Clarification: The Ri explains that we learn all this from the 'Pesukim' above - the sustenance on Shabbos, as we learned 'Borrow on My account and I will pay' ...

Clarification (cont.): And (Talmud) Torah, as it is written "Chedvas Hash-m (the joy of Hash-m)", and "Chedvas' (joy) refers to Torah, as we the Pasuk says in Tehilim "The commandments of Hash-m are upright, they make the heart joyous".

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the moon is not visible.

Question: In that case, the Gemara ought to have said that 'she'ha'Levanah Miskaseh' (without the word 'bo')?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that Rosh Chodesh usually occurs then, in other words, that the new moon generally arrives then. It is an expression of 'a fixed time', as in the Pasuk in Mishlei " ... he will come home at the appointed time".

Explanation #3: Whereas Rabeinu Meshulam explains 'Miskaseh' to mean that the goat of Rosh Chodesh is not brought on it (on Rosh ha'Shanah).

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries that however, from the Tosefta, which reckons thirty-two goats that are brought annually, including twelve on Rosh Chodesh; And there will not be twelve, if a goat is not brought on Rosh Chodesh which is Rosh ha'Shanah?

Answer: To this Rabeinu Meshulam replied that it never occurred to him to say what he was quoted as saying. What he meant was that the Torah does not mention the goat of Rosh Chodesh specifically, since regarding Musaf of Rosh ha'Shanah, the Torah writes in Pinchas " ... besides the Olah of Rosh Chodesh", without mentioning the Chatas.

Explanation #4: Others explain that we do not mention it in the Musaf of Rosh ha'Shanah.

Query: Rabeinu Tam however says that the opposite is true - since it is brought, we do mention it in Musaf of Rosh ha'Shanah.

Text #1: He therefore instituted to say in Musaf 'Besides the Olah of Rosh Chodesh', and also ' ... two goats to atone' (one of Rosh Chodesh and one of Rosh ha'Shanah).

The Three Eruvin: There are three Dinim in Hilchos Eruv:

Eruv T'chumin: Requires two meals for each person, as the Gemara specifically concludes in Eruvin (Daf 80:).

Eruv Chatzeros: Requires the Shi'ur of a ki'G'rogeres for each person, as the Gemara specifically concludes there (Daf 82:).

Eruv Chatzeros (cont.): Though if there is sufficient food for two meals, no more is needed, and even a hundred people can rely on it.

Eruv Tavshilin: Whether it is for one person or a hundred, only one k'Zayis is required for each kind of food.

Clarification: Since they can even be eaten in their raw state, seeing as they are salted.

Clarification (cont.): But if they would not be salted, they would be subject to Bishul Akum.

Question: We say in Avodah Zarah (Daf 38.) 'Whatever is not served at a royal banquet to eat together with the bread is not Asur because of Bishul Nochrim ...

Question (concl.): And the Gemara gives an example of small fish?

Answer: That Gemara is referring to very small fish, whereas here it is speaking about fish that are not so small, that are sometimes served at royal banquets to eat together with the bread.

Halachah: Based on this, we rely on the Heter to purchase from Nochrim bread that has been kneaded with eggs that is called 'Kantoish and Ublizash' (various pastries)...

Refuting Problem #1 & #2: Since what is there to worry about - if it is the bread itself, the Chachamim permit it. If it is the eggs that are cooked together with it, have we not just said that 'the flour is the major ingredient!'

Problem #3: Neither can one draw a distinction and say that the Gemara here goes le'Chumra - in other words, the flour in the cooked dish, which is thin (liquidy), is Asur, but elsewhere, where it is thick, having been baked in the oven, even though the Heter is the major ingredient, we are not lenient.

Refutation: It is not possible to say this, because when the Gemara says here 'We would have thought that the small fish is the major ingredient' - and we ought to permit it ...

Refutation (Concl.): We see that, if not for the fact that the flour is the major ingredient, we would have gone after the little fish even le'Kula, had they been the major ingredient.

Refutation of Problem #4: Nor can one be concerned that perhaps the egg is from a Tamei bird, since they are not common among us.

Problem #5: Or that perhaps the eggs contained a blood-spot ...

Refutation: Seeing as most eggs do not contain blood-spots.

Implied Question: And the reason that we examine eggs for blood-spots when placing them into gravy ...

Answer: Is merely a Chumra, seeing as if one failed to do so, the eggs are permitted.

Refutation of Problem #6: Neither need one suspect that the eggs might be from Neveilos or T'reifos, seeing as here too, we go after the majority (of eggs which are not).

Question: Why are we not concerned that the flour has been kneaded with beaten eggs ...

Source: And as we learned in Chulin (Daf 64.) 'One may not purchase from Nochrim beaten eggs'?

answer: Because that applies specifically to where the beaten eggs are intact ...

Reason: Because there is then a strong suspicion, based on the fact that they are beaten, that they come from Neveilos and T'reifos, and a Yisrael sold them to the Nochri ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where they have been kneaded with the bread, there is no cause for suspicion, and we can assume that the bread was kneaded with whole eggs.

Halachah: However there is no reason to permit the 'Pashtitz' (fried filled pastry) of fish, that a Nochri baked, and it is forbidden because of Bishulei Nochrim, since the juice of the fish is becomes absorbed in the dough, and since the fish are forbidden because of Bishulei Nochrim, also the dough on the outside is forbidden, and the entire article becomes Bishulei Nochrim.

Implied Question: Even though the dough is not Asur because of Bishulei Nochrim, since the Chachamim permitted the bread, and also what is absorbed in it is not intact ...

Answer: Nevertheless, before it became absorbed in the dough, it was intact and it was forbidden.

Conclusion: It therefore transpires that the dough was kneaded with something that is Asur mi'de'Rabanan.

Concession: Some people remove the juice and eat the dough (See Maharsha).

Halachah, Opinion #1: As for those 'Nileish' (pretzels): since the B'rachah that one recites over them is 'ha'Motzi', they are subject to Bishulei Nochri.

Halachah, Opinion #2: Rabeinu Yechiel however maintains that they are not ...

Proof #1: Seeing as they are prepared by baking.

Proof #2: Furthermore, the fact that when one fixes one's meal over them, one recites the B'rachah of ha'Motzi, they must be bread.

Question: But does Rebbi not hold in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 38: & 39.) that 'Shabbos and Yom-Tov are one Kedushah', so how can one make an Eruv Chatzeros on Yom-Tov for Shabbos?

Answer: On the contrary, that is the very reason of Rebbi here!

Answer (cont.): Because when he holds 'Kedushah Achas hein', that is with regard to forbidding something that is forbidden on Yom-Tov (such as [Eruvei] Techumin) to prepare for Shabbos.

Answer (concl.): But on account of 'Kedushah Achas hi', we will not forbid to prepare on Yom-Tov for Shabbos something that is permitted on Yom-Tov itself (such as carrying in one's Chatzer).