1)

(a)The Mishnah in Machshirin rules that if someone moves 'fruit' (beans or lentils) on to the roof to prevent them from becoming infested with lice, and dew falls on them - the fruit does not become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah (subject to Tum'ah).

(b)It would become subject to Tum'ah however - if he specifically had in mind that the dew should fall on it ...

(c)... even if he did so only after placing it on the roof ...

(d)... as long as the dew had not yet dried.

2)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a Chashu carries the fruit up on to the roof - even if he had the dew in mind, it does not become subject to Tum'ah.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan qualifies this latter ruling - by restricting it to where the Chashu did not turn over the fruit, but if he did, it will become subject to Tum'ah.

(c)We know that Rebbi Yochanan is speaking in a case where the child did not say anything - because if he did, Rebbi Yochanan would not need to tell us what we already know from the Mishnah in Machshirin.

(d)We reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yochanan's previous She'eilah - by establishing his Safek as to whether the fruit is subject to Tum'ah min ha'Torah or mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently, even having taught us that a Ma'aseh which indicates is considered a Ma'aseh (Lechumra, with regard to carrying fruit on to the roof), he still asks a She'eilah regarding transporting a Korban from the south of the Azarah to the north which is a Kula (validating a Safek Korban), and which we will not hold of, if it is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

3)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rebbi Yochanan asks whether a Katan has a Ma'aseh or not, but a Machshavah - he certainly does not have.

(b)His ruling with regard to Machshavah indicates that he knew the Mishnah in Machshirin, and when he asked whether a Katan has a Ma'aseh, he meant - whether the Ma'aseh of a Katan is d'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan (as we explained in the first Lashon).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan concludes that a Katan has ...

1. ... a Ma'aseh - mi'd'Oraysa.

2. ... no Machshavah at all (even mi'de'Rabbanan).

3. ... a Machshavah that is evident from his act (Machshavto Nikeres mi'Toch Ma'asav) mi'de'Rabbanan.

4)

(a)Shmuel asked Rav Huna for the source that invalidates Mis'asek by Kodshim. Mis'asek means for example - someone who picks up a knife of Kodshim for whatever reason or who throws it, and in the process, he unwittingly Shechts a Kodshim animal (which would have been a Kasher Shechitah had the animal been Chulin, according to Rebbi Nasan [see Tosfos DH 'Minayin' an Rashi at the end of Menachos]).

(b)In reply, Rav Huna quoted him the Pasuk in Vayikra "Veshachat es ben ha'Bakar lifnei Hash-m" that - Mis'asek by Kodshim is Pasul.

(c)And when Shmuel replied that he already knew that - and that what he wanted was the source that it is Pasul even Bedi'eved, he cited the Pasuk in Kedoshim "li'Retzonchem Tizbachuhu".

5)

(a)Our Mishnah considers the Shechitah of a Nochri, Neveilah. The Tana adds to that - u'Metam'ah be'Masa ...

(b)... even if a Yisrael supervises the Shechitah.

(c)We extrapolate from the fact that the Tana stops at Metamei be'Masa that - the animal is not Asur be'Hana'ah.

(d)Consequently, Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Eliezer, who would have indeed declared the animal Asur be'Hana'ah - because he holds that S'tam, the Machshavah of an Oved-Kochavim is for Avodah-Zarah.

6)

(a)Rebbi Ami extrapolates from the Mishnah that the Shechitah of a Miyn (an apostate) is for Avodah-Zarah - with reference to a Miyn Yisrael (who cleaves to Avodah-Zarah even more than a Nochri does).

(b)He agrees with Rebbi Chiya bar Aba however that - the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Eliezer, only he considers Rebbi Chiya bar Aba's inference superfluous (because it is inherent in the Tana's statement).

(c)A Beraisa corroborates the inference from the Mishnah. The Tana Kama there considers the bread of a Miyn, Pas Kuti (Akum), his wine, Yayin Nesach - the Sefarim (T'nachim that he writes on parchment), Sifrei Kusmin (they must be burned) and his fruit, Tevel (which must be Ma'asered).

(d)Yesh Omrim (Rebbi Nasan) that his children are Mamzerim too. The Tana Kama disagrees with him - on the grounds that Miynim do not permit their wives to go with other men.

7)

(a)We ask why our Mishnah does not declare Asur be'Hana'ah an animal Shechted by a Nochri. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains that - there are no Miynim among the Nochrim.

(b)Based on the fact that his statement is simply not true) we amend his initial answer to read that - most Nochrim are not Miynim (and we do not contend with the minority).

(c)This in turn, is based on a statement by Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan who said that - the Nochrim in Chutz la'Aretz (see Tosfos DH 'Nochrim') do not worship idols with all their heart, only because their ancestors did.

8)

(a)Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman states that - the Din of Miynim does not apply to a Nochri Miyn.

(b)This cannot be referring to ...

1. ... the Shechitah of a Nochri - because if the Shechitah of a Miyn Yisrael is Pasul, how can that of a Nochri Miyn be Kasher?

2. ... the Din of Moridin (which means pushing him into a deep pit and letting him die) - because how can the Din of a Nochri Miyn be more lenient than that of a Miyn Yisrael (by whom we rule Moridin)?

(c)Rav Yosef bar Minyumi is in fact referring to - the Din of Korban (as we learned earlier).

(d)This conforms to the D'rashah of Rav Ukva bar Chama, who learns from the word "Mikem" (in the Pasuk in Vayikra "Adam ki Yakriv Mikem Olah" [besides precluding a Mumar Yisrael from bringing a Korban) that - we must accept Korbanos even from Nochri Miynim.

(e)The Pasuk cannot be coming to preclude a Nochri from bringing a Korban altogether ("Mikem", 've'Lo Nochri' [even one who is righteous]) - because of the Pasuk in Emor "Ish Ish ... asher Yakriv Korban" (which includes Nochrim in the realm of Korbanos).

9)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah adding 'u'Metam'ah be'Masa' is that - having declared the animal Neveilah, it is obvious that it is Metamei be'Masa.

(b)Rava extrapolates from here that there is something else that is Metam'ah even more than be'Masa, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - with reference to Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim, which is Metamei be'Ohel as well.

(c)In the second Lashon, Rava establishes our Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - by extrapolating that there is something else that is just like Shechitas Oved-Kochavim (which is Metamei be'Masa, but not be'Ohel), and that is Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk in Tehilim "Vayitzamdu le'Ba'al Pe'or Vayochlu Zivchei Meisim" that - Tikroves Avodas-Kochavim is Metamei be'Ohel, like a Meis.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah - validates a Shechitah that is performed at night-time or by a blind person.

(b)This clashes with the Beraisa Le'olam Shochtin, bein ba'Yom u'vein ba'Laylah - in that, as opposed to the latter, which permits it Lechatchilah, the Tana validates it only Bedi'eved.

(c)To resolve the discrepancy - Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa where the Shochet Shechts by the light of a torch (whereas the Mishnah speaks where he Shechts in the dark).

(d)We support this answer from bein ba'Yom (in the Beraisa) - implying that the Tana is speaking where there is light, and ve'Chein ha'Suma (in our Mishnah) - which implies that there is not.

11)

(a)The same Beraisa - permits Shechting on a roof or in a boat.

(b)The Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet' forbids Shechting into ...

1. ... the sea or into a river - because people will accuse the Shochet of Shechting in honor of the Angel of the sea (Neptune).

2. ... a K'li - they will accuse him of subsequently using the blood to sprinkle to Avodah-Zarah.

(c)Shechting in a boat appears to clash with the Mishnah in 'ha'Shochet' (which forbids Shechting into the sea). The problem with Shechting on the roof into a K'li is that b- y the same token, we ought to be afraid that people will accuse him of receiving the blood, in order to sprinkle it in honor of the stars.

(d)We resolve both problems by pointing out that - everyone knows that in the one case, the Shochet is using a K'li in order to keep his roof clean, and in the other, he Shechts into the sea, in order not to dirty his boat.