Clarification: They had a fixed Shi'ur for the height of the walls of the enclosures.

Question: Earlier, the Gemara gave a different Shi'ur?

Answer: Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the two Shi'urim are one and the same.

Refutation: This is a Dochek however, because if so, why does the Gemara need to explain the Shi'ur again, having already discussed once 'What is the definition of a large enclosure'?

Answer: Explanation #1: Tosfos therefore explains that the GeMara earlier was speaking about animals and beasts, whereas here it is speaking about birds.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara said there 'This speaks about an enclosure that has a ceiling'?

Answer: Nevertheless, it did not explain what Shi'ur is needed for it not to be considered lacking Tzeidah.

Conclusion: In any event, now we can understand why the Gemara queries it from geese and chickens.

Question: We Pasken that whenever the term 'Patur' is used, it means Patur Aval Asur (mi'de'Rabbanan).

Question (cont.): And our Mishnah also concedes that this is the case?

Answer #1: According to what Tosfos explained in the Mishnah, that we decree feeding the birds in case one comes to trap them, one must say that it is Asur min ha'Torah.

Answer #1 (cont.): Since, if it was Asur only mi'de'Rabbanan, we would not decree feeding on account of trapping, as it would be a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara relies on the Mishnah in Perek ha'Oreg (Shabbos 106:) where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if it is lacking Tzeidah, one is Patur, since it lacks being trapped.

Answer #2 (cont.): In which case, someone who traps from it is Chayav.

Answer #2 (cont.): And what the Gemara asks is 'Having established it where it is lacking Tzeidah, meaning that wherever one says 'Fetch a net and let's trap it!', how can one say here that someone who catches geese or chickens is Patur?

Conclusion: Because since one needs to say 'Fetch a net and let's trap it!', it is lacking Tzeidah, and someone who traps from there is Chayav, which is the case here?

Explanation #1: Since they were definitely trapped on Erev Yom-Tov, Rashi explains, and it calls them 'B'nei Yoman'.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because then it is obvious that one is permitted to move them, according to all opinions; whereas in reality, it implies that that it only goes according to Raban Gamliel, who permits Safek Muchan?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explains that it is not certain that it was trapped on Erev Yom-Tov, only it is a Safek.

Conclusion: In which case it goes according to Raban Gamliel,who permits Safek Muchan.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'the time it takes to pick them, in order not to benefit from the work of Yom Tov.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And he is referring to the first night - since Mah Nafshach, they are permitted: If today was a weekday , they were picked on a weekday; whereas if today was Kodesh, then tonight is a weekday.

Explanation #1 (conc.): And it is talking about the two day Yom-Tov of Galuyos.

Proof #1: And he brings a proof from an egg, above (Daf 4: & 5.) 'which is laid on one day and permitted on the next'.

Proof #2: And from the deer that was trapped on the first day and one may eat on the second, in Eruvin (Daf 39: & 40.)

Explanation #2: Whereas Rabeinu Yitzchak ha'Levy and the Ge'onim forbid it until Motza'ei Yom-Tov Sheini.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And he explains 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' with reference to a night which is fit to do work.

Support #1 for Explanation #1: However (Rashi writes) in a Teshuvah of Rabeinu Gershom Me'or ha'Golah, explained like he did ...

Support #2 for Explanation #1: And also Rabeinu K'lonimus from Rome (an expert in Shas) sent him a note from Worms that agreed with his explanation.

Question: The Ri however, queries Rashi, who explains that 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' is in order not to benefit from work that has been performed on Yom-Tov, in that if so, why, if somebody cooks on Shabbos be'Shogeg, is one permitted to eat it, seeing as he is benefitting from work that one performed on Shabbos?

Conclusion: Consequently, the reason cannot be that, but rather because one might ask the Nochri to go and pick it.

Proof for Explanation #2: And that explains why they are forbidden until Motza'ei Yom-Tov Sheini bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu, because if it was only until Motza'ei Yom-Tov Rishon, we would still suspect that he might ask the Nochri to pick it, in order to eat it on the second day of Yom-Tov.

Proof for Explanation #2 (concl.): In which case, the Gemara must be referring to a night that is fit to do work.

Refutation #1 of Explanation #1: And as for Rashi's proof from the egg ... , one can refute that, inasmuch as the egg was laid by itself 'bi'Yedei Shamayim.

Refutation #2 of Explanation #1: Likewise his proof from the deer, one can establish where the traps were set on Erev Yom-Tov and the animals were caught automatically.

The Rules: The rules are as follows: Something that comes by itself or Muktzah that a Nochri brings from outside the T'chum on behalf of another Nochri (on the first day of Yom-Tov), and who then gives it to a Yisrael, is permitted on the second day of Yom-Tov.

The Rules (cont.): But if he brought something that was initially detached on behalf of a Yisrael, it is forbidden until Motza'ei Yom-Tov Sheini bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu.

The Rules (concl.): Whereas if there is none of that species that is attached to the ground, then from outside the T'chum, it is forbidden, but from inside the T'chum, it is permitted.

The Ri's Opinion: The Ri explains that a species of which there is none that is attached to the ground that one brings from outside the T'chum, does not require bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu,

Reason: Since the Chachamim were only strict with regard to something with which a Melachah has been performed, in the same way as they were lenient to permit another Yisrael (on whose behalf the article was not initially brought) even on the same day.

Question: Rabeinu Yehudah queries this however, from the Gemara in Perek ha'Sho'el (Shabbos, Daf 151: & 152.) 'If they brought flutes for a dead person from outside the T'chum, one is not permitted to eulogize with them until Motza'ei Yom-Tov, and the implication there is - for the period of 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu'?

Answer: It is different there, since it is more public, since everybody knows that they were brought on behalf of the deceased, and there is more reason to issue a decree.

Support: And we find this distinction between a Meis and other issues, as the Gemara says there 'If someone dug a grave for his father on Yom-Tov, he may never be buried in it' ...

Support (cont.): Even though other things are permitted after Shabbos or after Yom-Tov, once the time-period of 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu' has passed,

Ruling: R. Shmuel from Aibra rules that in a case of Safek whether something came from outside the T'chum, it is permitted.

Proof: And he supports this with the Gemara in Eruvin (Daf 45:) with regard to 'the water is absorbed in the clouds ...

Proof (cont.): Where the Gemara concludes that it is a Safek whether they came from outside the T'chum, and that by a Safek de'Rabbanan, we are lenient.

Stringent Ruling: Rabeinu Yehudah used to forbid what was attached and what was trapped even where the Nochri initially brought it, not for the Yisrael, but for himself or for another Nochri.

Refutation: But this is not implied with regards to a bathhouse on Shabbos, where the Gemara in Shabbos (Daf 122.) permits it 'Since there are Nochrim in the town'.

Refuted Answer: Nor is it logical to differentiate between food and other things.

Conclusion: The Ri says that if Yom-Tov falls on Thursday and Friday or on Sunday and Monday, what is brought on the first day is permitted on the third, and waiting for a day when it is fit to work is not necessary, because the suspicion that 'One may ask the Nochri' does not apply two days before.

Stringent Ruling: One should however be strict in this matter and in the Din of bi'Chedei she'Ya'asu according to the Ri the time it takes both to pick them and to bring them from the place where they were picked (See Maharam) ...

Stringent Ruling (cont.): And also with regard to fish, one whould wait the time it takes both to trap them and to bring them from the place where they were trapped.

Conclusion: It is also a Safek whether, if a Nochri brings a box of fruit, as to whether one needs to wait the time it takes for one person or for a number of people to pick it.