Daf 34

60) If you place an Eiruv on top of a reed, if it's uprooted from the ground and then stuck in again, it's a valid Eiruv. However, if the reed is still growing, it's not an Eiruv. Even according to Rebbi who allows rabbinical prohibitions, and taking something off growing reeds is only rabbinically forbidden; still, since the reeds are very soft and they're easily snapped off, we'll classify this as if you're actually coming to cut it off, and not only doing a rabbinical prohibition.

61) However, this is only after the reed's stalk became hard, but when it's soft, it's permitted since you may take it off even on Shabbos. After all, they only decreed not to use tree-like growths, not vegetable-like plants. Therefore, these types of plants are Klayim in a vineyard when they're soft, since they have the status of a plant, but not when they're hard, since they have the status of a tree.

62) If you place the Eiruv in a closet and you lost the key; the Tanna Kama holds it to still be an Eiruv, and R' Eliezer says that it's not an Eiruv as long as you don't know where the key is.

63) Rav and Shmuel explain the case: the closet is built with bricks, but they didn't cement them together; and it refers to Yom Tov. The Tanna Kama holds like R' Meir who holds that you may take apart such bricks on Yom Tov to get to the fruit inside. R' Eliezer holds like R' Meir's Chachumim who hold that you can't take it apart, but if it comes apart, you may take the fruit inside. [Rashi explains: they hold like R' Shimon regarding Muktza. Therefore, although the fruit was inaccessible Bein Hashmashes, it's not Muktza. Tosfos brings Rashi in Beitza that says that they can fit into R' Yehuda too. Since it's only rabbinically forbidden to remove the bricks, since they're Muktza like all bricks that are piled up to do a building job. So, we don't say that items inaccessible because of a rabbinical Issur remains Muktza the whole Shabbos, like we say that Tevel is not Muktza if someone separates the Trumah and Maasar on Shabbos.]

Daf 35

64) There's another argument between the Rabanan and R' Eliezer; if you found the key on Shabbos. If it was found in the fields, since it's a Karmulas, everyone agrees that you can't bring it, and the Eiruv is still inaccessible. However if you found it in the city, the Rabanan still hold that it's not an Eiruv since you can't bring the key. However, R' Eliezer allows bringing the key since he holds like R' Shimon who holds that roofs, Karfeifs and courtyards are one category of Reshus on Shabbos, and you may carry from one to the other.

65 [Tosfos says: we don't allow here demolishing the closet like we allow breaking open a barrel on Shabbos to get to the contents because we refer to a big closet that has the status of a tent, which demolishing is applicable to it; and the barrel is smaller, so we consider it as only a utensil. Alternatively, we only allow there broken barrels that were glued together with tar; however, there could be regular building and demolishing by regular utensils.]

66) Abaya and Rava establish their argument if the closet was bound with a rope [Tosfos adds: but everyone would hold that you can't break a real lock of wood or metal], since you need a knife to cut it open. The Tanna Kama holds like R' Yossi that you can move any utensil for any use. However, R' Eliezer forbids since he holds like R' Nechemia that you can only move a utensil for its designated use. [Rashi says; although the closet has the Halacha of a tent/building, and you can't cut a rope that's tied around something that's a building; we must say that it's only a rabbinical prohibition that Rebbi allows Bein Hashmashes. However, Tosfos asks: if so, then R' Nechemia wouldn't forbid using a utensil to cut it, since it's also only a rabbinical prohibition. Rather, Tosfos says: the author would hold like Rebbi's Rabanan that it's forbidden to do a rabbinical prohibition Bein Hashmashes, and we refer to a small closet that has the status of a utensil.]

67) If a Zav moves a closet, whether it has a status of a utensil or a tent, he makes it Tamai. If the Zav doesn't move it, but because he jumps on the ground, he makes the utensil tremble, but not move, it's Tahor. However, if he bangs it directly but it doesn't move, but it just trembles in its place; the Tanna Kama holds it to be Tamai, and R' Nechemia and R' Shimon holds it to be Tahor.

68) If you place your Eiruv at the end of your T'chum, and it rolls out of the T'chum, it's not a valid Eiruv. (This is only if it rolls four Amos out of the T'chum, or else every Eiruv has four Amos around it, and part of that would be within the T'chum.) [Tosfos explains: even if T'chumim is only a rabbinical prohibition, and according to Rebbi who holds that you can do them Bein Hashmashes, so you can retrieve your Eiruv; still, since, if you would acquire your place of resting where the Eiruv is placed, you would be now out of its T'chum and you would only be allowed to move within four Amos, so the rabbis decreed that it shouldn't be an Eiruv unless it's within your T'chum.]

69) This only ruins the Eiruv if it rolled out before Shabbos, or if an avalanche fell on it, or it got burnt, or if it was Trumah and it became Tamai while it's Erev Shabbos. However, if it happened after Shabbos started, then it already took effect and it's a valid Eiruv.

70) If it's a Safeik whether it happened on Erev Shabbos, or after Shabbos started; R' Meir and R' Yehuda hold that you're stuck in the middle (like if you would be when walking a donkey and camel, since the donkey always goes before you and the camel behind you). Therefore, you can only walk in a mutual area of your T'chum if the Eiruv took effect and your T'chum if the Eiruv didn't take effect. However, R' Yossi testified in the name of Avtulmas that a Safeik Eruv is valid.

71) Although R' Meir holds that a Safeik Eiruv is invalid, he holds that if someone, or something, had a rabbinical Tumah, and he had a Safeik Teveila [Tosfos: in a Reshus Harabim], we consider him to be Tahor. To reconcile his opinions, we can say that R' Meir holds that T'chumim is from the Torah, therefore, he was more stringent there. Although R' Meir says" I heard that, when you reach a mountain when measuring the T'chum, you measure it as if you're boring a hole in the mountain (and measure it without the incline), which we don't do for Torah Halachos, like when we measure the cities to the dead body for the Egla Arufah, or measure the T'chum of the Arei Miklat; we must say that he heard that from his Rebbis, but he disagrees.

Although we see that R' Meir is lenient by a Torah Tumah; like when you touched a rodent at night, and in the morning you find that the rodent died (and you don't know if it was alive, or dead, when you touched it); R' Meir says we can consider him Tahor [Tosfos says that we can answer: there, we can rely on the Chezaka that he was Tahor until now, so, he remains Tahor. Although the Trumah of the Eiruv also has a Chazaka that it was Tahor until then, but he also has a counter Chazaka that the Eiruv didn't take effect yet. However, even if you want to say that T'chumim is a rabbinical prohibition, so both these Chazakos should cancel each other out, and you should permit because we're lenient by a Safeik Drabanan; we can answer like the Gemara says;] our Mishna refers to a case where we have contradicting witnesses; one pair of witnesses say that a rodent touched it all Bein Hashmashes, and the others say that it wasn't there all Bein Hashmashes, but came afterwards. R' Meir holds that the contradicting witnesses causes the greatest Safeik that we don't follow the Chazaka, so we're stringent on one Safeik. [Tosfos says; even though R' Meir in Kesuvos says that we should follow the Chazaka even when dealing with an Issur Torah; here is different since we know for sure that it's now Tamai, and the only question is; when did it become Tamai?] R' Yossi says as that the testimonies cancel out, so we keep the Eiruv on it's Chazaka that the Trumah was Tahor.

Daf 36

72) Rava says: even if you want to say that the case of touching a rodent in middle of the night is also a case of contradicting witnesses (two say that he touched it when it was alive, and the others say that he touched in when it was dead); we can still reconcile them. After all, there, we have two Chazakos to say he's Tahor. The Chazaka that the rodent was originally alive, an the Chazaka that the man was originally Tahor. However, by the Eiruv, we only have one Chazaka, that the Trumah was originally Tahor.

73) However, the Rabanan argue with R' Meir, and hold that the man who touched the rodent is considered to be Tamai [Tosfos: If you hadn't examine the rodent the day before and found it to be alive]. They hold that, regarding Tumah, we follow the status of how you found it (and you found it to be dead in the morning). [Tosfos explains: they're only stringent regarding Trumah and Kodshim just like we're only stringent by a Nidda to consider her Tamai within twenty-four hours of seeing blood only regarding Trumah and Hekdash. The reason Shammai holds that the Nidda is not Tamai at all before she sees blood, even though they hold that he's Tamai when he touched a rodent at night; that's because we consider the woman examined for blood (since she would notice if she released blood). Also, we don't want the husband to be too nervous about her being a Nidda for so much before, and it will prevent him from having too many relations with her since she might end up being a Nidda, and it will reduce having children. Although R' Meir agrees that a woman is Tamai twenty-four hours before; that's because he feels her Safeik is stronger since her body creates the problem.]

74) According to R' Yossi who permits the Eiruv, but holds a Safeik Teveila after a rabbinical Tumah is still considered Tamai; we must say that he was more stringent by rabbinical Tumah, since the concept of Tumah is from the Torah, but there is no concept of T'chum from the Torah (even though there is a concept of Shabbos). Alternatively, he forbids by the Eiruv, and he only quoted Avtulmas that it's permitted. Alternatively, we're stringent by the Tumah since we keep it on its Chazaka of being Tamai. Don't say that we should put the Mikva on its Chazaka of being full since we refer to a case where the Mikva was never measured. [Tosfos explains: even if we didn't measure the Mikvah now and find it missing. We must say that R' Meir and R' Yossi argue whether the man is still Tamai, and we tell him he needs to Toivel again. However, they both agree all the Tahoros that they touched is Tahor, since we keep those Taharos on their Chazaka of being Tahor.] Although R' Yossi allows the Eiruv even though he has a Chazaka that an Eiruv wasn't made, but it also has a contradicting Chazaka that the Trumah was Tahor.

75) R' Yossi only permits it if you start with Tahor Trumah, and it's a Safeik whether it became Tamai on Friday or on Shabbos. Or, if you had regular fixed Chulin fruit that got mixed [Tosfos: with Tevel]. However, it's not a valid Eiruv if he used fruits that had a Safiek on it if it was Tamai or not. Or, if you have a Safeik whether this is regular fixed Chulin fruit, or not. [Rashi explains: since the Safeik arose before he placed the Eiruv, so it was never a Chazaka of having a Kosher Eiruv in the first place. However, Tosfos explains: this refers to having two piles before you, one Tamai and one Tahor, and you make an Eiruv with one of them, so, it's not a valid Eiruv since there is no Chazaka at all.]

76) Both R' Meir and R' Yossi agree that, if you have two piles of Trumah, one Tamai and one Tahor,and you don't know which is the Tahor, and you say that the Eiruv should be with the Tahor fruit, it's not an Eiruv. After all, you need to have a meal that's fit to eat on Friday, and you don't have it (since you can't eat either of the piles).

77) If someone places down a loaf to be an Eiruv and says; today it will remain Chulin, but tomorrow, when it turns Shabbos, it will be Hekdesh; it's a valid Eiruv. After all, during Bein Hashmashes, the Kedusha doesn't take effect when it's only a Safeik. [Tosfos says: even if we say that the Eiruv takes effect the first second of Shabbos; still, since you waited for the Kedusha until Shabbos, it's in order for the Eiruv to take effect so you don't want the Kedusha to take effect until after the Eiruv takes effect.] However, if you said that today it will be Hekdesh, and tomorrow, at the beginning of Shabbos, it will be Chulin (i.e., he left money for it to be redeemed), the Eiruv is not valid, since the Kedusha doesn't get removed because of a Safeik.

78) If you have Maasar Rishon in a utensil that's a Tvul Yom, and you say that Trumas Maasar should be separated when it becomes night (and the utensil won't make it Tamai), his words take effect. However, if he says that he wants it to be an Eiruv, it's not valid. Rava explains: because the Eiruv takes effect on the last second of Friday. [Tosfos explains: for, if it takes effect in the beginning of Shabbos, then it should be valid. We don't say that the Trumas Maasar shouldn't take effect when it's a Safeik like we said before by Hekdesh. After all, since it's impossible to separate it any other way (until the beginning of the day and the utensil is no longer a Tvul Yom), the fact that he didn't make it Hekdesh earlier doesn't show that he doesn't want it to take effect Bein Hashmashes.] R' Pappa says: even if you hold that the Eiruv takes effect at the beginning of the Shabbos day, still, it's not a valid Eiruv since you need the Eiruv to be fit to eat during Friday, and it's not fit until nightfall.

79) Someone can (place two Eiruvs on opposite directions) and make a condition with them and say; if the Chachum (that I want to listen to his Drasha) comes to the East, my East Eiruv should take effect. If the Chachum comes to the West, my West Eiruv should take effect. If two Chachumim will come, one to each side, I will choose on Shabbos which Eiruv I want to take effect. R' Yehuda says that, if one of the Chachumim is his teacher, we should assume he wants to go there, and can't choose differently later. However, the Rabanan hold that, sometimes, a person wants to hear from some other Chachum for a change. R' Yehuda admits that, if both of them are his teachers, he may choose which one he wants to go to. [Tosfos explains: even if one of them is his main teacher, he may go to his other teacher.]

80) However, the Tanna named Oye didn't hold of Breira (i.e., that you may choose later), and he holds that he can't go to any side he wants. Even if he makes a condition on one Chachum, R' Yochanan explains: it's not an Eiruv since it will depend on it being decided later which direction will the Chachum come from if not that the Chachum already arrived there, and you just need to find out later which side that was. [Tosfos explains this is only like R' Yochanan who doesn't differentiate in the Halacha of Breira whether you will choose the place later, or, if factors out of your hand will decide it. However, Rav can hold that, though he can't choose later which Eiruv he wants, but if he makes a condition that the Chachum's coming will decide which Eiruv takes effect, then it could take effect even if the Chachum didn't come yet.]

81) If someone purchased wine for Kusim, you must separate Trumas and Maasar as regular Tevel. [Tosfos explains: although the Kusim separate Maasar for themselves, but they wouldn't separate when they sell to others since they don't agree to the Drasha of "putting a stumbling block' to mean to cause someone to sin, but they only accept the simple explanation. Although they're not suspected to steal, (and here they're stealing from the Kohanim and Leviyim); they feel that there is no one who has a claim on it (since he can give it to anyone he pleases), it's not stealing. Alternatively, before he separates it, he doesn't consider it as if it belongs to the Kohein or Levi yet. Alternatively, they hold of the Drasha that "you need to separate in order to eat," implying that you don't need to separate if you sell it.

Tosfos explains: this is before they decreed to forbid wine from a Kusi, when their wine was Kosher. Even according to the opinion that they weren't real converts (but just converted to be saved from the lions), and they were non-Jews, they didn't forbid their wine like other non-Jews since they were careful not to serve idols. Alternatively, regularly, their wine is forbidden, but here, we refer to a Jew supervising over the production to make sure they didn't touch it.]

SInce he can't physically separate it before Shabbos, [Tosfos explains: since it's regular Tevel, he can't appoint the Trumah and Maasar's place Bein Hashmashes, since we only allow it for Damai], he can say that two Lugim (out of a hundred) that he'll eventually separate will be Trumah. Ten Lugim will be Maasar Rishon, and nine Lugim will be Maasar Sheini [Tosfos points out that this is not exact since you had to separate two Lugim for Trumah, you only need to take a tenth of ninety eight Lugim for Maasar Rishon, which is a little less than ten Lugim.] Then you're Meichal [Rashi: you redeem the Maasar Sheini. Tosfos says that you can't redeem the Maasar Sheini yet before you separated it. After all, if you drink it now before separation, it would never come to separation, and you would be retroactively drinking Tevel. Rather, Tosfos explains; you dilute the wine, or you start] drinking the wine. This is R' Meir's opinion, but R' Yehuda, R' Yossi and R' Shimon say that it's forbidden.

Daf 37

82) Rav says that we don't hold of our Mishna (that R' Yehuda agrees to the Halacha of Breira and you can choose during Shabbos which Eiruv you want to take effect) because of the Braisa of Oye (who says that R' Yehuda doesn't hold of Breira and he can't choose later which Eiruv he wants to take effect) since we see by the Kusi wine case that R' Yehuda forbids separating Trumah and Maasar on wine you'll choose later, it shows that R' Yehuda realy doesn't hold of Breira. However, Ullah says that we hold of our Mishna and not the Braisa of Oye. After all, we can say that the Braisa with the Kusi wine should read, these are the words of R' Meir and R' Yehuda, but R' Yossi and R' Shimon forbid.

83) [Tosfos says that R' Meir and R' Yehuda only hold here of Breira since you explicitly made a condition; but without a condition, they have a Safeik whether to hold of Breira. Therefore, they hold that it's questionable whether brothers who split their inheritance are considered as if their share was always destined for them to inherit, or not. Therefore, they're considered as half inherited, and half as they bought out their share from their brothers.]

84) [Tosfos says: R' Yochanan holds that there is no difference between Breira that's dependant on what you choose, or if it's decided by something that's beyond your control. Therefore, he definitely holds that we hold like our Mishna against Oye, since there are many places where R' Yehuda holds of Breira, like when he divorces his wife on condition that he'll die, or he'll redeem the fruit of a vine in the fourth year that will be taken today by the poor people gleaning. However, Rav differentiates between them. Therefore those cases aren't a proof since it only shows that R' Yehuda holds of Breira when it's not in his hands; and we're trying to prove that he also holds it when he can choose.]

85) From the above case of the Kusi wine, we see that R' Yossi doesn't hold of Breira [Tosfos says; only in a case where we're not sure that it will ever get resolved, like here where we don't know if he'll ever come to separating the Maasar. However, he holds of Breira when it will definitely come to a resolution, like when someone gives his wife a Get on condition that he dies, (which this type of condition is a form of Breira since it's not in your hands to fulfill, and it's a Safeik what will happen when you made the condition, and the fulfillment comes by itself), since he will eventually either live pass the date, or die.] Although we see that R' Yossi allows, when two women buy their bird Korbanos together and bring them to the Kohein, the Kohein can bring either one for a Chatos or Olah for whichever woman he chooses; we must say that they made a condition in that case. [Rashi explains: the women make a condition that each bird is for what the Kohein wants to bring it as. However, Tosfos holds that to be a full fledge Breira. Rather, Tosfos explains: each one bought their own pair of birds, but they gave the money for them simultaneously. Therefore, there is no Breira, and the Chiddush is that you don't forbid it for you might come to permit it even if you didn't make the condition on the birds. Besides this Chiddush, it also tells us another Chiddush] that if the birds weren't designated for which Korban, the Chatos or the Olah, when they're bought, the Kohein gets to pick which one he'll use as a Chatos and which one as an Olah.

86) Therefore, R' Yossi holds that, if a Talmid Chachum buys Damai vegetables for himself and for an Am Ha'aretz, he needs to separate Maasar from everything he bought before he gives the Am Ha'aretz his share since we must consider everything he bought as his own (which obligates him to separate the Maasar). After all, since he doesn't hold of Breira, we don't say that what the Talmid Chachum gave to the Am Ha'aretz was his share from the time the Talmid Chachum bought it.

87) Also, R' Yossi holds if someone says that his Maasar Sheini should be redeemed on the coin that he'll pull out of his pocket, it's not redeemed since he doesn't hold of Breira. However, this is only if there is more than one coin in his pocket, but if there is only one coin in his pocket, then it's redeemed since you didn't need to come on to Breira. [Tosfos explains the Chiddush: we don't decree to forbid when there is one coin in his pocket because you may allow it even when there are multiple coins in his pocket.]

88) In the case of the Kusi wine, we say that R' Shimon doesn't hold of Breira. However, we see a Braisa that R' Shimon's the one who holds of Breira regarding an Eiruv. You can reconcile that R' Shimon only holds Breira by rabbinical laws, but not with Torah laws, but it wouldn't reconcile it to R' Yosef who says; whoever holds of Breira, holds it universally both by Torah law and rabbinical law. Therefore, we need to change the opinion in that Brasia that R' Shimon doesn't hold of Breira, and the Rabanan who argue hold of Breira.

89) Rava answers that you shouldn't switch the opinions around [Tosfos adds: nor do we need to say that R' Yehuda holds like R' Meir, but it's as our original text that he holds like R' Yossi and R' Shimon]. The reason why they held that you can't separate Maasar from the Kusi wine is not because they don't hold of Breira, but because, in order to separate Trumah, you need to have them noticeable where they are at the time of separation, as opposed to where the rest of the produce is. Therefore, if you have two pomegranates, and you make a condition that, if it rains today, the first one is Trumah to allow the second one to be eaten; and if it doesn't rain, the second one is Trumah to allow the first one to be eaten, it's not Trumah since the "rest of the produce" is not noticeable where it is. However, if you say that the Trumah and Maasar should be within a pile of grain, it's valid since you have the outer layer surrounding it that's definitely not Trumah and Maasar.

[Tosfos explains: according to the opinion that the problem is that there is no Breira, the Trumah doesn't take effect at all. However, the Mahri says that the Trumah takes effect, but it's impossible to remove it from the rest of the produce since you can't choose where it will be. However, a Kohein can eat all the produce. However, the opinion that the problem is that you don't have noticeable "rest of the produce," then the Trumah never takes effect.]

90) We can also say another reason why they say that you can't separate Trumah and Maasar by saying that you'll choose later what's designated for the Trumah and Maasar, since they're worried that the barrel may break before you will come to separate, and it will come that, retroactively, you drank Tevel.

91) R' Eliezer holds that, when Shabbos and Yom Tov are two consecutive days; they're considered as two separate holy days. So, if you make an Eiruv T'chumim to one side on the first day, you can make an Eiruv for the second day to the other side, or don't make an Eiruv at all for that day. The Rabanan say that it's a Safeik whether it's one long holy day, or two separate days. Therefore, you can't make an Eiruv to the other side on the second day, since it might be one long Kedusha. However, if the Eiruv was eaten on the first day, then there is a Safeik if you have an Eiruv on the second day, and you can only walk in the area which is common to his T'chum if the Eiruv took effect, and to his T'chum if the Eiruv didn't take effect.

92) R' Eliezer, at least, holds: if you're making a separate Eiruv for the second day, you need to make it before the first day, but not on the first day, since it's preparing for the second day. [Tosfos (seems to explain that it's part of the prohibition that you can't have Yom Tov prepare for the next day Shabbos, and vice versa. This is the reason we forbid an egg laid on the first day for the second day). However, Tosfos asks: why do we need to say this reason? Why don't we just say that it's forbidden since you can't acquire a "place of resting" on Yom Tov? After all, that's the reason in Beitza why you can't make an Eiruv T'chumim from the first day of Yom Tov to the second day of Yom Tov, even though we don't forbid items because of preparation. As an egg laid on the first day is permitted on the second day (and we don't say the preparation of laying the egg on the first day to be eaten on the second day forbids the egg).

Tosfos answers: since there is an opinion there that you could acquire a "resting place" on Shabbos, so it uses the reason of preparing, which is applicable according to everyone. Alternatively, they only forbade "acquiring a resting place" on Yom Tov because the concept is applicable for that day since it's forbidden to go out of the T'chum on Shabbos. However, this wouldn't apply by Eiruv Chatzeiros since you can carry on Yom Tov, so our Gemara could give the only reason that can forbid Eiruv Chatzeiros too, which is because it's preparing. However, Rebbi, who allows making an Eiruv Chatzeiros on Yom Tov for Shabbos afterwards, disagrees with this idea and holds that there is no problem of preparing on Yom Tov for Shabbos things that are not forbidden to do on Yom Tov.]

93) [Tosfos asks: according to R' Eliezer who holds that there is a problem of preparing for Shabbos and Yom Tov, and also, in Pesachim, doesn't hold of Hoyil (i.e, if you do a Melacha for food on Yom Tov for after Yom Tov, that you're exempt if it's possible to use it on Yom Tov, even if you can't eat it because you're too full, since you can feed it to guest that may show up); how can you cook from Yom Tov to Shabbos with an Eiruv Tavshilin?

Tosfos answers: the Gemara in Pesachim that claims that R' Eliezer doesn't hold of 'Hoyil' will disagree with our Gemara and say that R' Eliezer's reason here why can't you make an Eiruv T'chumim on Yom Tov for Shabbos is because it's forbidden to acquire a resting place on Yom Tov. However, he doesn't hold of preparation, although Beis Hillel (in the beginning of Beitza) forbids an egg laid on Yom Tov, but we say R' Eliezer is from the students of Beis Shammai who permits. Ritzva answers: we only say there is a problem preparing on Yom Tov for Shabbos is only by an egg that's laid, or making an Eiruv, which creates a new thing that didn't exist before. However, cooking food, since the food existed earlier, but you're just fixing it, there's no prohibition of preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos.]

94) Rav Paskins like the four elders who Paskin like R' Eliezer that Shabbos and Yom Tov are two separate Kedushos.

95) That, which Rav held that an egg laid on Yom Tov is forbidden on Shabbos, and vice versa; it's not because they're considered to be one Kedusha, but because of the prohibition of something being prepared from one day to the other.

96) The Mishna says; according to the Rabanan that you need an Eiruv for both days, you take the Eiruv home the first night on Yom Tov (to keep it safe), and bring it back to be an Eiruv for the second day. Or, if you made and Eiruv with your feet on the first day, you walk out the second day to that place. If it's a problem of preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos; why can you carry the Eiruv there, or walk there, on Yom Tov to be an Eiruv for Shabbos? Aren't you preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos? The Gemara answers: the Eiruv takes effect on the first second of the day (and not the last second of the day before). Therefore, when it turns Shabbos, the Eiruv takes effect and Shabbos is preparing for itself.

97) That, which we allow you to walk there on Yom Tov, and it's not considered as preparing, we must say that he doesn't need to announce anything there that he's making an Eiruv, so the preparation is not noticeable. After all, if he's a Talmid Chachum, people will think that he's thinking in learning and absentmindedly went there. If he's an ignoramus, they'll say he lost a donkey and he's looking for it. However, if what he's doing is noticeable being done for the next day, like he's touring his field to see what it needs, or he's going to the entrance of the city (by the bathhouse) to be able to wash himself right after Shabbos, it's forbidden even without saying anything.

98) Although the Rabanan of R' Yochanan b. Nuri says that someone sleeping Bein Hashmashes doesn't acquire a "place to rest" (and therefore can't go out of his four Amos); they agree that a wake person doesn't need to say anything when he walks to the place that he wants to acquire to be his "resting place." Only a sleeping person who can't say that he wants to acquire the resting place can't acquire it, but an awake person, who can say that "he wants to acquire the place," doesn't need to actually say it, and it's as if he did say it.

Daf 39

99) If you made an Eiruv with food on the first day, you can use the same food for an Eiruv on the second day since the food already has the status of being an Eiruv, but you can't make the second day Eiruv with new food, since you need to make it into an Eiruv by pronouncing it to be an Eiruv, which is a problem of preparing. However, you can make the second day Eiruv without any food, but by walking and standing there. However, if on the first day you acquire your resting place by walking there, you can only make an Eiruv the second day by walking there, but not with food, since it would be preparing for the next day.

100) Although R' Eliezer allows making an Eiruv on different sides for the two days, but you can only place it a thousand Amos away from your house. After all, if you place it two thousand Amos away, then the second Eiruv is not fit for him during the day before (since it's placed in an area that's out of his first day's T'chum). [Tosfos explains: although we allow it usually if it's fit for other people, like making an Eiruv with Trumah for a Yisrael since it's fit for a Kohein to eat, so here, the food is fit to the people in its T'chum; still, here it's not valid since it's out of your T'chum, just like we disqualified an Eiruv that rolls out of your T'chum, even though you would be able to retrieve it Bein Hashmashes since it's only rabbinically prohibited to go out of the T'chum.]

101) R' Yehuda, although he argues with R' Eliezer about Shabbos and Yom Tov, he agrees that the two days of Rosh Hashana is two separate Kedushos. Therefore, you can make two Eiruvs to two different sides, one for each day. R' Yossi holds that they're one Kedusha because of the decree that, when the witnesses don't come before Mincha on the first day, you need to keep both days as Kodesh. Not that you're keeping them as a Safeik, since it's not a Safeik anymore whether the first day will be Rosh Hashana, since Beis Din will not accept the witnesses, but, rabbinically, we consider both days as one long day. [Tosfos asks: R' Yehuda seems to be the opposite of what we Paskin, that we Paskin like R' Eliezer that Shabbos and Yom Tov are two Kedushos, and we Paskin like R' Yossi that the two days of Rosh Hashana are one Kedusha.] However, R' Yehuda held that it wasn't decreed to be one long day, but they just told them to finish the first day as if it's Kodesh so people wouldn't take the thirtieth day of Elul lightly (saying, just like last year it wasn't Yom Tov and we didn't do Melacha that day for no reason, we should do Melacha right away this year).

102) They also argue if an egg laid on the first day is forbidden on the second day. [Tosfos says: Rabbah (in Beitza) says that R' Yossi held that the egg is forbidden only during the days of the Beis Hamikdash, but is permitted after the Churban, since they canceled the decree of not accepting witnesses after Mincha (since there is no Korbanos anymore that it would ruin). According to him, even though R' Yehuda and R' Yossi lived after the Churban, they still argued about it since their argument still has ramifications these days in Bavel. After all, since they always keep two days, and there is never a change of how they did it originally, they still need to keep the two days as one long day. However, Rava says that they didn't cancel the decree, (since there is still a time where you can do Melacha knowing that they won't be Mekadesh the day, like when it's too close to sunset to Mekadesh, so they needed to keep the decree that you keep those moments as one Kedusha with the next day). Therefore they argue what's the Halacha in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he says later that they also argue in the Diaspora, since he holds their main argument is in Eretz Yisrael. According to Nahrdai there that says that they always allow the egg since we don't suspect that Elul will have an extra day; that's only in Bavel, since most years they don't have an extra day. However, in the place of Beis Din, if it comes out that Elul has an extra day (i.e., that they didn't Mekadesh the first day as Rosh Hashana), that's when R' Yossi and R' Yehuda argue.]

103) Also with a basket of Tevel, R' Yehuda allows someone to separate Trumah on condition during the two days. I.e., The first day he says, if today is not the real Yom Tov, but tomorrow is, I'm separating the Trumah and Maasar now. The next day you make the same condition, and you can eat from it). R' Yossi forbids it (since they're all one Kedusha, and neither is really a weekday).

104) By all other two days Yomim Tovim, R' Nachman and R' Chisda say that R' Yossi agrees that they're two separate Kedushos, and R' Sheishes says that he argues and holds they're one Kedusha; but we found a Braisa that R' Yossi admits to R' Yehuda that it's two Kedushos. [Tosfos says: therefore, anything that was trapped or harvested on the first day is permitted to eat on the second day. Rashi holds: whatever a non-Jew does for a Jew on the first day is forbidden on the second day for the time it takes to do it. After all, if the first day was Yom Tov, the second day is a weekday and it's permitted after the time it takes to do it. If the second day is Yom Tov, then the first day is a weekday, and is, of course, permitted. After all, he understands the reason that it's forbidden until the time it takes to do the Melacha is not to have pleasure from a Melacha done on Shabbos or Yom Tov, and according to our above calculation, he didn't have any pleasure. Also, according to him, we only calculate the time it takes to do the actual Melacha, and we don't add the time it takes to walk there since it's not part of the Melacha. Although, according to R' Meir, you can eat something that a Jew cooked on Shabbos if he did it forgetfully even though he's having pleasure from a Melacha on Shabbos; since it's not common for a Jew to do a Melacha on Shabbos, so they didn't make decrees on uncommon occurrences.

However, Tosfos brings the Bahag who says that the reason to wait the time to do the Melacha so that the Jew shouldn't ask the non-Jew to do the Melacha and he'll gain that he may have pleasure from it right away after Shabbos. (However, if we allow what a Jew cooks forgetfully, he won't come to cook on purpose.) Therefore, we make him wait the amount that he wouldn't gain anything since he'll need to wait to have pleasure until the Melacha could be done after Shabbos. Therefore, you need to wait the time that you need to walk there in order to do the Melacha, and you need to wait after the second day Yom Tov the amount of time that it takes to do the Melacha, or else he'll be tempted to tell a non-Jew to do it on the first day so that he can have pleasure from it on the second day. (However, perhaps the rabbis weren't so stringent to decree this much.) However, the Ritzva found a Yerushalmi like Rashi, that forbade a pot of beans left on the stove, which you need to wait Moitzie Shabbos to eat it the amount it takes to cook, so that you shouldn't have pleasure from a Melacha on Shabbos.]

105) [Tosfos continues: Rashi agrees that if the non-Jew does a Melacha on Yom Tov before Shabbos that it's forbidden the whole Shabbos because it's preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbos.]

106) [Tosfos says: Bahag says that we don't say that you need to wait after Shabbos for the time needed for the Melacha to be done unless the non-Jew did a Melacha from the Torah, like trapping or harvesting. However, if he brought something from outside the T'chum, it's permitted on the second day right away, the same way that we permit what a non-jew made through an action that's a rabbinical prohibition for one Jew, to be used by all other Jews.]

107) A non-Jew brought something from outside the T'chum for the Reish Gelusa. R' Chisda and R' Nachman ate from it since it wasn't brought for them. We say that something brought for one Jew is permitted to all other Jews. R' Sheishes didn't eat from it since he held that anything brought to the house of the Reish Gelusa is brought for all the rabbis that are there. [Tosfos Paskins like R' Sheishes. After all, we Paskin like him against R' Nachman in questions of Issurim, and we Paskin like him against R' Chisda, since R' Sheishes knew a lot of Braisos, and R' Chisda was very sharp in his learning; and we Paskin that the one who knows many Braisos are better than the sharp one.]

Daf 40

108) There was a non-Jew who brought turnips to Mechuza. Rava noticed that it was a little wilted, so he assumed that they were picked yesterday, so Rava permitted it. After all, it wasn't Muktza, and it was brought from out of the T'chum for the non-Jewish population. So it wasn't forbidden to the Jews since it wasn't brought for them. however the next time he saw that the non-Jew brought a greater amount of turnips, Rava reasoned that the extra ones were brought for the Jews, so, he forbade it.

109) [Tosfos says: produce harvested on Shabbos is Muktza even according to R' Shimon. After all, the very fact that you didn't pluck it off before Shabbos, it means that you pushed it out of your mind from using on Shabbos, and your not expecting it to come off the tree, and is Muktza. This, that we have a decree to forbid fruit that fell off a tree on Shabbos since you might come to climb the tree and pluck it off (and we don't say that it's anyhow Muktza); that refers to a case where it's prepared for your pet ravens to eat, or that you're expecting them to fall. The reason why we must explain that it's Muktza, and we just don't say that it's anyhow forbidden because of the decree that you might pluck them; since we refer to turnips that are not easy to harvest (like dangling fruits) since you need shovels to remove them.]

110) You can't make a condition while Davening on Rosh Hashana, or any Rosh Chodesh, "save us if Rosh Hashana is today, or if it's tomorrow, (or if it's yesterday)." Also, you shouldn't mention Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashana, since one rememberance works for both [Rashi and Tosfos: they're both called "day of rememberance."] A proof to this: Bei Shammai always holds that you never mix topics in a Bracha in Shmona Esrei. Therefore, although Beis Hilel holds there is only nine Brachos in Rosh Hashana's Davening since we mix the Bracha of Kedusha of Rosh Hashana with Malchiyos, Beis Shammai holds that they need separate Brachos, so there are ten Brachos. If it would be true that you mention Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashana, you should need to say eleven Brachos. So this proves that you don't mention Rosh Chodesh.

(Also, Beis Shammai says that you say eight Brachos when Shabbos falls on Rosh Chodesh, and Beis Hillel says to make seven Brachos.)

111) [Tosfos quotes Rashbam who says that you don't need to mention P'sukim of Musaf of Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashana, and it's enough to just say "as it says in your Torah," just like you're Yoitza mentioning P'sukim for Malchiyos, Zechronos and Shofros by just saying "as it says in your Torah." However, R' Tam says that you're not Yoitza by just saying "as it says in your Torah" but for Malchiyos, Zechronos and Shofros. However, Ri says that you shouldn't differentiate that way, and he's Yoitza in all cases.

There were some early Geonim who say not to mention Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashana at all, since you'll come to make a mistake and think that the second day is the main day just like by Rosh Chodesh. Therefore, you'll count the days of the month from the second day and you'll end up doing Melacha on the first day of Sukkos. However, Ri rejects this since we don't find in our whole Sugya that they were worried about this.]

112) On Shabbos, the Tanna Kama says that you should say Yaaleh V'yavo during Shachris, Mincha and Maariv. However, by Musaf, you mention Rosh Chodesh during the middle Bracha about Shabbos. R' Shimon b. Gamliel and R' Yishmael the son of R' Yochanan b. Broka say that you don't say Yaaleh V'yavo at all, but you always mention Rosh Chodesh during the middle Bracha about Shabbos. (In Beitza, the Gemara Paskins like those who say that you should say Yaaleh V'yavo during Shachris, Mincha and Maariv, and in Musaf, you also mention Rosh Chodesh during the ending of the middle Bracha.)

113) We have an obligation to say the Bracha Shechiyanu on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. (However, it's only voluntary to say it on the first gourd of the season.) You can make it without a cup of wine. On Yom Kippur, it's forbidden to make it on a cup of wine. After all, it's forbidden to drink it (even if you say it before sunset, since you accept to start Yom Kippur by saying the Bracha, you need to fast). You can't just make a Bracha over it, and leave it, since you need to drink the cup of wine you make a Bracha over. You can't give it to a child to drink, since he'll think this is the ceremony and come to also drink when he turns into an adult. [Tosfos says: it's only by Shechiyanu that's every Yom Kippur, but you can give him to drink from the wine of a Bris Mila since it only happens once in a while, we don't need to worry that he'll come to drink when he's an adult.]

114) Tisha B'av that falls out on Friday; the Tanna Kama says that you don't finish the fast, but eat before sunset, so that you won't come into Shabbos while you're starving. R' Yossi says that you need to finish the fast. The Tanna Kama agrees that, when it falls on Moitzie Shabbos, you must finish eating before sunset. [Tosfos says: even though we say that you can eat Tisha B'av Bein Hashmashes according to Shmuel (as it says in Taanis), still, you need to stop eating here before sunset since you don't know when the beginning of the night is. Alternatively, we refer to Bein Hashmashes of R' Yossi that's in a blink of an eye. Therefore, since no one can tell when that second is, you need to refrain from eating before that.] After all, it's not similar to fasting on Friday where you didn't eat anything the whole day, since, here, you were eating all day, and you're not at all hungry. [Tosfos says that you didn't accept the Taanis when you stopped your last meal on Shabbos since you can't accept a fast on Shabbos. Alternatively, just finishing the last meal doesn't make it as if you accepted the fast even during the weekday, even on Erev Yom Kippur when adding onto the fast is obligated by the Torah.]

Daf 41

115) He also agrees that if it falls on a rabbinical holiday, you fast for some hours (and then break your fast before sunset) like when Tisha B'av is pushed off until the tenth of Av, which was a Yom Tov for the Bnai Sinav of the Shevet of Binyamen. [Tosfos Shantz that if a Bris falls on this tenth of Av, you Daven Mincha early and eat since the Bris is like a Yom Tov. Although you don't make a Shechiyanu by the Bris, that's only because the child has pain.] However, if it falls out on the day before that holiday, you need to finish the fast. After all, he only allowed to eat before Shabbos since you can't even fast a half of day on it, but we said that you fast a half of day on those holidays.[Tosfos says; although you can't fast the day before rabbinical holidays; that's only voluntary fasts, but you must fast obligated fasts like Tisha B'av. However, you can fast Erev Shabbos and Torah Yom Tovim, since they're from the Torah, we don't need to strengthen them to forbid fasting the day before (since people take them naturally seriously). Once we see R' Yossi permitted finishing the fast Erev Shabbos and it's not considered as fasting on Shabbos, so too, we can extrapolate that you can fast a voluntary fast on Friday, and it's not considered at all as if you fasted on Shabbos.]

116) The Halacha is that you can finish the fast on Friday. [Tosfos originally said that this is saying that you may finish it without worrying you're fasting on Shabbos. However, the Tosfos Shantz says that we're obligating people to finish the fast. This is similar to what we say that even the Tanna Kama says that you must start the fast of Motzie Shabbos before sunset; i.e., that you're obligated to start before sunset.]