Clarification: It speaks where the witnesses came after Minchah on Thursday, in which case one observes that day and the next Kodesh, in order not to treat it disrespectfully the following year, should the witnesses arrive before Minchah, as is evident at the beginning of 'Beitzah' (Daf 5:).

Clarification (cont.): The main day is the second one, and it is from it that one counts (the ten days) to Yom Kipur, which will therefore fall on Sunday, and the Lechem ha'Panim will then be eaten on the eleventh.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas if the witnesses would have come before Minchah, the following day would have been a regular weekday, and they would have been able to re-bake the Loaves on that day, and to redeem the first set of Loaves ...

Clarification (cont.): Since the oven would not have sanctified them, since this Tana holds that baking the Lechem ha'Panim overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom-Tov, as Tosfos explained above (on the previous Amud).

Question: The Ri queries the Gemara's Kashya, inasmuch as Rav Chisda only argues with Rabah in that he permits cooking on Yom-Tov for Shabbos just as one may cook for the same day (Yom-Tov), seeing as he considers Shabbos and Yom-Tov as one Kedushah, as Rashi explains.

But in the case that he cites, it will be forbidden to cook even for the same day, as the Seifa states with regard to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, and in such a case, Rav Chisda will not permit on Yom-Tov any more than Rabah?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains the Gemara earlier ot mean that 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asim be'Yom-Tov' is not because Shabbos and Yom0Tov are one and the same Kedushah, but rather because, since it involves the Mitzvah of Shabbos, and n the event that it is not done, it will not be done at all, it is considered like 'Ochel Nefesh' of Yom-Tov.

Answer (cont.): Now Rabah asks well - 'It is alright according to me, who only permits on Yom-Tov what is for Simchas Yom-Tov exclusively, here there is no Simchas Yom-Tov.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem is not intrinsically for Simchas Yom-Tov, but for the Korban.

Answer (cont.): But according to you, who maintains 'Tzorchei Shabbos Na'asin be'Yom-Tov, and that whatever is a Mitzvah that needs to be performed on Yom-Tov, and that has no other time to perform it (is permitted), why does it not override in this case (of Lechem ha'Panim)?

Answer (concl.): And the same will apply shortly to the Kashya from the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

Explanation #2: Rashi explains in connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that according to Rabah there is no problem because 'Ho'il dos not apply, since at that moment they are not fit to be sacrificed, until the Two Lambs have been Shechted and their blood sprinkled.

Question: The Ri queries Rashi however, in that since the Gemara does not know of any difference between Gavohah (what is for Hash-m) and Hedyot, is it because it is unfit now that it should be Asur, even if it will be fit later in the day?

Proof #1: Question (cont.): Bear in mind that when one bakes the dough for one's guests it is not fit to eat until it has been baked?

Proof #2: Likewise, one is permitted to Shecht the Shalmei Chagigah,even though they may not be eaten until the blood has been Shechted?

Proof #3: Similarly, one's animal at the time of Shechitah is not fit to eat?

Question (Concl): The answer is that seeing as they will all be permitted later on that day, it is not considered a Chesaron, in which case we have a Kashya on Rabah?

Answer: One can however, answer the Kashya on Rashi, inasmuch as (unlike the three cases that we just quoted) there is nothing wrong with the actual Sh'tei ha'Lechem themselves.

Explanation #1: According to me (Rabah) who holds that according to the Tana Kama, the needs of Shabbos cannot be performed on Yom-Tov, it is possible to say that this is what they are arguing about, and they are only speaking about the Din min ha'Torah,

Explanation #2: Alternatively, says the Rashba, they may argue in that one says that we say since ('Ho'il') one is able to redeem it, whereas the other holds that we do not say 'Ho'il' here, seeing as it is not common, as Tosfos explained above on the previous Amud.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But according to you, who gives the reason of the Tana Kama as 'Sh'vus Rechokah', in which point does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argue?

Clarification: This means also 've'Lo li'Gevohah', because we also Darshen 've'Lo le'Nochri'.

Source: As is evident in Beitzah (Daf 20.) - that the one who holds 'Nedarim and Nedavos cannot be brought on Yom-Tov also Darshens "Lachem", 'and not for Nochrim', in connection with where Beis Shamai said to Beis Hillel; 'Did the Torah not already say "Lachem", 've'Lo li'Gevohah?'

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Mukdashin' incorporates two: 'with an ox' - where he transgresses "Do not work with your firstborn ox", and 'with a donkey', which is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, he is Chayav Me'ilah.

Refutation: He 'pushed' in vain however, because by ox alone he could have rendered him Chayav Me'ilah, if it was an Olah or a Chatas.

Question #1: The Ri queries Rashi from the last Perek in Makos (Daf 22.), where the Gemara says that 'The Beraisa omits anything which can be rescinded'. It asks from Hekdesh, and answers that it is speaking about a B'chor, And then it asks from Zazir.

Question #1 (cont.): According to Rashi, why does the Gemara not ask from 'donkey', seeing as it is referring to a donkey that is Hekdesh?

Question #2: Moreover, according to Rashi, why does the Tana not insert K'lai Zera'im, and establish the case where he planted a variety of seeds in a vineyard?

Precedent: In a similar way to what the Gemara asks in Maseches Makos (daf 21.) 'Let the Tana add many different La'vin'.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that the Tana does not mention the La'v of Me'ilah, since he is only concerned with cases for which one receives Malkos for plowing a Kolsh'hu (a minimal Shi'ur),and the La'av of Me'ilah is not subject to Me'ilah until one plows at least the Shi'ur of a P'rutah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And as for K'lai ha'Kerem', the Ri explains that it is considered two La'avin 1.K'lai Zera'im, and 2. K'lai ha'Kerem.

Support: This is also implicit in the Lashon 'K'lai ha'Kerem', as opposed to 'Kil'ayim be'Kerem'.

Implied Question: And that what Rebbi Yashiyah says that 'One is not Chayav unless one plants wheat, barley and grape-seeds in one throw ...

Answer: This is not because he does not hold of K'lai Zera'im.What he means that one is only Chayav K'lai ha'Kerem on that condition.

Support #1: And this is implied by the Yerushalmi, which states that 'According to Rebbi Yashiyah, the Torah writes "You shall not plant your field Kil'ayim". Why does it then add "Do not plant your vineyard Kil'ayim (seeing as one is anyway Chayav, even without the grape-seeds)?

Support #1: (cont.): And it answers that if witnesses warn him because of "Sadcha" he is Chayav, and he is Chayav if they warn him because of "Karm'cha".

Support #2: And this is also implied in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 82.), which states that 'Someone who plants Kil'ayim Kil'ayim, receives Malkos'. Why, asks the Gemara, does it say 'Kil'ayim Kil'ayim'?

Support #2 (cont.): The Gemara concludes that 'It is coming to teach us on the side - that there are two kinds of Kil'ayim, to preclude from Rebbi Yashiyah who says that he must plant all three in one go. This teaches us that if one plants wheat and grape-seeds or barley and grape-seeds, one is Chayav too.

Support #2 (concl.): Now since the Gemara not say 'wheat and barley', only 'wheat and grape-seeds ... ' it implies that Rebbi Yashiyah concedes that if one plants wheat and barley, one is Chayav for K'lai Zera'im.

Implied Question: And that what the Gemara says in the last Perek of Bechoros (Daf 54.) that 'One may not separate T'rumah from one species on another, since the Torah writes "All the choice wine and all the choice oil and corn" ...

Implied Question: This accounts for wine and oil, from where do we know wine and corn and one (of the five) species of corn and another? We learn that from a 'Kal va'Chomer ... '

Implied Question (cont.): And according to Rebbi Yashiyah the Gemara means to say: 'Just as wine and oil, which do not comprise Kil'ayim even through something else (i.e. a third species), one cannot Ma'aser one on the other, wine and corn, corn and corn, which do comprise Kil'ayim through something else ...

Answer: 'Something else' that he mentions does not pertain to 'corn and corn', seeing as one is Chayav for wheat and barley even without a third species.

Clarification: Rebbi Yashiyah's reason for rendering Chayav Kil'ayim in a vine-yard with three species, and Kil'ayim of seeds with two, the Ri explains, is a. because Kil'ayim planting Kil'ayim implies two species, and b. because seeds and grape-seeds is not called 'Zeri'ah'.

Refuted Alternative: One cannot however ascribe it to the fact that the Pasuk implies that one may not plant Kil'ayim together with your vineyard (i.e. with grape-seeds), whereas "your field" is a field even if it is devoid of seeds.

Reason: Since one cannot give this explanation with regard to "Behemt'cha".

Question: According to the Ri's explanation, why does the Tana mention ''Shor va'Chamor', when it could have found Kil'ayim even in an ox alone?

Source: As we find in the last Perek of Makos (Daf 22.) where Rav Yitzchak says that 'Someone who leads an ox that is Pesulei ha'Mukdashin received Malkos since the Torah gave it the Din of two bodies by comparing it a deer and a gazelle?

No question According to Rashi: Who maintains that Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are not subject to the La'v of Me'ilah.

Answer: According to the Ri, one can answer that the Tana mentions 'Shor va'Chamor' because the basic La'v of Kil'ayim is written in connection with an ox and a donkey.

Clarification: According to the opinion in the first Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 3.) which holds that Someone who plows in the Sh'mitah is not Chayav, establishes the case here by someone who both plows and covers over the seeds, since covering the seeds is Chayav because of 'planting'.

Clarification: If there would be blood from a bird in the location of the plowing, and in such a case where, if he were to search for other earth, the blood would dry up, or would be messed up by water, and he would no longer be able to perform the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam.

Clarification (cont.): And it also speaks in a case where he is unable to fold it up and take it elsewhere (to be covered) ...

Reason: Because if he could, the principle of Asei Docheh Lo Asei would not apply here ...

Source: As Resh Lakish explains in Shabbos (Daf 132:) 'Wherever one finds an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, if one is able to perform both of them, then one should; But if not, then the Asei overrides the Lo Sa'aseh;

Explanation #1: Soft, since they are then fit to plant in, though they are not fit for Kisuy ha'Dam until they have been crushed.

Precedent: And in connection with the bathroom too, since they are soft, they are more suitable for wiping than when they are hard ...

Explanation #2: And not like Rashi, who explains in Perek Kirah (Shabbos 43.) that they are sharp ...

Question: Seeing as that reason does not apply here.

Answer: However, Rashi erases it here from the text.

Question #1: The Riva queries the Gemara's Kashya: to be sure, he asks, it is permitted, just as plowing is permitted due to 'Ho'il'?

Question #2: Moreover, he asks, how can the Gemara here ask that the Asei of Kisuy should come and override the La'v of Yom-Tov cannot be pushed away by an Asei ...

Source: As we learned in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (later on Daf 83:) that the burning of Kodshim does not override Yom-Tov ...

Reason: And in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos 24:) we learn it either from Pesukim, or, as Rav Ashi concludes there, because Yom-Tov is an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh, and an Asei cannot override an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh.

Answer: The Rashbam therefore explains that 'Since (Ho'il) it is fit to cover the blood of a bird' is not a Din in Dichuy, but because then it is not needed for plowing, only for the earth, in which case he is Patur because it is 'a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

Answer: (cont.): Now the Gemara's Kashya 'Kesishah be'Yom-Tov Mi Shari?' is justified, seeing as Kesishah is synonymous with Techinah (grinding), which is 'Tzerichah le'Gufah', since one intends to turn it into dust to cover the blood ...

Answer: (concl.): In which case it will not be permitted, because 'an Asei cannot override a La'av and an Asei'.

Question: The Ri asks that someone who digs a hole is only Patur inside a house, where it is Mekalkel (an act of destruction) ...

Source: As is evident in the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 10:), whereas the Gemara here is talking about digging in a field, which stands to be plowed, since plowing enhances the field.

Question (concl.): And even if there was blood from a bird on the spot, he would be Chayav if he plowed in his own field!?

Suggested Answer: And if you say that 'Since (Ho'il) if it would be a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah he would be Patur' ...

Refutation: Then you will have negated all the Melachos of Shabbos?

New Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Beraisa is referring to plowing of Kil'ayim, where there is only one La'v, and not to the plowing of Yom-Tov.

New Explanation (cont.): And it speaks where, if he would go to search for other earth, the blood would sink into the ground.

New Explanation (cont.): And the Gemara concludes 'Is crushing on Yom-Tov permitted? In other words, since it is Asur on account of Yom-Tov (since it is an Asei and a Lo Sa'aseh), it cannot be permitted because of Kil'ayim because of 'Ho'il', seeing as even if there was blood of a bird there it would be Asur.

Observation: As a matter of fact, the Gemara could have asked 'Charishah be'Yom-Tov Mi Shari?', only it pursued a different track, in order to aggrandize the Torah and to glorify it.

Precedent: The Gemara states in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 12:) that the author of thie Beraisa is Beis Shamai, who does not hold of 'Mitoch', but according to Beis Hillel, it is permitted.

Implied Question: Even though it must be needed on that day?

Answer: This is also considered heeded for that day, despite the fact that it can only be eaten be'Isur.

Inference: The Riva proves from here that when Rabah says 'Ho'il', he says it even according to Beis Shamai.

Clarification: Without this Kashya the Gemara in Makos (Daf 22.) erases Hav'arah from the Beraisa ...

Reason: Because it has a problem with Rabah's ruling 'Chiluk Melachos le'Shabbos, ve'Ein Chiluk Melachos le'Yom-Tov'.

Question: The Ri asks why the Tana does not insert 'Gid ha'Nasheh shel Neveilah' anyway, and he will receive Malkos because of Neveilah.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that "Seh" implies both male and female.

Question: But the Gemara is talking about an Olah, which cannot be brought as a female?

Question #1: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach us that a B'chor and Ma'aser animal cannot be brought as a Tamid? Why will the reason that their Matanos (of blood) are not the same not suffice?

Answer: Since we have learned that if one performs one Matanah with the blood of an animal that requires four one is Yotzei.

Question #2: How can a B'chor become a Tamid? Why will one not transgress 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim ... ' ('Any Korban part of which is brought as a fire-offering, ]the rest of it] is subject to 'Bal Taktiru' (the prohibition of burning it).

Answer: Since it is being brought as an Olah, it has the status of an Olah.

Conclusion: And this also answers the Kashya from 'Matanos'.

Explanation #2: The Ri explains that this Pasuk (concerning "Seh") is talking about Pesach (and not the Tamid), by which the Torah writes "Seh Tamim".

New Explanation #2 (cont.): If so, the Pasuk is coming to teach us that one should bring the Pesach from something that can be 'Achas', a female (i.e. Chulin) and not a B'chor, since the Torah writes "Achas".

New Explanation (cont.): And the Tana says that one can bring neither a B'chor nor Ma'aser as a Pesach.

Conclusion: The solves the problem of equal Matanos, neither can ask from 'Kol she'Mimenu le'Ishim ... '.

Question: In the first Perek of Chagigah (Daf 8.) we learn from "Misas Yadcha" that whatever comes as an obligation, may only be brought from Chulin?

Answer: The current Pasuk is merely an Asmachta; likewise "min ha'Masayim", from which we learn that Orlah is Bateil in two hundred is also an Asmachta.

Question: This is difficult however, from "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" --min ha'Mutar le'Yisrael', which is a real D'rashah, since it is from this Pasuk that the Gemara learns in Menachos (Daf 5:) that T'reifah cannot be brought as a Korban?