(a)Lechem ha'Panim is normally baked on Friday, and eaten on Shabbos, the ninth day after it was baked. When is it eaten ...
1. ... on the tenth day?
2. ... on the eleventh day?
(b)If Rosh Hashanah fell on Thursday and Friday, how could they eat the Lechem ha'Panim on the eleventh day after baking? Wasn't that Yom Kippur?
(c)According to Rev Chisda, who holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin b'Yom-Tov', why could they not bake the Lechem ha'Panim on Yom-Tov, since there remains only an Isur d'Rabanan, and most Isurim d'Rabanan did not apply in the Beis Hamikdash?
(d)What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben ha'Sgan, and what is his reason?
(a)Lechem ha'Panim is eaten on the ...
1. ... tenth day - when Yom-Tov falls on Friday (since the baking of the Lechem ha'Panim over-rides neither Shabbos nor Yom-Tov).
2. ... eleventh day - when Rosh Hashanah falls on Thursday and Friday.
(b)If Rosh Hashanah fell on Thursday and Friday, the eleventh day was not Yom Kippur - because when the Beis Hamikdash stood, two days Rosh Hashanah meant that the witnesses came after Minchah on the first day, in which case the first of Tishrei fell on the second day, and not on the first; but in any event, even if the eleventh day had been Yom Kippur, they would still have been able to eat the Lechem ha'Panim on the eleventh day, since they could have eaten them on Motzei Yom Kippur (and in the realm of Kodshim, the night is considered part of the previous day).
(c)According to Rav Chisda, who holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin b'Yom-Tov' - leaving only an Isur d'Rabanan of preparing on Yom-Tov for Shabbos - we will not say here that Isurim d'Rabanan do not apply in the Beis Hamikdash, because they only permitted Shevus Kerovah (what was needed for that day Yom-Tov or for a Shabbos which followed immediately), but not a Shevus Rechokah (such as in our case, where the Lechem ha'Panim were only eaten only two Shabbasos later). Note: The Sugya ignores Eruv Tavshilin altogether; Presumably this is because it is obvious that by Eruv Tavshilin, Chazal would not permit a Shevus Rechokah.
(d)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben ha'Sgan - that it was permitted to bake the Lechem ha'Panim on Yom-Tov which fell on Friday (because in his opinion, they even permitted a Shevus Rechokah), but not if Yom Kippur (which has the Din of Shabbos) fell on Friday.
(a)On what two possible days were the Shtei ha'Lechem eaten?
(b)How is this a Kashya on Rav Chisda, who holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin b'Yom-Tov'?
(c)Why is it not a Kashya on Rabah, who holds that cooking on Shabbos is permitted because of 'Ho'il'?
(a)The Shtei ha'Lechem were eaten - on the second day after they were baked (when Shavu'os fell from Monday to Shabbos), or on the third day (if it fell on Sunday).
(b)Since Rav Chisda holds 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin b'Yom-Tov' - why could they not bake the Shtei ha'Lechem on Yom-Tov itself, since, even though it is not yet fit to eat (until the lambs that were brought with it have been Shechted), it will however, become fit to eat later in the day.
(c)This is not a Kashya on Rabah, who holds that cooking on Shabbos is permitted because of 'Ho'il' - because 'Ho'il' only applies if it is fit at that moment, which as we just explained, the breads are not. Consequently, since it is possible to bake them the day before, there is no reason to permit baking them on Yom-Tov.
(a)Rav Chisda answers that the Shtei ha'Lechem may not be baked because of the Pasuk in Bo "Lachem" - 've'Lo li'Gavo'ah'. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits even a Shevus Rechokah (see above, 1d) do with "Lachem"?
(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits even a Shevus Rechokah (see above, 1d) Darshens from "Lachem" (like Aba Shaul) - "Lachem", 've'Lo l'Nochrim' (i.e. that it is forbidden to cook on Yom-Tov on behalf of gentiles, but for Hash-m is included in "Lachem".
(a)The Mishnah in Makos lists a case of someone who is Chayav eight La'avin with one action: He plows with an ox and a donkey, both of which are Hekdesh. Simultaneously he sows Kil'ayim in a vineyard, it is Yom-Tov in the Shemitah-year, and it is a field which contains graves and he is both a Kohen and a Nazir. What does Rav Chisda ask on Rabah (who holds of Ho'il) from the Chiyuv of plowing on Yom-Tov?
(b)On what grounds does the Gemara reject the answer that the Tana is speaking about a field which consists predominantly of sharp stones?
(c)Since when is grinding permitted on Yom-Tov?
(d)How does the Gemara finally reject the contention that we are talking about a rocky field?
(a)If we hold of 'Ho'il', Rav Chisda asks Rabah, why should the Tana include plowing on Yom-Tov among the cases of Malkus? Why should someone who plows on Yom-Tov receive Malkus, seeing as the plowed earth is fit for the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam, for which it may conceivably be required?
(b)The Gemara rejects the answer that the Tana is speaking about a field which consists predominantly of sharp stones - because even then, sharp stones can be ground.
(c)The Tana is speaking, contends the Gemara, about grinding the stones in an unusual way, for which there is no Malkus.
(d)A rocky field, counters the Gemara, is not fit for sowing, and if the Tana is speaking when the top layer is rocky, but underneath the soil is soft, then he ought to be Patur from Malkus because of the soft soil, which is fit for the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam.
(a)So Mar bar Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa by muddy land, which cannot be used for Kisuy ha'Dam. Why does the Gemara reject this suggestion?
(b)How does the Gemara finally establish the Mishnah?
(a)If the Mishnah was speaking about muddy land, counters the Gemara, then it would not be fit for sowing!?
(b)The Gemara finally establishes the Mishnah - by wet clay, which is fit for sowing, but not for Kisuy ha'Dam.
(a)The Beraisa cites a case of someone who, for cooking a Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and eats it, receives five Malkus: 1. for cooking Gid ha'Nasheh on Yom-Tov; 2. for eating Gid ha'Nasheh; 3. for cooking meat together with milk ; 4. for eating it; 5. for making a fire on Yom-Tov. What is the Kashya on Rabah (who holds 'Ho'il) from this Beraisa?
(b)On what grounds does the Gemara reject the suggestion to replace making a fire with that of eating Gid ha'Nasheh of Neveilah?
(c)We then attempt to dispense with the Kashya on Rabah, by establishing that the fuel that was used was wood from Muktzeh. How does that answer the Kashya?
(d)What is 'Atzei Muktzeh', and what Isur d'Oraisa do we think it involves (from which Pasuk is the warning derived)?
(a)According to Rabah, why does someone who cooks a Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and eats it, receive five Malkus? Why is he not Patur for lighting a fire, since a fire can be used for his own needs, and he should therefore be Patur because of 'Ho'il'?
(b)The Gemara rejects the suggestion to replace making a fire with that of eating Gid ha'Nasheh of Neveilah - because then he would receive three Malkus for eating, and two for cooking, and Rebbi Chiya quoted a Beraisa, which said that, in this case, he will receive two Malkus for eating and three for cooking.
(c)If the fuel that they used was wood from Muktzeh (which is Asur b'Hana'ah, then 'Ho'il' that the fire is fit for his own private use will no longer apply.
(d)Atzei Muktzeh here means wood that was stored, and therefore not designated for use as fire-wood (as most wood tended to be). The Lav referred to is that of "v'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Shishi, v'Hechinu es Asher Yavi'u" (Beshalach).
(a)The Pasuk in Yechezkel speaks about which animals one may declare Hekdesh as Korbanos. How does Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) learn from the word ...
1. ... "Seh" that one cannot declare a Bechor, Hekdesh?
2. ... "Achas" that one cannot declare an animal of Ma'asar Behemah, Hekdesh?
(b)He learns from "Min ha'Tzon" that a Palgas cannot be declared Hekdesh. What is a Palgas?
(c)Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) also explains "Min ha'Masayim" (with regard to the Nesachim) to mean 'mi'Mosar Shtei Mei'os she'Nishtayru b'Bor'. What does this mean? What does he learn from here?
(d)And what does he learn from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" - 'min ha'Mutar l'Yisrael'?
(a)Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) learns from the word ...
1. ... "Seh" that one cannot declare a Bechor, Hekdesh - because "Seh" implies that the animal may be either a male or a female, whereas a Bechor can only be a male.
2. ... "Achas" that one cannot declare an animal of Ma'asar Behemah, Hekdesh - because "Achas" implies that it is a single animal, and not that it came from a group of ten.
(b)A Palgas is a sheep between the ages of twelve months (up to which time it is called a lamb) and thirteen months (when it becomes a ram). A Palgas is neither the one nor the other.
(c)'mi'Mosar Shtei Mei'os she'Nishtayru b'Bor' - means that Orlah (and Kil'ei ha'Kerem) is Batel in two hundred.
(d)And from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" he learns 'min ha'Mutar l'Yisrael' - that Nesachim cannot be brought from Tevel (and in a wider application, that one may not use anything that is forbidden for a Mitzvah).
(a)Is one Chayav Malkus for Shechting a Muktzeh lamb as a Korban Tamid? What constitutes a Muktzeh lamb?
(b)On what basis does Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) decline to include Muktzeh among the Isurim from which an animal cannot be declared Hekdesh - mi'd'Oraisa?
(c)How does this contradict what Rabah said earlier regarding Muktzeh? What does all this have to do with Rabah?
(d)What does Abaye also ask Rabah from 'Chiluk Melachos l'Shabbos, v'Ein Chiluk Melachos l'Yom-Tov?
(a)No - one is not Chayav for Shechting a Muktzeh lamb (one that was brought from the fields outside, in which case it was definitely not intended to be used on Yom-Tov) as a Korban Tamid (as we shall now see).
(b)Rav Chisda (or Rav Huna) declines to include Muktzeh among the Isurim from which an animal cannot be declared Hekdesh mid'Oraisa - because it is not an intrinsic Pesul, like that of Tevel, but is the result of the Isur of Shabbos, which is an extrinsic one.
(c)Rabah said earlier that Muktzeh is d'Oraisa. If that were so, then why should there be a difference between Tevel and Muktzeh (so from the fact that the Gemara makes such a distinction, we can conclude that Muktzeh is d'Rabanan, and the Pasuk of "v'Hechinu is perhaps an Asmachta).
(d)And besides, Abaye asked Rabah, was he not the one to say that although someone who performs a number of Melachos (with one act - b'Shogeg) on Shabbos, is Chayav a Chatas for each Melachah, on Yom-Tov (should he do the same thing b'Meizid), he will only receive one set of Malkus. So how can Rabah himself now insert 'wood of Muktzeh', to sentence the perpetrator to two Malkus for contravening the laws of Yom-Tov, one for making a fire and one for cooking Gid ha'Nasheh?
(a)We then try to replace making a fire on Yom-Tov with a case of making a fire with wood of an Asheirah (which is Asur from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem". What is the problem with that?
(b)What do we finally insert in the Beraisa in place of making a fire?
(a)The problem with inserting the case of making a fire with wood of an Asheirah in the Beraisa - is that then we would have, not just one set of Malkus, but two ("v'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem" and "v'Lo Savi So'eivah El Beisecha" - Va'eschanan), and the Beraisa ought then to have listed six sets of Malkus, instead of five.
(b)We finally insert making a fire with wood of Hekdesh as the fifth case of Malkus in the Beraisa, and the warning is from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Esh ... Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Hashem Elokeichem" - Re'eh.