Clarification: The Aruch explains that it is speaking about a person who is travelling, similar to Tefilah, that if there is a mixer who will knead his dough be'Taharah within a distance of four Mil, he should wait until he reaches that mixer.

Clarification (cont.): This now fits well, since 'Lo Shanu Ela Lefanav' now refers to all the cases.

Clarification: The correct explanation is that of Rashi, and not that of the Aruch, who explains that 'li'Tefilah' means with regard to washing one's hands before Davening.

Clarification (cont.): Because how does it then speak? If the time of Tefilah has arrived, we learned in B'rachos (Daf 15.) that Rav Chisda placed a curse on someone who searches for water during the time of the Sh'ma, as the Pasuk writes in Tehilim "Erchatz be'Nikayon Kapai (that one does not need specifically water for Tefilah)"?

Clarification (cont.): Whereas not at the time of Tefilah, why specifically four Amos, one is obligated to go even more than four Milin in search of water?

Clarification: Because even if he was to declare it Chalah, he would neither be able to bake it nor to burn it - since it is forbidden to burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov, as we learned in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos 24:).

Clarification (cont.): And it is for the same reason that the Mishnah there forbids kindling the Shabbos lights with 'Shemen S'reifah' on Yom-tov.

Question: One can understand as to why may not burn Kodesh Pasul on Yom-Tov, seeing as one is forbidden to benefit from it whilst it is being burned? But why not Tamei T'rumah, from which one is permitted to benefit whilst burning it?

Question Cont.): In the same way as one is permitted to kindle Chulin oil for one's benefit, so too should one be able to burn Tamei T'rumah for one's benefit?

Question (concl.): Just because it is a Mitzvah to burn it, is that why it should be worse?

Answer #1: The Riva answers that one is permitted to kindle Chulin oil for one's benefit, just as one is permitted to eat it; Whereas T'rumah Teme'ah is from which one is forbidden to derive other benefits (i.e. to eat),

Answer #1 (cont.): It transpires that burning it is not for one's pleasure, but for the sake of the Mitzvah of burning it ...

Answer #1 Conclusion: That explains why it does not override Yom-Tov, just like burning other Kodshim ...

Comparison: It is comparable to Nedarim and Nedavos, according to those who forbid them to be brought on Yom-Tov

Contrast: And those who permit brining them on Yom-Tov, maintain that the main Shechitah there is for human needs, whereas burning Tamei T'rumah is not for the sake of benefiting from them, seeing as other forms of benefit are forbidden, and it is clear that one is burning it for the sake of the Mitzvah of Biy'ur.

Answer #2: The Ri answers that it is certainly permitted to burn (Tamei) T'rumah on Yom-Tov for the needs of food (i.e. to cook food), since one cannot say that one is benefiting from Hash-m's Table (as is the case by Pasul Kodshim), only the Rabbanan decreed where there is a need on account of where there is not.

Answer #2 (cont.): And where there is not is Asur min ha'Torah, as we learn it from (Pasul) Kodshim, that one is forbidden to burn on Yom-Tov.

Halachah: The Ri explains that we permit declaring it Chalah before baking it.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that we Pasken like Rebbi Eliezer ...

Answer: Since it is fit for a Kohen Katan, if one is available ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek ad Kamah (Bechoros 27.) ' The prohibition of T'rumas Chutz la'Aretz is confined to a Kohen who emitted Tum'ah from his body'.

Support: And this is also how the B'hag rules in 'Seider Pesach' quoting Rav Kohen Tzedek, the Rosh Yeshivah.

Extended Source: And even if no Katan Katan is available, one can give it to a grown-up Kohen, for whom it is fit via Bitul be'Rov.

Extended Source (cont.): As the Gemara says there 'Rabah (who was a Kohen) would be Mevatel it be'Rov, and eat it when he was Tamei'.

Question: Why do we not permit baking Chalah Tamei for the reason given by Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 17.) 'A woman is also permitted to fill her oven with bread, even though she only needs one loaf, since the bread bakes better when the oven is full'?

Question (cont.): And the Gemara there rules like him?

Query: And even if we say that it is forbidden to bake it since it is forbidden to touch it ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, there where he did not declare it Chalah, why do we need to come on to the reason of 'Ho'il'?

Answer: The reason that is given in Beitzah only applies to bread that is being baked in an oven, but not if it is being baked underneath the coals.

Clarification: The Ri explains that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua do not argue with ben Beseira (to say) that placing it in cold water will not help.

Conclusion: And in the event that one did declare it Chalah, says Rabeinu Tam, once should place it in cold water.

Question: If so, asks Rashi, why not designate it as Chalah and then bake it, Since (Ho'il) it is possible to ask a Chacham to rescind it?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that since it is possible to get by without 'Ho'il', one should avoid using it.

Question: In that case, why does Rebbi Eliezer permit baking it on account of 'Ho'il' (since each one is fit for him, as we will see later; Seeing as one can avoid 'Ho'il' by placing it in cold water?

Answer: And the Ri answers that the current method is preferable to placing it in cold water, where the suspicion exists that one will not be sufficiently careful and it will become Chametz.

Answer #2 (to first question): Furthermore he answers, 'Since (Ho'il) one can ask a Chacham ... is not common, and cannot therefore be applied.

Proof #1: As is evident later (on the next Amud) with regard to the Lechem ha'Panim and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, whose baking overrules Yom-Tov, even though one could say 'Ho'il' (if the wanted, they could redeem it).

Proof (cont.): Seeing as the oven does not sanctify them, because if it did, seeing as they are baked before Yom-Tov, they would become Pasul be'Linah.

Proof #2: And it is also evident in Menachos

Answer #3: The Rashba explains that, in his opinion, Rashi holds that since the basket combines them, and in the end they are going to take one Chalah for all of them, it transpires that one bothered with something that would not be fit to eat ...

Answer #3 (cont.): And it is only because of 'Ho'il' that it is permitted, since ('Ho'il') he has the option of separating, not one Chalah, but a little dough from each Chalah,in which case each Chalah is in fact, fit to eat.

Answer #3 (cont.): And since even if he does not call it Chalah until it has been baked, it is only permitted on account of 'Ho'il' (since he can call it Chalah before baking it), we now have two 'Ho'il's, and two 'Ho'il's we don't say.

Question: The Rashba queries Rashi however, in that, since if he would take from each dough, it would be permitted without 'Ho'il', on what grounds do the Chachamim permit doing it through 'Ho'il'?

Answer: The Chachamim did not want to trouble him to separate Chalah from each dough.

Question: The Ri asks that even he were to separate Chalah from each dough, it would be forbidden to bake it, asis evident in the second Perek of Beitzah (Daf 21.), where the Gemara forbids baking on Yom-Tov a dough that belongs to a Nochri and a Yisrael, since it is possible to halve it?

Answer: The Rashba draws a distinction between the two cases, inasmuch as they forbade specifically a dough belonging to a Nochri, mi'de'Rabbanan, but not by Chalah, in order to allow rectifying the Chalah.

Refutation (of Rashi): The Riva refutes what is implied by Rashi that one requires the basket to combine the doughs (Tziruf Sal), in order to take one dough for all of them, even where the doughs are subject to Chalah beforehand.

Proof #1: From the later ruling of Rashi himself one can extrapolate that Rebbi Eliezer only require Tziruf Sal there where the doughs were initially not the Shi'ur Chalah, since it is in this connection that he cites it later in the Sugya in connection with 'Those women who bakes a small Shi'ur for Pesach'.

Proof #2: Indeed, the Mishnah in Chalah (2:4) specifically states tha 'Someone who kneads is dough a Kav at a time, it is Patur from Chalah until they actually touch. Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Even if he takes them out of the oven and places them in a basket)'.

Proof #2 (cont.): This clearly implies that it speaks specifically where the doughs did not comprise a Shi'ur Chalah.

Elaboration: It seems to the Ri that together with placing the doughs into a basket one also requires that the touch

Elaboration (cont.): Like Rebbi Eliezer himself in Perek K'sheim (Sotah 30.) 'If there are two doughs, one of which is Tahor and the other, Tamei, one places less than a k'Beitzah between them, in order to separate from what is 'Mukaf'.

Conclusion: And since he did not permit it via Tziruf Sal, it seems that they also need to touch.

Question #1: The Rashba asks why the Gemara says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (above, Daf 38.) that 'One is not Yotzei with the Matzah of Ma'aser Sheini according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that Ma'aser Sheini is considered Divine Property, and is therefore not 'your Matzah' ...

Question (cont.): Why do we not say 'Ho'il' (Since it is possible to nullify the declaration, it is considered his?

Question #2: Moreover we learned earlier (on Daf 5:) 'But you are permitted to see Chametz belonging to others and to Hash-m? There too, why do we not consider the Chametz of Hash-m his, since ('Ho'il') it is possible to nullify the declaration?

Answer #1: The Ri answers that cases where the Torah writes "la'Hashem" are different; since even where one can have them nullified, the Torah reckons them Hash-m's property.

Answer #2: Furthermore answers the Ri, there where the Hekdesh has already reached the hands of the treasurer, we no longer say 'Ho'il ... '.

Implied Question: Nor do we apply 'Since (Ho'il') one is able to redeem it',

Answer #1: Because then he will acquire it - and will we also say that all Chametz belonging to a Nochri belongs to him too, 'since (Ho'il) he is able to acquire it?

Answer #2: Moreover he answers that since it has becomes Chametz, nobody will

Question: And one needs to look into the cases of 'Ho'il cited on 'Kol Sha'ah (Ibid.) 'Ho'il ve'Lo Kara lo Sheim'.

Question: The Gemara states in 'ha'Matzni'a' (Shabbos 95.) that according to Rebbi Eliezer, someone who sweeps or someone who removes the honey from the honey-combs from be'Shogeg on Shabbos is Chayav a Chatas; be'Meizid on Yom-Tov, receives Malkos'; whereas the Chachamim consider it only a Sh'vus (an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan).

Question (cont.): Why does he receive Malkos according to Rebbi Eliezer? Why do we not exempt him since guests may come?

Extension of Question: And the question applies even according to Chachamim, who only exempt him because honey is not considered attached to be attached (otherwise they would agree that he is Chayav)?

Answer #1: The Gemara speaks where the honey went off and is no longer edible. so that even if guests do arrive, it will not be fit to eat.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where he is removing the honey close to nightfall, and even if guests do arrive, there will no time for them to eat it.

Question: This answer also answers another Kashya that the Riva asked regarding Rabah, who holds 'Hachanah' at the beginning of Maseches Beitzah (Daf 2:), and at the beginning of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin 38:) the Gemara says that 'Yom-Tov may not prepare for Shabbos'.

Question (cont.): Now if we hold of 'Ho'il', how can there ever be a case where Yom-Tov cannot prepare for Shabbos?

Conclusion: Now however, it is possible close to Sheki'ah, as we just explained.

Question: By applying 'Ho'il' one negates all Melachos on Shabbos, seeing as it is generally fit for a sick person whose life is in danger?

Answer: Since it is highly unusual, we do not say 'Ho'il'.