The Opinion of the B'hag: From the explanation of the B'hag, it appears that it is permitted to perform all the requirements of Milah on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah, even to chop wood to make a knife, even via a Yisrael.

Source: Since we see that a Meis, whom one is not permitted to bury via a Nochri, as is evident from the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 20a), yet it is permitted to do so on the second day Yom-Tov, even on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah, as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 6a & 6b) ...

Source: How much more so should Milah, where even an Isur d'Oraysa on Shabbos is permitted via a Nochri (as the B'hag specifically states) be permitted via a Yisrael on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah!

Refutation: This is not a genuine Kal va'Chomer however, because strictly speaking, it ought to have been permitted to bury a Meis (via a Nochri) on Shabbos ...

Refutation (cont.): ... and it is only forbidden because it is ugly and despicable, and it is embarrassing for the Meis to be buried by means of a transgression of Shabbos, even via a Nochri ...

Precedent: ... similar to the Mishnah in Perek ha'Sho'el (Shabbos, Daf 151a) where if a Nochri made a coffin or dug a grave on behalf of a Yisrael, the Tana forbids the latter to be buried there, ever.

Precedent (cont.): And he did not permit it 'bi'Chedei she'Ya'aseh' (after the time it takes to perform it has elapsed) as is the case by a live person, for the aforementioned reason.

Proof: Proof of this is the fact that one may carry a Meis through a Karm'lis

Source: ... as the Gemara says in 'ha'Matzni'a' (Ibid, Daf 94b), due to the principle 'Gadol Kavod ha'Beri'os' ...

Proof (concl.): ... in which case it should certainly be permitted to bury him via a Nochri! And the reason that it is not is clearly as Tosfos explained.

Sugya in Beitzah: This also explains the Gemara in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 22a) where Ameimar permitted painting one's eye even on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah ...

Sugya in Beitzah (cont.): ... and the Gemara queries him from Rava, who permits even a Yisrael to deal with a Meis that dies on the second day of Yom-Tov - even on Rosh ha'Shanah, but does not permit 'an egg' (that was laid on the first day of Yom-Tov?

Question: What is the Gemara's Kashya from 'egg', seeing as the needs of a sick person is even more lenient than a Meis ...

Source: Because at the end of Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 129a) the Gemara permits all his needs via a Nochri, and the Gemara there compares painting one's eyes to a sick person whose life is not in danger. Consequently, one may ask a Nochri to perform even an Isur d'Oraysa.

Question (concl.): In that case, it ought to be permitted through a Kal va'Chomer from Meis , even to grind dyes on the second day of Rosh ha'Shanah, even via a Yisrael?

Answer: According to Tosfos explanation however, there is no problem, since the Kal va'Chomer is not applicable.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means 'the Shi'ur of two fists' ...

Explanation #2: ... whereas the Aruch translates it as 'Magrupin' - 'branches'

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the branches of an olive-tree are called 'G'rupiyim' - just as 'Yichur by a fig-tree and 'Zemorah' by a vine; each one has its own name.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And he cites the statement in Bereishis Rabah (at the end of Perek 31) "And as for you, take for yourself from all kinds of food that can be eaten 'Zemoros' for grape-vines, 'Yichuri' for fig-trees and 'G'rupiyos' for olive-trees.

Question: According to the Gemara shortly, that the conditions that Yehoshua instituted apply even to Chutz la'Aretz, one can query the Gemara in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah, Daf 47a & 47b), asks whether one is permitted to use the water of a fountain to which someone prostrated himself for Nesachim ...

Question (cont.): And it attempts to resolve the She'eilah from the ruling that 'Communal water does not become prohibited'; but rejects it on the grounds that that is speaking by water that flows from the perpetrator's own land (which is his personal property).

Question (concl.): But why is it not still considered public property, based on Yehoshua's conditions?

Answer: One can draw a distinction between where the water flows automatically and where one took the trouble to dig for the source.

Clarification: This applies to anybody

Clarification (cont.): As does 'Provided one does not spread a 'Kela' (a lattice-work fence), which applies even to the owner ...

Support: As the Beraisa (cited later, on Amud Beis) 'The tribes stipulated with one another that they would not spread a Kela, though one may fish with various kinds of nets' - which reference to the owner, to whom the sea belongs.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he is going to have to remove them (the seeds) anyway, since they will spoil his fenugrek.

Question #1: This is difficult however, since 'Ein Mechayvin' implies that there is no prohibition in benefiting from them?

Question #2: In the event that he despairs and is lax in uprooting them, why should we not obligate him to do so, since when he despairs, there is an Isur ...

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in Kil'ayim (5:6) 'If someone who sees vegetables growing in his vineyard, declares "When I arrive there, I will pick them", they are permitted; But if he says "I will pick them on my way back", then, if they have increased by one two hundredth, they are Asur'.

Explanation #2: The Ri answers that we do not obligate him to uproot them because there is in fact, no Isur, seeing as he did not plant them, and they grew by themselves ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Nor is he Chayav on account of retaining Kil'ayim, since the seeds are harmful to the fenugreek.

Interpretation #1: And it is necessary to teach us this according to Rebbi Akiva, who states in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 64a) and in Makos (Daf 21b) that 'Someone who retains Kil'ayim, is subject to Malkos' ...

Interpretation #1 (cont.): Not really Malkos, since it is a La'av that one contravenes without an act, but merely an Isur.

Interpretation #2: Alternatively, it is necessary even according to the Rabanan - and where he benefits from them, the Chachamim obligate him to remove them ...

Reason: So that people should not suspect him of having planted them.

Implied Question: And the reason it says 'fenugrek that came up with the vegetation', rather than fenugrek with which vegetation came up' ...

Answer: ... is to teach us a Chidush - that even though he initially intended to plant other seeds, and the fenugrek grew by itself ...

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, since now he does not want the seeds due to the fenugrek that grew, we do not obligate him to uproot them.

Clarification: The Beraisa of 'Chutz le'Sadeh Tilsan' speaks about stalks , for which the herbs are good.

Source: Since there is an Isur Kil'ayim, why is forbidden to pick them?

Question: ... did the Gemara not say in Mo'ed Katan (Daf 6b) that 'The Chachamim instituted to declare Hefker a field that contains Kil'ayim'?

Answer: The Gemara here is speaking where there is not a Shi'ur ...

Source: ... as we learned in Maseches Kil'ayim (2:1), and the Gemara cites it in 'ha'Mocher Peiros' (Bava Basra, Daf 94a) 'Every Sa'ah that contains a quarter of a Kav of another species, one should reduce'.

Text: This is the text.

Sugya in Bava Basra: Whereas in Perek Yesh Nochlin, (Bava Basra, Daf 121a, in connection with the division of Olam ha'Ba, the Gemara says 'Ein l'cha Kol Echad ve'Echad mi'Yisrael. So it appears to Rabeinu Tam.

Clarification: This must be speaking where the loose bale of olive-pulp is wound round it ...

Reason: ... because otherwise, he can say to him that he acquired it from Hefker, as the Gemara states later in the last Perek (on Daf 115b).

Question: On what grounds is he entitled to the value of his wine? Does the Gemara not say later (Ibid.) that he only receives his wages?

Answer: One can answer that Rebbi Yishmael b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah argues with that, as the Gemara will say shortly 'the Tana does not insert individual opinions'.

Support: And this is also implied in the Tosefta, where, after the case of 'Lo Yakutz', it inserts the current case (of Rebbi Yishmael ... ).

Refutation: But this is not correct, since why should he then receive the value of his wine? Why can the owner of the honey not claim that, with an effort, he could have saved his honey - seeing as we established it where the loose bale of olive-pulp is wound round it, thereby enabling him to save it with a great effort. (continued on the next Amud).