Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Eliezer says 'u've'Sakanah, Mechasehu Al Pi Eidim', he means that, since one is bringing the knife covered, people may suspect him of carrying on Shabbos. Consequently, he needs two witnesses, to testify that what he is carrying is the knife for the Milah, and not anything else.

(b) Rebbi Akiva maintains that it is only the Mitzvos themselves, which cannot be performed any other time, that over-rides Shabbos, but not their Machshirin, which could have been performed before Shabbos.

(c) The reason that Rebbi Eliezer requires the Milah knife to be carried through the streets 'Meguleh', is either because of Chibuv Mitzvah (to demonstrate that, so precious is the Mitzvah, that he is even Mechalel Shabbos in order to perform it), or because of Chashad (suspicion). According to the latter reason, it will be permitted to bring the knife covered with two witnesses) like in the time of Sakanah. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah permits bringing the knife covered with two witnesses, only in the time of Sakanah, from which we can deduce that otherwise Rebbi Eliezer insists that one brings it uncovered - because of Chibuv Mitzvah.

(d) Even if the two witnesses includes himself, Rebbi Eliezer refers to them as witnesses, because even *he* must be eligible to be a witness (in other cases) - i.e. Otherwise, he will not be Kasher here either.

(a) Yes! Rebbi Eliezer *did* practice his ruling in his own hometown.

(b) Yosef the bird-hunter served birds' meat together with milk.

(c) Levi replied that this took place in the town of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, who may conceivably, follow the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Hagelili, who permits bird's meat with milk.

(d) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learns from "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" that any animal that is forbidden because of Neveilah, is also forbidden to cook together with milk. In that case, bird's meat should be included in the Isur of Basar be'Chalav. However, "Lo Sevashel Gedi *ba'Chalev Imo*" teaches us that only an animal, which has mother's milk, is included in the Isur, but not bird's meat.

(a) "*Sas Anochi* al Imrasecha, ke'Motz'ei Shalal Rav" - teaches us that Yisrael accepted the Mitzvah of Milah with Simchah (which is why they still observe it with Simchah); whereas from "va'Yishma Moshe es ha'Am Bocheh le'Mishpechosav" - we learn that they accepted the Mitzvah of Arayos with reluctance, which is why, to this day, there is not a Kesubah over which there is not a Machlokes (before the Kesubos were fixed).

(b) "Imrasecha"- refers to a single Mitzvah, and the first Mitzvah to be given to Avraham Avinu was that of Bris Milah.

(c) The Mitzvah of Bris Milah is unique inasmuch as it the only Mitzvah which applies continuously throughout one's life - even in the bathroom (like we find by David ha'Melech, who cheered up when he realized that, even when he in the bathroom, he was not devoid of Mitzvos, because he had the Mitzvah of Milah)

(d) When the Gemara states that Yisrael still observe the Mitzvah of Milah 'be'Simchah' - it means that they make a Se'udah whenever they perform it.

(a) Those Mitzvos which Yisrael observed with self-sacrifice at the time of Sh'mad - such as Avodah-Zarah and Bris Milah, are still widely observed; whereas those Mitzvos which they did not observe with self-sacrifice at the time of Sh'mad - such as Tefilin - are not.

(b) If the Romans caught someone wearing Tefilin, they would bore a hole in his head.

(c) He was called 'Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim' - because on one occasion, a Roman officer caught him wearing Tefilin, which he hid in his hand. When he asked him what he was holding, he replied 'doves wings'.

(d) In the same way as a dove defends itself with its wings, so too, does Yisrael's defense lie in the performance of Mitzvos.

5)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer did not agree with bringing a Milah-knife via the roof-tops and courtyards - because, according to him, it is permitted to bring it even via a Reshus ha'Rabim (and those who made a point of bringing it via the roof-tops and courtyards demonstrated that, in their opinion, it is forbidden to bring it through the Reshus ha'Rabim).

(b) No! The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer totally. They do not even permit carrying via the roof-tops and courtyards either - 'He'emidu Divreihem be'Makom Kares' (i.e. even on Erev Pesach, where not performing the Milah on one's son will result in not being able to sacrifice the Korban Pesach, for which the penalty would normally be Kares).

(c) In fact, what Rav Yitzchak said was, not 'she'Lo bi'Retzon Rebbi Eliezer', but 'she'Lo bi'Retzon Rebbi Eliezer u'Machlekaso'.

(d) Rebbi Shimon (whose opinion we follow) says that roofs, courtyards and enclosures are all considered to be one Reshus, with regard to vessels that were lying there (and not in the house) when Shabbos entered - and we must therefore say that the knife had already been taken out of the house before Shabbos.

(a) A Karfaf is a walled area of more that a Beis Sasayim (fifty by a hundred Amos) which was not initially walled as part of a residence.

(b) If the residents of the Chatzer made an Eruv, one is permitted to carry vessels that were in the house when Shabbos came in, from the house to the courtyard which made an Eruv, but not to another courtyard.

(c) If no Eruv was made, one may not even carry vessels from the house to the courtyard.

(d) Yes! One is permitted to carry clothes that one wore from the house to the courtyard, in the courtyard.

(a) Even if carrying in the courtyard is permitted when there is no Eruv, carrying in a Mavuy may well be forbidden: a. because whereas a courtyard has four walls, a Mavuy does *not*; b. because a courtyard has residents, whereas a Mavuy does not.

(b) Rebbi Zeira later said to Rav Asi 'Dilma Agav Shitfach Rahit Lach Gemarach' - when he ruled that there is no difference between a Chatzer and a Mavuy, and that one is permitted to carry in a Mavuy too, even when there is no Eruv. What he meant was that perhaps whilst trying to work out what Resh Lakish had related in the name of Rebbi, Rav Asi discovered Rebbi Oshaya's testimony (that Rebbi had expressly permitted carrying the Milah-knife from one end of the Mavuy to the other), which in turn, resolved the Sha'aleh which had previously baffled him.

(c) If the respective courtyards had all made an Eruv with the houses which surround them - but the Mavuy had not made a Shitufei Muva'os, then carrying in the Mavuy is prohibited.

(a) Rav rules 'Ein ha'Mavuy Nitar be'Lechi ve'Koreh Ad she'Yehu Batim va'Chatzeros Pesuchim le'Socho'. Consequently, when the Chatzeros made an Eruv with the Batim, the Chatzeros become Batel to the Batim, with the result that the Mavuy has Batim opening into it, but not Chatzeros (and, according to Rav, a Mavuy must have at least two Chatzeros opening into it, each of which must have at two houses opening into it).

(b) The Gemara rejects that contention because, if that was so, even if the Chatzeros and the Batim did *not* make an Eruv, carrying in the Mavuy should be prohibited. Why? Because now the houses must be considered blocked - as far as the Mavuy is concerned (since the Chatzeros interrupt between them), and so it is as if the Mavuy had Chatzeros but no Batim.

(c) If all the residents of each Chatzer nullified their Reshus to one of the residents, we will only have one house, and Rav requires 'Batim' - at least two?

(d) Nor will it help to say that they all nullify their houses to one of the residents in the morning, and to another one in the afternoon - because then, each Chatzer will have one house in the morning, and another in the afternoon, but never, two houses.

(a) Rav Ashi disagrees with the above arguments. According to him, as long as two houses open into each of the two Chatzeros, it will conform with Rav's statement (in 8a). The reason that carrying is forbidden when the Chatzeros and the Batim made an Eruv, and permitted, when they did not - is because, basically, the Chatzer and the Mavuy are one Reshus, and one may carry from one to the other. The sole reason that carrying from one to the other is forbidden, is because of the houses (since the Kelim that one carries from the house to Chatzer may not be carried into the Mavuy). However, if no Eruv was made, the houses are considered disconnected from the Chatzer, and the Heter to carry from the Chatzer to the Mavuy remains - and consequently, one may also carry in the Mavuy itself.

(b) Rebbi Shimon holds 'Gag, ve'Chatzer, Karfaf, u'Mavuy Kulan Reshus Achas Hen'.

(c) Rav (in Eruvin) specifically rules like Rebbi Shimon.