1)

(a)The Beraisa forbids digging together with a Nochri in a field of Kil'ayim, but permits digging up the plants to destroy them - because it is a Mitzvah to get rid of what is Asur.

(b)We assume the author of the Beraisa to be Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that retaining Kil'ayim in ones field - is subject to Malkos.

(c)From the inverted phraseology of the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - (he attaches "Sadcha" to the "Kil'ayim that precedes it and) Darshens the three consecutive words "Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo", to include merely retaining Kil'ayim in a field in the prohibition.

(d)We reconcile this with Rebbi Akiva's own ruling (in Makos) 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav' - by requiring him to perform an act (such as fencing the field [see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Akiva Omer']) as well.

2)

(a)We try to prove from here that - the Mitzvah to get rid of an Isur, overrides the Isur of wanting to retain it (like Rav Nachman's previous ruling 'Yishbor, ve'Tavo alav B'rachah').

(b)To refute the proof, we establish the Beraisa like the Chachamim of Rebbi Akiva - posing the problem that - if there is no Isur in retaining Kil'ayim, then why does the Tana need to permit uprooting it?

(c)So we establish the case where the Yisrael is working free of charge - and the Tana is coming to teach us (not that it is permitted to uproot it because of the Isur of 'Rotzeh be'Kiyumo', but) that even though it is normally forbidden to give a Nochri a free gift, it is permitted in this case (to do the Nochri a favor), in order to get rid of the Kil'ayim.

3)

(a)The Tana who forbids giving a Nochri a free gift is - Rebbi Yehudah.

(b)In spite of all this, we conclude 'mi'de'Rebbi Yehudah Nishma le'Rebbi Akiva' - Just as the Mitzvah of getting rid of an Isur overrides the sin of giving a Nochri a free gift (according to Rebbi Yehudah), so too, ought it to override the sin of retaining Kil'ayim (according to Rebbi Akiva), and ...

(c)... 've'Su Lo Midi' - This is the last word on the matter.

4)

(a)Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi bar Papi then ask - whether 'D'mei Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oveid-Kochavim' (the exchange of Avodas-Kochavim that a Nochri sold or swapped) is Asur (like that of a Yisrael) or not.

(b)Once again, Rav Nachman resolved the She'eilah immediately, but this time, based on a ruling of his Rebbe, Rabah bar Avuhah, who instructed some potential converts - to sell their property before converting.

(c)From the fact that he told them to do it before they converted, Rav Nachman tries to prove that - 'D'mei Avodas-Kochavim be'Yad Oveid-Kochavim' is permitted.

(d)We refute Rav Nachman's proof however - because we can safely assume that, seeing as they were on the verge of converting, selling their Avodah-Zarah was sufficient indication that they were Mevatel it (see Ritva).

5)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a Nochri ...

1. ... sells his god or Yayin Nesech to pay his Jewish creditor - the creditor is permitted to accept it.

2. ... tells his Jewish creditor to wait for him to sell his god or his Yayin Nesech, and then he will pay him - he is not.

(b)Rav Sheishes explains the difference - inasmuch as, in the latter case, the Yisrael wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain, whereas in the former case he could hardly care less.

6)

(a)We query Rav Sheishes' answer from a Mishnah in D'mai, which rules that if a Ger and his Nochri 'brother' inherited from their father, Avodas-Kochavim or Yayin Nesech and other things - the Ger may ask his brother to take the Avodah-Zarah or the Yayin Nesech, whilst he takes the rest ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rav Sheishes - in that the Tana seems to permit the Ger to accept the D'mei Avodas-Kochavim, even though he wants the Avodas-Kochavim to remain.

(c)To solve the problem, Rava bar Ula establishes the Mishnah in D'mai - by restricting the case to silver and golden idols, which are intrinsically valuable, in which case the Ger does not care if they break into pieces.

(d)We refute this answer however, from the case of Yayin Nesech, which is a problem ...

1. ... if the Tana is speaking about ordinary Yayin Nesech in ordinary vessels - because the Ger certainly wants them to remain, so that he can receive the exchange.

2. ... even assuming that the Tana is speaking about Yayin Hadriani, where the Yayin Nesech is absorbed in the earthenware vessels (and will not get lost even if the barrel breaks) - because he would still prefer the barrels to remain whole with their contents, to prevent them from getting lost.

7)

(a)Rav Papa therefore explains that they were more lenient in the case of Yerushas ha'Ger - because we are afraid that if he stands to lose the inheritance that he would have received had he not converted, he will relinquish his Geirus, and revert to being a Nochri.

(b)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rav Papa, which draws a distinction between the above case (of Yerushah) and one where the two 'brothers' enter into a partnership - where the Tana forbids them to make any such exchange ...

(c)... because he wants the Avodah-Zarah to remain (a proof that, in the Reisha, it was only permitted because it pertains to a an inheritance, as Rav Papa explained).

8)

(a)The same trio then asked whether a Ger Toshav is able to be Mevatel an idol. He might not be able to do so - because perhaps it is only a worshipper who is able to nullify an Avodas-Kochavim.

(b)Rav Nachman ruled - that logically, someone who does not worship idols cannot be Mevatel them.

(c)The Beraisa rules that if a Yisrael finds an Avodas-Kochavim in the street - he may ask a Nochri to be Mevatel it as long as he has not yet picked it up ('ad she'Lo Ba'sah li'Yedei'), but not once he has.

9)

(a)The Tana adds to the fact that a Nochri can be Mevatel his own Avodas-Kochavim and that of his friend that - it does not make a difference either, whether he worships it or not ('bein Ovdah bein she'Ein Ovdah').

(b)The problem with explaining 'Eino Ovdah' with reference to an Oveid-Kochavim - is that it would then be synonymous with 'she'Lo ve'shel Chavero'.

(c)We therefore try to establish 'Eino Ovdah' - by a Ger Toshav, posing a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who said that a Ger Toshav cannot annul an Avodah-Zarah.

(d)We finally explain 'Eino Ovdah' with reference to Nochrim, despite the fact that it has already mentioned 'be'shel Chavero'- in that 'she'Lo ve'shel Chavero' refers to the same Avodah-Zarah ('both to Pe'or or to Markulis') , whereas 'Eino Ovdah' refers to two different Avodah-Zarahs ('one to Pe'or, the other, to Markulis').

10)

(a)Another Beraisa discusses how a Nochri becomes a Ger Toshav. Rebbi Meir requires him to undertake in front of three friends, that he will stop worshipping Avodah-Zarah. The Chachamim that - he only needs to accept the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach.

(b)Whereas according to Acherim - a Ger Toshav may eat Neveilos, but must otherwise undertake to keep the entire Torah.

(c)When the Tana continues ... .

1. ...'Meyachdin Etzlo Yayin', he means that - One may leave wine with him for as long as it takes to walk a Mil or so, seeing as he is not interested in touching the wine or being Menasech it, but ...

2. ... 'Ein Mafkidin Etzlo Yayin' - One may not deposit with him wine for longer periods because we are afraid that he will exchange it for is own wine (which he will be afraid to do in the first case).

(d)Even in a town where the majority of residents are ...

1. ... Nochrim - 'Meyachdin' is permitted by a Ger Toshav, and by the same token, even in a town where the majority of residents are ...

2. ... Yisre'elim - 'Ein Mafkidim'.

(e)'Meyachdin' is not also permitted by a Nochri - who is keen to touch the wine and be Menasech it, and will look for any excuse to do so.

11)

(a)We reject the text 'Shamno (of a Ger Toshav) ke'Yeino', because even the wine of a Nochri is not considered Yayin Nesech. We therefore amend it to read - 'Yeino ke'Shamno'.

(b)This cannot mean that one is permitted to drink his (wine as well as his) oil - because the Chachamim forbade the oil of Nochrim (and the Tana is speaking before the Chachamim withdrew the decree).

(c)It must therefore mean that - they are Mutar be'Hana'ah.

12)

(a)In all other regards, the Tana Kama concludes, a Ger Toshav has the Din of a Nochri - because, as long as he has not performed the B'ris Milah ... , he is still a Nochri, and is suspected of doing everything that a Nochri will do.

(b)There are two possible Leshonos in Rebbi Shimon, who argues with the Tana Kama. The first Lashon states 'Yeino Yayin Nesech'. The second Lashon says - one is even permitted to drink it.

13)

(a)We query Rav Nachman (who just forbade a Ger Toshav to be Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim) from the Tana Kama's final statement - by explaining 'u'le'Sha'ar Kol Davar, Harei hu ke'Oved-Kochavim' to mean that he is also able to be Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refutes the Kashya: 'Lo, Litein R'shus, u'Le'vatel R'shus' - He is like a Nochri, who cannot be Mevatel his R'shus to the other residents of the court-yard into which his own property opens (but not with regard to being Mevatel an Avodas-Kochavim).

(c)The Beraisa draws a distinction between a Yisrael on the one hand - who only need to declare his R'shus Bateil to the other residents in the Chatzer (to be allowed to carry in the Chatzer), and a Nochri or a Yisrael Mumar (who desecrates Shabbos publicly) on the other - who must actually rent their property to the other members of the Chatzer, for the Eruv to be valid.

(d)For the 'Eruv to take effect, the Yisrael must say - 'Reshusi Kenuyah lach' or Reshusi Mevuteles lach'.