Clarification: Rashi explains that the Kohanim acquire the chest and the right calf, and the Yisrael, the Basar, from the Table of Hash-m, like a slave who receives a portion from his master'.

Implied Question: And even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who says in Bava Kama (Daf 12:) that 'Kodshim Kalim is the property of the owner', even after the Shechitah, with the exception of Matnos Kehunah.

Answer: That property he nevertheless acquires from the Table of Hash-m ...

Reason: Since the basic Korban is for Him.

Conclusion: Consequently, despite the fact that the 'money' is his with which to betroth a woman, the Avodos are performed for the sake of Hash-m.

Question: But did Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar not say earlier that a woman is permitted to fill up the oven with bread, even though she only needs one loaf ...

Reason: Because, since the bread bakes better when the oven is full, this is permitted even Lechatchilah.

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that this Sugya goes according to the Tana Kama (of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ...

Refutation: Because the Halachah is like him.

Answer #1: It is different there, since all the loaves belong to a Yisrael, who is permitted to eat any one that he chooses.

Answer #2: Moreover, unexpected guests might arrive.

Conclusion: Whereas here, where half of the loaves belong to a Nochri, one may not bake them on Yom-Tov.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this statement disagrees with Rav Chisda, who ruled a little earlier that 'A dough of which half belongs to a Nochri ... because it is possible to divide it'.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, holds that they do not argue, because the dough that belongs half to a Nochri is different, inasmuch as the Yisrael is able to divide the dough and to bake his half.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas here it speaks where the flour actually belongs to the soldiers, only the onus of baking it lies on the villagers.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Consequently, they have no authority to take flour before it has been baked and to bake it for the child, and it is only after they have baked it on behalf of the soldiers, that they will not object. Similarly, with regard to the calf a little later.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the same will apply to the case of the calf that the Gemara will cite shortly, even though the calf was their's, nevertheless, had they taken from it, they would have been annoyed, unless they took just a little in the course of cooking, in the way that one tends to taste the food whilst it is cooking.

Explanation #2 (cont.): That explains why the Gemara asks on Rav Huna from here.

Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 95. & 95:) rules that someone who removes honey-combs from a bee-hive on Yom-Tov is Chayav Malkos.

Question (cont.): Why is that? According to Rabah, who says here 'Ho'il ... ', let us say there too, that since guests might come, he is Patur?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it is different there, since it is possible to do it on Erev Yom-Tov ...

Refutation: Because when it comes to Ochel Nefesh, we do not differentiate between whether one could have done it yesterday or not, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 3.) where Rav Yosef said 'Because of fruit that falls off a tree'.

Answer #1: The Gemara there is speaking where the honey went off and is not fit to eat, only to apply to the sore of a camel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where one removed the honey-combs close to nightfall, so that even if unexpected guests would arrive, there would not be time for them to eat it.

Clarification: R. Shmuel me'Aibra, quotes his brother, R. Moshe, who rules like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Implied Question: Even though the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva whenever he argues with a colleague?

Answer: Because there is a S'tam Mishnah like him, in Maseches Chalah (Perek 1, Mishnah 8), regarding the case that we mentioned earlier, which permits baking on Yom-Tov a dough that was kneaded for dogs, provided the shepherds eat from it ...

Answer (cont.): But if they don't, then one is forbidden to bake it.

Support: As the Seifa specifically states 'But not if the shepherds don't eat from it'.

Question #1: Why does Gemara even have a Safek? On what grounds ought it to be Asur: if it is because of Tircha (undue bother), the Gemara does not answer the question, since what difference will it make if it is fit for burning, seeing as undue Tircha remains a problem?

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas if it wants to forbid it on account of Muktzah - because he holds that animal food is Muktzah, that is not correct ...

Proof: Because if so, how can one give straw to an animal?

Question #2: Moreover, the Mishnah (in Shabbos) permits moving the hair of beans 'because it is fit to be used as animal food'?

Question #3: Furthermore, the Gemara in Shabbos permits moving meat that has swelled, because it is fit to feed dogs?

Answer: Those date-pits are only fit to feed animals after a difficult preparation which entails cutting them, which is a Melachah de'Rabbanan.

Answer (cont.): On the other hand, they are fit for animals as they are in case of emergency ...

Answer (concl.): Hence the Gemara asks that since their main use is by means of a difficult preparation, how can one throw them to the animals - according to the opinion that holds "Lachem", 've'Lo li'Kelavim', seeing as it is a Melachah?

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that one is permitted to move them to give them to one's animals, since as they are fit to burn as fuel.

Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 142:) says that they only permitted a loaf or a child in order to carry a corpse.

Answer: When the Gemara there restricts the Heter to move the loaf for a dead person, it speaks about something that could have been done before Shabbos came in ...

Conclusion: Whereas the date-pits in question could not have been prepared before Yom-Tov.

Question: What is the proof from here, where it is perhaps different, since the shovel contains something that may be carried, such as ashes, which are fit to cover excrement or spit?

Question (cont.): But without the ashes, perhaps it is not permitted?

Answer - Explanation #1): The comparison here is based on the fact that each case has one point in its favor and one, that is detrimental. In our case, one is permitted to carry the cup, but its contents are forbidden; whereas in the case of the shovel, its contents are permitted, whereas the shovel itself is forbidden.

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara means is that just as the shovel is permitted on account of its contents, so too should the leftovers in the cup be permitted on account of the cup.

Refutation: But this is not correct - because according to the flow of the Sugya, it implies that when the Gemara says 'One may move a shovel together with its ashes, it is not on account of the ashes, but on account of the Heter to move something if one needs either to use it or to use its location ('Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo'), in which case it is not comparable to the cup.

Refutation (cont.): That being the case, it ought to be permitted to carry it, even its main use is one of Isur?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the advantage of the case of the cup is that the leftovers that are inside it are extremely inferior, and are Bateil to the cup, like the pieces of wood to the ashes.

Explanation #3: Rabeinu explains that one does not call 'a Basis' something minute that is not fixed - such as broken pieces of wood and the leftovers inside a cup.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And the reason that the ashes are necessary is because one ought really to pour them off the shovel, and it is only because of the ashes that one is unable to do so, because he does not want them to fall off.

Explanation #3 (concl.): And all the more so the leftovers of the cup, which one is permitted to carry together with the cup, even if there is nothing that is permitted together with them, since it is not possible to pour them out of the cup.

Question: On what grounds do Beis Shamai permit it ...

Question (cont.): Even if it is fit to drink, seeing as they do not hold of 'Mitoch'?

Answer: It speaks where one actually intends to drink the water, only he adds some in order to wash his feet.

Support: And so it says specifically in the Yerushalmi - that Beis Shamai requires one to drink from the water.

Clarification: Exclusively for his feet, but for his entire body, they concede that it is forbidden.

Reason: Because a condition of the concession is that it is something that everybody needs (Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh), whereas this is confined to to people who are finicky.

Reason: But if it is only to wash one's hands and feet, it is Shaveh le'Chol Nefesh.