The month of Cheshvan is sponsored by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya ve Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther ve Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month. Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Denker in honor of David Denker and Ariel Bruce on the birth of their daughter, Nava Eliana. "May she grow to a life of Torah, a never-ending fascination with study and learning, a life of giving and receiving love, and a life of ma’asim tovim. All our unconditional and unending love, Savta Lisa and Saba Steve." The Gemara continues one by one to discuss the cases listed in the Mishna, explaining why the ones in the category “optional” are not considered mitzvot and why the actions listed are forbidden on Shabbat/Yom Tov. They also question the language of the Mishna as really all of the categories are forbidden by Rabbinic law (shvut) and not just the first category. As such, the Mishna is explained as fitting into a structure of “lo mebaya” – the same is true for all, however, the first case is more obvious and then they bring more cases which are less obvious that they would be forbidden by rabbinic law. Our Mishna stated that the laws for Shabbat and Yom Tov are the same, other than for food needs; however, the previous Mishna distinguished between Shabbat and Yom Tov on other issues and permitted lowering the produce through the chimney. Rav Yosef answers that each Mishna holds by a different tanna and connects between these Mishnas and a braita referring to an animal and its offspring that fell into a pit on Yom Tov and one can only slaughter one of them as an animal and its offspring can’t be slaughtered in one day. Rabbi Eliezer permits only bringing one out – the other can be given food to survive until Yom Tov ends. Rabbi Yehoshua permits taking out the first one with the intent to slaughter, then one can decide that one is not interested in slaughtering it and prefers the other. In that way, one can save them both. Since Rabbi Eliezer is more strict, Rav Yosef connects our Mishna with his opinion and the previous Mishna with Rabbi Yehoshua. Abaye rejects the comparison and suggests reasons why what applies in the animal case would not apply in the case of the produce on the roof. Rav Papa suggests a different answer - that the two Mishnas follow different tannaitic opinions the stricter, Beit Shamai who does not permit carrying not for the purposes of eating and the lenient one Beit Hillel who permits carrying not only for food purposes. The Gemara tries to reject this answer by saying that issue of carrying in the public domain is not the same as moving fruits within a private domain (muktze issue). However, this is rejected as the prohibition for carrying in one's property was instituted by the rabbis so as to make sure people didn’t come to carry in the public domain. The next Mishna discusses Shabbat limits as they relate to items that are owned by a person. A person's limits of techum Shabbat apply to animals and vessels in one's possession as well. If one gives one's animal to one's shepherd or son, it still can only go as far as the owner. The Mishna discusses various other cases such as brothers who share an inheritance, one who borrows an item from a friend, or bread that was made partially from borrowed ingredients and partially from one's own ingredients. Does the Mishna disagree with Rabbi Dosa's opinion as he holds that the techum of the animal follows the shepherd? No! One can explain that the Mishna was dealing with a different case (2 shepherds in the area). Shared items can be moved only as far as the shared techum of both owners. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding two people who purchase a barrel of wine and an animal to share (and divide). Rav holds the wine can be taken for each one according to his techum, but the animal can only be taken into the shared techum. Why the distinction? Since an animal before it is slaughtered on Yom Tov each of its body parts depen