Clarifying Text: The Beraisa is justified in inserting 'on the top of the wagon' ...

Reason: Seeing as they also argue in that case, as Tosfos explained above (on Daf 21b and 22a, DH 'she'Ein'); and not like Rabeinu Tam explained in the first Perek (Daf 7b DH 'ha'Oseh').

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he placed doors on two horses, to serve as the floor of a Sukah, on which he built walls and arranged S'chach; and Rebbi Yehudah declares it Pasul'.

Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi in the Mishnah earlier (on Daf 21b) in connection with 'Someone who supported his Sukah on bed-posts, as Tosfos explained there (DH 'she'Ein lah K'va').

Explanation #2: Other commentaries explain that it is not speaking here where the S'chach moves with the animal, because if it was, why would Rebbi Yehudah require a Pasuk? Why would the fact that it has no permanence suffice, as Rashi explained earlier.

Explanation #2 (cont.): But where he placed a Sukah on four poles, on which he arranged S'chach; then he brought an animal into it, on which he placed the floor and the walls up to the S'chach ...

Reason: Which is not fit for seven days, since 'One is not permitted to climb up on to an animal on Yom-Tov'.

Clarification: It is for the same reason that he declares Pasul a Sukah on a tree.

Clarification: It speaks where he did not rest the Sukah on top of it ...

Reason: Because if he did, it would be equivalent to supporting it with bedposts (on Daf 21b).

Clarification: When the Meis is already lying in the grave, one places a large stone on the grave to block the opening, and that is called 'Goleil'.

Proof #1: As is evident in Maseches Ohalos (Perek 15, Mishnah 8) where it states that 'A beam that one made into a Goleil for a Kever, is only Tamei where it actually covers the opening, irrespective of whether it is lying on its side or standing up'.

Proof #2: Furthermore we learned in the Tosefta of Ohalos (Perek 15, See there) 'a pile of pebbles that one made into a Goleil for a grave, whoever it up to four Tefachim is Tamei, says Rebbi Yehudah ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas according to the Chachamim, he is only Tamei if he touches the inner row - which is needed for the grave' - implying that whatever covers the opening is called 'Goleil'.

Proof #3: Moreover we learned at the end of the third Perek of the Tosefta of Ohalos 'If someone is Ma'ahil over two large stones of four Tefachim each that one made as a Goleil of a grave, he is Tamei ...

Proof #3 (cont.): But if one of them is removed, and he is Ma'ahil over the second one, he is Tahor - seeing the Tum'ah has a point where it is able to exit'.

Conclusion: From all of these it implies that under the entire Golel there is a space.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (Chulin, Daf 72a) learns the Tum'ah of a Golel from the Pasuk "on the surface of the field", implying that there is nothing on top of the Golel, and that it is lying revealed on the ground ...

Answer: Sometimes it is not revealed, such as the case of pile of pebbles, where only the inner row is Tamei.

Clarification: 'Dofek' which the Gemara generally mentions together with 'Golel' is stones on which the Golel rests ...

Source: As the Mishnah states in the second Perek of Ohalos (Mishnah 4), where it says 'And what is "Dofek"? What the Golel rests on. But Dofek Dofkin is Tahor' ...

Clarification: Because sometimes one places a stone to support the one on which the Golel rests, and that is called 'Dofek Dofkin'.

Question: And what the Gemara says in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 126b) that Golel is Metamei via touching and via Ohel, needs clarification as to how it speaks ...

Question (cont.): 'Touching' is fine, since it can be speaking where one touches the side of it; but 'be'Ohel', why does one need to come on to Golel? Why is one not Tamei via the closed grave?

Source: Since we learned in a Beraisa in Nazir (Perek Kohen Gadol, Daf 53b) - in connection with the Pasuk "O be'Kever" - 'This is a closed grave'? ...

Reason: As Chazal have said 'The Tum'ah goes straight up; the Tum'ah goes straight down!'

Refuted Answer #1: Nor can we answer that we need it for where the Meis is not in the grave, because in that case, it is not Metamei via the 'Golel either ...

Refutation: Because even where the Meis is in the grave, only there is an opening for the Tum'ah to exit, it is not Metamei.

Refuted Answer #2: Nor can one answer that the Golel protrudes outside the grave ...

Refutation: Because what is outside the grave is Tahor, as the Gemara says 'Only what corresponds to the opening is Tamei'.

Implied Question: And what the Seifa says 'If one makes its head a golel for a grave, only up to four Tefachim is Tamei' ...

Answer: That speaks where he placed it vertically in which case it is entirely above the opening, and 'up to four Tefachim' refers to the height - similar to the case of a pile of pebbles according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer: We could (also) however, explain that we need it there where one is Ma'ahil over the Golel above the walls of the grave on which the Golel is resting ...

Answer (cont.): In which case even though he is not Ma'ahil on the opening of the grave, he is Tamei because he is Ma'ahil over the Golel

Answer (concl.): Since if the Golel was not there, he would be Tahor.

Implied Question: The Lashon of the Gemara here is different than in other places, in that Rebbi Zeira and Abaye both explain Rebbi Meir's reason ...

Implied Question (cont.): In which case it ought to have asked for the ramifications of their Machlokes ...

Implied Question (concl.): But it merely continues with a Lashon of 'P'ligi' (to elaborate on their Machlokes).

Clarification: Even though even according to the opinion that 'It might run away', Rebbi Yehudah who declares it Kasher is not concerned about that ...

Clarification: Nevertheless, Abaye maintains that Rebbi Meir, who is concerned that it might die, although it is not common, will certainly be concerned that it might run away, which is .

Source: This is a Beraisa which presents the Machlokes Tana'im ...

Source (cont.): And the Mishnah in Maseches D'mai (7:4) is a S'tam like Rebbi Meir:

Clarification: It speaks either about someone who is Metaher the wine of a Kuti or before they decreed on their wine, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 6a).

Implied Question: And even though Rebbi Yossi and Rebi Shimon here hold in Perrek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 66b) that 'Kutim are Geirei Arayos' (Geirim on account of lions) ...

Answer: It is nevertheless possible that, when the Chachamim decreed on the wine of Nochrim, they did not decree on that of Kutim ...

Reason: Because they distance themselves from idolatry more than other Nochrim, and keep the written Torah - even though they did decree on their bread ...

Precedent: Just as, according to the opinion that they are genuine Geirim, they decreed on their bread, but not on their wine ...

Conclusion: Until Rebbi Meir, in the first Perek of Chulin, issued a decree (declaring them to be complete Nochrim).

Clarification: It is speaking about dusk of Erev Shabbos, as the Tosefta states in D'mai (8:5) - 'Someone who purchases wine from among the Kutim on Erev Shabbos, and he forgets to separate (Ma'asros)' ...

Refutation #1: Not that he forgets until it is already Shabbos, because then, it calling it a name would be forbidden ...

Reason: As is evident in many places - that Tevel cannot be rectified on Shabbos other than by performing an Isur ...

Proof #1: As the Gemara states in Perek Kirah (Shabbos, Daf 43a) 'Tevel is 'prepared' (not Muktzah) with regard to Shabbos, because if one transgresses and rectifies it, it is duly rectified'.

Proof #2: And in Perek Mi she'Hichshich (Ibid, Daf 154b) - 'If one's animal is laden with Tevel or glass vessels, it is forbidden to unload it'.

Substantiation of Proof #1: Nor is it logical to say that all these cases go like Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon, who forbid it.

Substantiation of Proof #2: Moreover, the Gemara says in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 17b) - 'Someone who Ma'asers on Shabbos be'Shogeg, he may eat it; be'Meizid, he may not'.

Substantiation of Proof #2 (cont.): And the Gemara in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 54a) implies that it also goes according to Rebbi Meir.

Substantiation of Proof #2 (concl.): And if it would be fit to eat via a stipulation 'Which I am going to separate', it would not be subject to a K'nas, there where he transgressed and rectified it!

Refutation #2: Nor is it speaking where he remembers when it was still day, but there is not sufficient time left in the day to separate Ma'asros

Reason: Because then he would have to declare Ma'aser Sheini in the north or in the south and redeem it and drink it, like by D'mai (D'mai, 7:1).

Clarification (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where he forgot until Bein ha'Shemashos (dusk), at which point it is forbidden to separate, as we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 34a) - Dafek Chasheichah ... Ein Me'asrin es ha'Vaday - and the fruit of a Kuti is considered 'Vaday' ...

Implied Question: Because even though we say in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 47b) 'These Kutim Ma'aser properly, since, because it is written in the Torah, they are fulfill it scrupulously ...

Answer: That speaks specifically when they intend to eat it, but when it comes to selling it, they do not pay heed to 'Lifnei Iver', which they interpret literally (Nidah 57b).

Answer (cont.): Nor do they care about stealing from the Kohen and the Levi, since a. it is money that has no claimants, b. their portion is not marked and c. as the Gemara Darshens in Perek ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 88b) "Aser Te'aser ve'Achalta", 'but not what you sell'.

Clarification (cont.): And to declare it Ma'aser under such circumstances, to say 'which I am going to separate', is permitted ...

Reason: Since they did not go so far as to apply their decree to Bein ha'Shemoshos - even in the case of Vaday (Tevel).

Precedent: The Mishnah in D'mai (7:5), in the case of figs of Tevel, states the same as states here ...

Precedent (cont.): Only the Mishnah in D'mai does not cite the Tana'im that it cites here (See Aruch la'Ner).

Precedent (cont.): And by Tevel Vaday it mentions T'rumah Gedolah, which it does not do by D'mai, since 'The Amei ha'Aretz are not suspect on T'rumah Gedolah' (Sotah, 48a).

Implied Question: The reason the Tana does not insert the word 'tomorrow', either here or by Tevel and D'mai, in D'mai, Perek 7, whereas in connection with 'Someone who invites his friend to eat by him, he says (in Mishnah 1) 'Which I am going to separate tomorrow' - is ...

Answer: Because in the (latter) case of 'inviting', one only separates what one actually eats.

Implied Question: In the case of 'Someone who has figs of Tevel', too, could in fact separate what he eats on Shabbos ...

Answer: Only since he wants to rectify the remainder as well, all in one go, it does not say 'tomorrow'.

Reason: Because it is forbidden to separate (on Shabbos) for after Shabbos.

Support: The Yerushalmi specifically relates in the seventh Perek of D'mai how when Rebbi Yanai asked Rebbi Chiya his Rebbe, whether he was permitted to rectify his 'Vaday figs' on Shabbos.

Support (cont.): He replied ' "Lema'an Tilmad le'Yir'ah es Hash-m Elokecha Kol ha'Yamim" - even on Shabbos'.

Support (cont.): 'Vaday figs' means that he had figs that were Vaday Tevel, on which he had stipulated on Erev Shabbos 'which I am going to separate (on Shabbos) will be Ma'aser'.

Support (concl.): From which we specifically see that that it ia permitted.

Question: There is a Kashya however, from the case in 'ha'Ishah Rabah' (Yevamos, Daf 93a) where Rebbi Yanai himself took Ma'aser from fruit in his house which was not 'Mukaf' (next to the stock which he intended to Ma'aser) ...

Question: Why did he not declare it Ma'aser and separate it on Shabbos when it was Mukaf - like the case in the Yerushalmi?

Answer #1: Perhaps the latter case took place earlier, and he did not yet know whether it was permitted.

Answer #2: Alternatively (in the latter case), he needed the entire basket of fruit (that his sharecropper brought him).

Answer #3: Moreover, one cannot stipulate on Vaday Tevel that someone else currently has ...

Source: As the Yerushalmi in D'mei Ibid.) states, to differentiate between D'mai and Vaday 'On D'mai one may stipulate on something that is not in his R'shus, but not on Vaday'.

Question: And the reason that he does not declare the T'rumas Ma'aser either here or by 'figs of Tevel', whereas in the cases of 'Mazmin' and 'D'mai' he does, is ...

Answer: Because in the of D'mai, where he Ma'asers it and it is his, he rectifies the Ma'aser in order to eat it, whereas here since it is Vaday, he is obligated to give it to a Levi (See Maharsha).

Answer (extention): And that also explains why it does not say here that he designates it in the north or in the south, as it does with regard to D'mai, since fixing the location is akin to separating

Source: And as the Mishnah states in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos, Daf 34a & 34b) 'Safek Chasheicha, Ein Me'asrin es ha'Vaday, Aval Me'asrin es ha'Demai' - and our Mishnah is speaking about 'Bein ha'Shemashos.

Extention #2: And that is also why the Tana does not say here that he redeems it on to money, as he says in connection with D'mai.

Clarification: Only 'Meichal ve'Shoseh' - by which he means that he begins to drink it, because if he meant that he transfers it on to money, then he ought to have said 'Mechalel al ha'Ma'os' like he says in all the other cases.

Extention #2 (cont.): Moreover, here, where he says 'Which I am going to separate' S'tam, without fixing a location - 'on the north' or 'on the south', he is not allowed to redeem it ...

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa in the Tosefta of Ma'aser Sheini (3:17) 'The Ma'aser Sheini in this vessel is transferred on to this Isar (coin) without fixing a location on the north or on the south, Rebbi Shimon says, his declaration is valid; the Chachamim say that it is not valid until he pinpoints it 'on the north' or 'on the south' ...

Source (cont.): And it goes on to cite an episode with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Yehudah who entered the home of a man in K'ziv who was Ma'asering in that manner and to whom they said 'You gained the money but you lost Nefashos' (by feeding them Ma'aser Sheini outside Yerushalayim) ...

Clarification (cont.): And even Rebbi Shimon, who says that his declaration is valid, that is only where he specifically mentions that the Ma'aser is in the batch.

Precedence: In the same way as Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan argue in Maseches T'rumos (3:5) where, if someone says 'The T'rumah of this pile and the T'rumas Ma'aser is in the pile', Rebbi Shimon declares the declaration valid' ...

Precedence (cont.): And the Gemara in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 37:) that this speaks specifically where he said 'be'Sochan', implying that he fixed a location somewhere in the pile.

Query: However Yerushalmi (Perek 6) on the above-mentioned Mishnah in T'rumos implies that be'Sochan' is La'av Davka, and there Tosfos explains it (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Extention #2 (cont.): Moreover, he is obligated (in our case) to actually separate it ...

Reason: Because, having said 'which I am going to separate', if he were to now drink it without doing so, he would be drinking Tevel retroactively, as in the case of 'If the flask breaks'.

Clarification: Because 'which I am going to separate' refers to all the Matanos ...

Source: As is evident in the Tosefta (D'mai 8:5) which states 'Ten which come after them, nine which come after them' ...

Conclusion: And on Shabbos, one is not able to separate them, as Tosfos explained.

Explanation #1: La'av Davka, seeing as he has already separated two Lugin as T'rumah Gedolah from the hundred, in which case there is two Lugin short from the 'ten' and from the 'nine' th Ma'aser of two Lugin, which is the fifth of a Log.

Precedent: And the same will apply to the case of figs, in Maseches D'mai (7:5).

Explanation #2: It may well be however, that he separated two from a hundred and two, since sometimes one separates one out of sixty ...

Support: As we learned in Maseches T'rumos (4:4) 'One separates according to the intention of the owner; If he does not know the mind of the owner, he separates the medium Shi'ur - one fiftieth. If he gave a tenth less or a tenth more, his T'rumah is valid' ...

Precedent: As we learned in Perek Almanah (Kesuvos, Daf 100a) - 'Because some people give T'rumah 'with a bad eye'.

Explanation #3: Others explain - because the Kutim may have separated T'rumah Gedolah, but not the other Matanos. Consequently, there is nothing to deduct from the Shi'ur of Ma'aser.

Refutation: One cannot however, answer this regarding the figs of Tevel in Maseches D'mai (7:5).

Explanation #4: Yet other commentaries explain that since 'One kernel (of T'rumah) exempts the entire pile', one cannot detract from the Ma'ase - even if one gives more than that.

Refutation: This answer too, is not at all acceptable.

Inference: It implies here that Rebi Meir holds of 'B'reirah', since according to those who don't, it is Asur - as is evident throughout the Sugya.

Question: In Perek Yesh B'chor (B'choros, Daf 48a) it implies that Rebbi Meir has a Safek as to whether 'Yesh B'reirah' or not ...

Source: Regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah 'If they did not give (the five Sela'im) before they divided (the property)' ...

Source: The Gemara there explains that he (Rebbi Meir) holds like Rav Asi, who says that 'Brothers who divide their father's property, are half heirs and half purchasers' ...

Reason: And the reason is because he is in doubt (as to whether Yesh B'reirah or Ein B'reirah), as is evident in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 9a).

Answer: It is different here, since he clarifies his stance when he says 'which I am going to designate'.

Answer (cont.): And so we will have to say in Rebbi Yehudah, whom Rava establishes there like Rav Asi, despite the fact that, at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Get' (Gitin, Daf 26a), Rava himself says that both Rebi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold 'B'reirah', and that their reason in our Sugya is because the jar might break.

Precedent: And we will need to give the same answer to avoid a contradiction in two statements of Sh'muel, since at the end of Beitzah (Daf 37b) in connection with 'Two partners who purchased a barrel and an animal', Shmuel says that 'also the barrel is Asur (to carry to each partner's territory) because he holds "Ein B'reirah" ' ...

Precedent (cont): Whereas in 'Mi she'Achzo' (Gitin, Daf 75b), the Gemara relates that Shmuel instituted in the Get of a Sh'chiv-M'ra (a person on his death-bed) the wording 'If he dies it will be a Get, and if not, it won't' ...

Precedent (concl): And if he dies, the Get is valid - so we see that he he holds 'Yesh B'reirah'.

Support: In a similar vein, we initially extrapolate in Perek Kol ha'Get (25b) in the Reisha on the words of Rebbi Yehudah 'What is her status during that (interim) period?'

Clarification: And Rashi there explains that it is because this is not a regular T'nai like other conditions, where a person makes a stipulation regarding a Get that he is holding, that he is able to fulfill at the time that he makes the stipulation, and when he has fulfilled it, the Get takes effect retroactively without the principle of 'B'reirah' ...

Clarification (cont.): Whereas here, where it does not lie with him to fulfill it, and at the time that he makes the stipulation it is a Safek, and the condition is fulfilled automatically, if not for B'reirah, the Get would not be valid.

Implied Question: And when, in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 37b) in the case of 'Two pomegranates', where the owner says 'If it rains today, pomegranate a. will be T'rumah on pomegranate b., and if it doesn't, then pomegranate b. will be T'rumah on pomegranate a., it implies that the T'rumah is valid' ...

Answer #1: That goes according to the opinion that 'Yesh B'reirah' (Cont. on the following Amud).