declares Asur - on that day only!

Answer: Explanation #1: Had the Mishnah said 'Osrin u'Matirin', we would have thought that the egg is only permitted to move, but not to eat.

Proof: And so we say later (in Daf 24.( in connection with a certain Nochri who brought fish for Raban Gamliel, who rules that although it was permitted, he did not want to accept it from him.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara concludes there that by 'Mutar', he meant to move, but that it remained forbidden to eat.

Question: How can Beis Hillel say 'Lo Te'achel', implying that moving it is permitted, seeing as we Pasken later (on Daf 4.) that one may not even move it?

Explanation #2: Therefore the Ri explains that the Mishnah uses this Lashon, since a S'tam egg is meant to be eaten.

Explanation #3:Alternatively, Beis Shamai says 'Te'achel', because it implies both eating and moving, since one does not eat an egg without touching it ...

Conclusion: And Beis Hillel forbidden even touching it, and it is only because Beis Shamai says 'Te'achel' that he says 'Lo Te'achel'.

Implied Question: This does not really belong here ...

Answer: And the Mishnah mentions it here because it is one of three things that Beis Hillel goes le'Chumra and Beis Shamai, le'Kula.

Clarification: It is food that separated from food, since the egg was born from a chicken that one could have Shechted and eaten whatever was inside it.

Question: The Mishnah specifically states that Beis Shamai holds of Muktzah - when he says (later, on Daf 10.) 'He may not take (a bird from the dove-cot) unless he moved it when it was still day.

Answer: Muktzah of living creatures is a more stringent type of Muktzah ...

Answer (cont.): And that is where he holds Muktzah ...

Support: In the same way as Rebbi Shimon, holds that by 'Gerogros and Tzimukin' there is Muktzah, even though he does not otherwise hold of Muktzah.

Clarification: Since a person does not push away something that is fit for him to use, whereas when it comes to Nolad, he did not know about yesterday.

Question: Rebbi Shimon, who permits Muktzah, also permits Nolad ...

Source: As we find in Shabbos (Daf 29.) where Rebbi Yehudah forbids burning broken vessels, whilst Rebbi Shimon permits them, even though they are Nolad?

Answer: That is not comparable, seeing as the Nolad here is 'more Nolad', since initially it was not in the world; whereas the vessel there was in the world, only it broke.

Support: And this is also implied in the Gemara in Eruvin (Daf 45:) where it says (in connection with rain that falls on Shabbos) "The water is absorbed in the clouds'.

Support (cont.): And the Gemara asks 'Then it is certainly Nolad, and ought to be Asur?'

Support (cont.): What is the Kashya? Perhaps the case there goes like Rebbi Shimon, who permits Nolad?

Conclusion: Clearly then, it is Asur, as Tosfos just explained, because, since the water is absorbed in the clouds, it is not in the world at all, and Rebbi Shimon concedes that this kind of Nolad is forbidden.

Explanation #1): Rashi establishes that this is the case even though they are fit, neither for human consumption, nor for that of animals.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since the Seifa mentions the hair of beans and the hair of lentils, which are fit for animal food.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that they are fit for animal food, e.g. soft bones and apple-peels. Whereas Beis Hillel maintains that if they are not fit for human consumption, it is Asur.

Question: Why is it not considered a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur' ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as he did not forget it, but placed them there on purpose?

Answer #1: According to Rabeinu Tam, who explains in Shabbos (Daf 51.) that it is only a Basis if one intends to leave it there for the entire duration of Shabbos, there is no problem.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since there is food there (on the table), it is a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur ve'ha'Mutar, which is permitted, as is evident in Perek Noteil (Ibid, Daf 142.).

Answer #3: Furthermore, this is not considered placing on purpose, since he doesn't care whereabouts they fall.

Question: How is it speaking; If it is speaking about gourds that were attached Bein ha'Shemashos, Rebbi Shimon will certainly concede there, due based on a decree that one might climb up and detach them?

Answer: It speaks where they are detached, and we would otherwise have thought that it would be forbidden, since one turns them into a food, seeing as they are hard, and cutting them softens them.

Clarification: We need to say that the animal died on Shabbos.

Implied Question: Yet it mentions them together - even though the reason by pumpkins is not on account of Muktzah like it is by Neveilah?

Answer: Because 'cutting is applicable to both.

Question: Why is it not a 'S'tam ve'Achar-kach Machlokes' ...

Question (cont.): Since Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah, when he says that if it did not die on Erev Shabbos, it is Asur', in which case the Halachah is not like the S'tam?

Proof: Because in such a case it is considered a 'S'tam ve'Achar-kach Machlokes', in Perek yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 122:) in connection with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, when it asks that it is a 'S'tam ve'Achar-kach Machlokes'?

Answer: The Gemara there relies on the statement 've'Od Mai Ela?' that it asks there afterwards ...

Conclusion: But really, it is considered a S'tam to be considered a majority, rendering it a S'tam like Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Yehudah is a Yachid.

Question: By Shabbos too, there is a S'tam like Rebbi Yehudah, as we learned in Shabbos (Daf 44.) 'One may move a new lamp on Shabbos, but not an old one; whereas Rebbi Shimon permits it?

Question (cont.): And since he forbids Muktzah Machmas Miy'us (due to ugliness), how much more so Muktzah Machmas Isur (i.e. the Isur of Shechitah)?

Answer: The current S'tam (regarding Neveilah) is better, since it is learned S'tam at the end of Perek Mi she'Hichshich (Ibid. Daf 156: & 157.) See Maharam.

Question: What makes this S'tam better than the other S'tam?

Answer: Because in Iduyos it is not listed among the leniences of Beis Shamai and the stringencies of Beis Hillel.

Clarification: The Gemara is not bringing its proof from the Reisha regarding the prohibition against chopping planks ...

Clarification (cont.): Since it is speaking about a pile of planks, which is Muktzah Machmas Chesaron Kis (on account of its value), with which everyone, even Rebbi Shimon, agrees.

Conclusion: but rather from the Seifa, regarding the prohibition against using a beam that broke.

Question: But Rebbi Shimon only permits where one is 'sitting and waiting' (later, Daf 30:)?

Answer: Here too, since it broke on Yom-Tov, it was probably weak on the day before, and he was 'sitting and waiting; when for his beam to break, that it will be fit to use as firewood.

Clarification: Rashi ascribes 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif' to the fact that when a person rules Mutar, he relies on his ruling, which he is therefore obligated to prove ...

Clarification: Whereas to rule Asur, anybody can be strict without giving a reason for it.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask this question whenever it cites the principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif'?

Answer: What the Gemara is asking here is 'Why not argue in both cases, without being lengthy, and just saying 'It and its egg'?

Conclusion: It would not be possible to ask this in other cases.

Clarification: Rashi explains that Rabah is coming to prove that even if the Hachanah is bi'Yedei Shamayim, the egg is forbidden (See Rashi DH 've'Heichinu').

Clarification (cont.): Because if it was bi'Yedei Adam - that is to say they baked or cooked it before nightfall, the Pasuk specifically writes "Whatever they want to bake they should bake ... ".

Clarification (cont.): What the Gemara must therefore be referring to is a verbal Hachanah. And if Yom-Tov cannot prepare for Shabbos, how much more so can Shabbos not prepare for Yom-Tov.

Question: Rashi asks that if so, an egg that is laid on Sunday or the day after Yom-Tov should be Asur, from a Kal va'Chomer, because if Shabbos and Yom-Tov cannot prepare for one another, how much more so can they not prepare for a weekday?

Answer: And he answers that a weekday meal does not require Hachanah, since it is not Chashuv.

Question: Since Hachanah is d'Oraysa, how can one bake and cook on Yom-Tov for Shabbos?

Refuted Answer:And if you will answer 'via an Eiruv Tavshilin' ...

Refutation: How can a Takanas Chachamim come and override Hachanah d'Oraysa?

Answer #1: Rabah follows his own reasoning, since he holds of 'Ho'il (Since, if guests come, it will be fit to eat, now too, it is be fit to eat)'.

. Answer #2: And even according to us (who do not hold 'Ho'il') it is in order, because whatever is baked or cooked is not subject to Hachanah, since it only needs a small Tikun (a minor preparation), seeing as it fit for him at the outset.

Answer #2 (cont.): And it is only an egg, a new object that was not yet in the world and was therefore not fit to eat at all (that is subject to Hachanah).

Question: It seems from the Sugya here that the Manna did not fall on Yom-Tov, as Rashi explains - "ha'Shishi", which is fit for Hachanah i.e. a weekday.

Question (cont.): But does the Medrash not say "Vayevarech Vayekadesh" - 'He blessed it with Manna and He sanctified it with Manna', inasmuch as the Manna did not fall on Shabbos', implying that on Yom-Tov it did?

Answer #1: There are conflicting Medrashim, as we find in the Mechilta, Parshas Beshalach "Shabbos Lo Yih'yeh" (Sh'mos 16) - 'to include Yom Kipur'. "bo" - 'to include the other Yamim-Tovim', on which the Manna did not fall either.

Answer #2: Even if the Manna did fall on Yom-Tov, it did not fall on Yom-Tov that fell on Erev Shabbos ...

Proof: Since the Torah writes regarding it "ba'Yom-ha'Shishi" (and not "Shishi") implying 'ha'Shishi' that is special because it is fit (to prepare).

Implied Question: This is not a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah ...

Answer: Since 'Mutar le'Ochlan be'Yom-Tov' implies even on Yom-Tov that falls after Shabbos.

Question: Perhaps if he had not Shechted it, it would have been born today, in which case, it was completed yesterday, and it ought to be forbidden because of a Safek, even without a decree?

Answer: Since in fact, it was not born through that, it is not considered as having been completed ...

Yerushalmi: Though the Yerushalmi disagrees with this.