Question: Why does the Gemara not resolve the She'eilah from the case of 'Overturning the basket before thechicks, so that they should hop on and off it'.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara says in Shabbos (Daf 43.) 'that one is allowed to move it - i.e. the basket once the chicks have hopped off it, even though it was forbidden during the half-day from the time that they hopped on to it.

Question (concl.): So we see that 'There is no Muktzah for half of Shabbos'?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it is different there, since it is akin to 'Gamro bi'Yedei Adam', seeing as it is possible to chase them off.

Refuted Answer: Because we permit pots, even though they are boiling hot during Bein ha'Shemashos ...

Refutation: As we say in Perek Kirah (Ibid) 'If they were on it (the basket) during Bein ha'Shemashos, one may not move them. So we see that this is not considered bi'Yedei Adam.

Answer: That is speaking with regard to moving, which the Gemara holds is obvious that 'Ein Muktzah le'Chatzi Shabbos'; whereas our Gemara is speaking with regard to eating.

Halachah: Rabeinu Yitzchak Paskens like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Source: Since the Gemara in Bechoros (Daf 28: & 29.) poses a question based on Rebbi Yehudah's opinion.

Implied Question: Even though the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir regarding his decrees, whenever he argues with Rebbi Yehudah ...

Answer: That is specifically regarding his decrees, but not regarding his fines and penalties.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is not fit for anything; it cannot be eaten because it is Tamei, nor can it be used to burn as fuel under one's pot, since one is not allowed to burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov.

Question: And as for giving it to one's dog - as the Gemara says in Pesachim (Daf 32. & 32:) in connection with T'rumas Chametz ...

Answer: Although giving it to one's dog does not involve much trouble, it is a way of destroying it, and just as one is not permitted to burn it, so too, is one not permitted to destroy it, since the Torah attaches importance to its destruction, even if it is for one's personal needs ...

Proof: As the Gemara says (in Shabbos) 'One May not kindle the lights with Shemen Sereifah', even though it is needed for Yom-Tov, to kindle it for the meal.

Question: The reason for the prohibition of burning Kodshim on Yom-Tov is of the trouble it involves in making a fire and fanning the flames?

Explanation #2: Therefore Tosfos explains that the prohibition of giving it to one's dog is due to the fact that the Mitzvah is specifically to burn it, as the Gemara explains in Shabbos (Daf 25.) 'Just as it is a Mitzvah to burn Kodshim which became Tamei, so too is it a Mitzvah to burn T'rumah that became Tamei'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas T'rumas Chametz, by which the Gemara prescribes giving it to one's dog, is not speaking about where it became Tamei, but rather with regard to the destruction of Chametz, in which case, it is not necessary to specifically burn it.

Support: And this is also implied in Temurah (Daf 33.), which reckons T'rumah Temei'ah among the things that need to be burned, and it says there that one is not allowed to bury what needs to be burned.

Question: How can the Gemara compare T'rumah to Kodshim, to forbid burning T'rumah on Yom-Tov? Perhaps burning Kodshim is different, since a Hedyot has no use out of it, and therefore one is forbidden to burn it ...

Question (cont.): T'rumah on the other hand, may well be permitted to burn underneath one's pot, since a Hedyot benefits from it in the form of Ochel Nefesh?

Answer: Rabeinu Yitzchak answers that seeing as burning it underneath one's pot is also Tzorech Gavohah (for the needs of Hash-m), the needs of the Hedyot are Bateil to those of Hash-m, and it is as if one is burning it entirely for the sake of Hash-m.

Proof: We learned earlier (on Daf 19.) that 'Nedarim and Nedavos may not be brought on Yom-Tov', even Shelamim. Now why is that, bearing in mind that Shelamim contain the needs of a Hedyot?

Proof (cont.): It is therefore clear that one personal portion is Bateil to that of Hash-m, and it is as if it was entirely for the needs of Hash-m, and we will therefore say the same thing with regards to T'rumah.

Refutation: In that case, how can roasting the Korban Pesach override Yom-Tov, seeing as it too, contains the needs of Hash-m, since the Torah writes that it must be roasted in fire, why do we not say there too, that the needs of Hash-m negate the needs of Hedyot?

Explanation #3: We must therefore say that this is not a Kashya, because the Mitzvah of Hash-m does not negate the needs of Hedyot.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Only Shelamim is different, in that its main sacrificing is for the sake of Hash-m, and the Kohanim and the owner merely receive a portion from the Table of Hash-m.

Implied Question: And the reason that one does not burn T'rumos ...

Answer: Is because of a decree - T'rumah on account of Kodshim.

Implied Question: And the reason that Rebbi Tarfon was uncertain ...

Answer: Is because he thought it is permitted on account of Bizayon Kodshim] Tosfos Yeshanim.