Question (R. Elchanan): In Rosh Hashanah (13a), in the Gemara on [the citation from the Mishnah] "ul'Nedarim", R. Zeira asked Rav Asi "perhaps [the grain] had not ripened at all (in Shemitah), and the Torah said to observe stringencies of Shemitah until Chag ha'Sukos!"

Citation (13a) Rejection - Question: It says Chag ha'Asif. What does this mean?

Citation (cont.) Answer: It cannot mean the Chag that comes to at the time of gathering. It [already] says "b'Aspecha Es Ma'asecha"! Rather, Asif means reaping.

Inference: This shows that we do not say "[the] Chag that comes at the time of gathering"!

Answer (my Rebbi): Since from "b'Aspecha" we learn "the Chag that comes at the time of gathering", and it says Chag ha'Asif, this connotes reaping.

However, if not for this verse "b'Aspecha...", we would have expounded Chag ha'Asif to teach that it comes at the time of gathering;

If so, we can say so also for Chag ha'Katzir [like R. Yochanan's rebuttal], since there is no connotation to uproot this.

Inference: This connotes that Melachah is forbidden mid'Oraisa, for we learn from a verse.

Support - Citation (Mo'ed Katan 11b): [This is permitted] not only for an Avel [whose Isur Melachah is] mid'Rabanan, rather, even during Chol ha'Mo'ed [when Melachah is Asur] mid'Oraisa.

Also Rashi explained so there.

Question #1 (R. Tam): If so, Devar ha'Avud, and several Melachos that we permit there, how are they permitted?!

Where do we find an Isur Torah that is partially Asur and partially Mutar?

Question #2 (Megilah 21a - Mishnah): Whenever it is not Yom Tov and there is Musaf, there are four Aliyos, e.g. Chol ha'Mo'ed and Rosh Chodesh.

Inference: Melachah is not forbidden, since it says "it is not Yom Tov"!

Also, [Chol ha'Mo'ed] was included with Rosh Chodesh [on which there is an Isur Melachah] mid'Rabanan, like it says in the Yerushalmi in Ta'anis;

Citation (Yerushalmi): In a place where women have the custom not to do Melachah on Rosh Chodesh, this is a [proper] custom.

Question #3: We find in the Yerushalmi in Mo'ed Katan "they forbade Melachah during Chol ha'Mo'ed only so people will eat and drink and exert in Torah. People are frivolous and eat and drink!"

Inference: The words connote [that the Isur Melachah is] mid'Rabanan.

Question #4: In Mo'ed Katan (12b), regarding "as long as he does not intentionally leave his Melachah for the Mo'ed", the Gemara asked "if he intentionally left it and died, do we fine his son after him" (to forbid him to do it during the Mo'ed)?

Citation (12b): If you will say that if one blemished the ear of a Bechor [and died], we fine his son after him, [we cannot learn from there, for] it is an Isur mid'Oraisa.

Inference: The Isur Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed is mid'Rabanan.

Answer (to Question #4): We can say that it refers to one who intentionally left Melachah for the Mo'ed. This is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, for now it is Devar ha'Avud.

However, it seems that the truth is that [all Meleches Chol ha'Mo'ed] is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: At the beginning of the Perek there, it says "not only an Avel [for whom Melachah is forbidden only] mid'Rabanan, rather, even Chol ha'Mo'ed mid'Oraisa!

Answer: It means that [the Isur Melachah during Chol ha'Mo'ed] is like mid'Oraisa, for there is an Asmachta from a verse of Torah. For the days of Avelus, there is an Asmachta only from a verse of Nevi'im - "v'Hafachti Chageichem l'Evel."

Implied question: It says here "is Chol ha'Mo'ed permitted?!" This implies that the Isur is mid'Oraisa!

Answer: We did not ask because it is forbidden mid'Oraisa. Rather, since we bring a verse (an Asmachta) to forbid, it is unreasonable to establish a verse to permit explicitly.

Support: Also Rivam explained in the name of Riva that Melachah during [Chol] ha'Mo'ed is mid'Rabanan;

This is unlike the Rashbam, who explained in Pesachim (118a) regarding "anyone who disgraces the festivals, e.g. he does Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed."

Rejection: It is mid'Rabanan, like I explained.

Implied question: It says (Avodah Zarah 22a) regarding the Kusim (one may not hire one to be a sharecropper on his field, for he will work during Chol ha'Mo'ed, and it is called on the Yisrael's name. Even without this,) it should be forbidden due to "v'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" regarding Melachah of Chol ha'Mo'ed!

Answer: Because there is a support [for the Isur] from the simple meaning of the verse, the Tzedukim agree to this. (Rashash - Tosfos holds that Lifnei Iver does not apply to an Isur mid'Rabanan. Here it applies, since it has a support. However, in any case the Kusim do not observe it.)

Implied question: We could have asked that [we cannot learn from Yom Tov, for] Devar ha'Avud is forbidden then!

Answer: This is not a real Kal va'Chomer. It is a mere Giluy Milsa, according to what I explained that Melachah is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: Melachah is permitted on Rosh Chodesh, for it is not called Yom Tov in Megilah (22b), and it is forbidden only due to a custom, like I explained.

Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (23a), it says that [we make signal fires the night after a month was made Chaser (29 days), but not after a full month,] due to Bitul Melachah! (If it were vice-versa, people would always refrain on both days, due to Safek.)

Answer #1: There it discusses the two days of Rosh Chodesh of Rosh Hashanah.

Answer #2: It is due to women, who have a custom not to do Melachah, like it says in Pirkei d'R. Eliezer. Also Rashi explained so in Megilah (22a).

Observation: We could have said that one cannot learn to Chol ha'Mo'ed, which has two attributes: Musaf, and there is Kedushah before and after it.

Implied question: Why don't we say that for Chulin, one washes until the joint (the second knuckle from the end of the fingers - Chulin 106a), unlike for Ma'aser (it requires until where the fingers connect to the palm)?

Answer: The words connote unlike this.

Question (R. Elchanan): We can resolve also the contradiction regarding Ma'aser this way, and establish it even like Rabanan! (Maharsha asked that since we are thinking that one must wash for eating Chulin, Rabanan must obligate even for touching Ma'aser! He left this difficult. Od Yosef Chai answers that Tosfos asks that "Nami", i.e. similarly, we could have given this answer [just] for Ma'aser, and established it even like Rabanan. Tosfos did not mean that we could resolve both Ma'aser and Chulin with this answer.)

Answer (my Rebbi): Rabanan argue even about touching Ma'aser, and forbid.

Support #1: Below, it says "we find that Rabanan argue only about eating Ma'aser." This implies that initially, we thought that they argue in every case. (Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the Tartzan thought so.)

Support #2: Also in Chulin (33b), it says "perhaps Rabanan argue only about eating Ma'aser." This shows that it is not clear.

Question: However, we could have asked "according to you, the Mishnah brought in Shabbos (13b), which says "these disqualify Terumah", is unlike Rabanan!

[According to Rabanan], why does it say Terumah? [Stam hands] disqualify even Ma'aser!

Answer: He was not concerned to ask this.

Observation: Based on that [Mishnah], it seems that Rav Simi's attack (i.e. Rabanan do not obligate washing for touching Ma'aser) is true.

Implied question: In Chulin (33b), why does it say that perhaps Rabanan argue only about eating Ma'aser? (This is clear from Shabbos 13b!)

Answer: This was an understatement. Really, it is true that Rabanan do not argue touching Ma'aser or eating Chulin, for all agree that a Sheni [l'Tum'ah] does not make Ma'aser a Shelishi.

Question: How could we think that Chachamim do not obligate washing for Chulin?!

Answer: We could say that we discuss Peros (not bread), for which one need not wash.

Explanation: Now we need not answer regarding Ma'aser "this is R. Meir, and this is Rabanan." (All agree that also for Ma'aser, one must wash for bread, but not for Peros.)

Implied question: We could have answered [regarding Ma'aser] "this discusses eating, and this discusses touching"!

Answer: We prefer to explain everything regarding eating.

Implied question: In Berachos (43a), it says that if guests at a host were reclining to drink, each washes one hand!

Answer: That is merely for cleanliness. The words "one hand" connote like this.

Inference: If he did not have intent for Ma'aser, it does not help, and all the more so for Terumah.

Question (R. Elchanan): In Berachos 51b, Beis Shamai say that we wash the hands, and afterwards mix [water with wine in] the cup;

If we would mix the cup [first], perhaps he will touch liquid on the back of the cup [and be Metamei it, and it will be Metamei the cup, and the wine inside will become Tamei].

Even if he washes, since it was not for the sake of Terumah, his hands disqualify Terumah, and a Mishnah teaches that whatever disqualifies Terumah, it is Metamei liquids to make them a Rishon l'Tum'ah!

Answer (R. Elchanan): Since he washed his hands for Chulin, [even though he may not eat Terumah,] he does not disqualify Terumah.

Support: If you would not say so, no one, not even a Chaver, eats Chulin in Taharah, for he is Metamei liquids.