Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'until market day': Provided he does not leave the Agunah among them for thirty days - the one that he purchased last, he should not allow thirty days, market day, to pass.

Question #1: The Tosefta (Perek 8) has the text 'More than thirty days', in which case, he will be allowed to keep it even after market day?

Question #2: A little earlier, in connection with 'Yom-Tov', it refers to it as 'Achronah, whereas here it calls it 'Agunah'?

Question #3: The Tana does not mention 'market day' at all?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it is because the butcher tends to purchase many animals at the same time that he is permitted to keep them, provided he does keep even the 'Agunah', the one that is left on its own after the others have been Shechted, for longer than thirty days, even though it is the only one left.

Conclusion: However, the text in all the Sefarim reads 'Thirty days', and not 'More than thirty days'.

Refuted Explanation: Tosfos does not agree with Rashi, who explains that the Rabanan argue with Raban Gamliel ...

Authentic Explanation #1: ... since they asked Raban Gamliel whether one is permitted to keep the animals before Yom-Tov, to which he replied in the affirmative ...

Authentic Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and he mentioned 'tying it' La'av Davka (not because it was necessary, but) because it was customary to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

Source (in the Mishnah): ... as the Gemara states in Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 54b) 'A rope that extends from a bed, up to five Tefachim is Tamei ...

Source (cont.): ... and Rashi there, explains that the rope is fit to use to tie a Beheimah Dakah to the bed-post ...

Source (in the Torah): ... as the Torah writes "Isru Chag ba'Avosim ad Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" - because they used to tie their Korbanos to the bedposts up to the time that they brought them to the 'corners' of the Mizbe'ach (Targum Yonasan there).

Authentic Explanation #2: Alternatively, he says 'tied it' to teach us that even if they are tied, it is forbidden to rear them, only to keep them (temporarily).

Support: ... and the Tosefta too, implies that even before Yom-Tov, one is only permitted to keep them in the house ...

Support (cont.): ... as the Tana explicitly says 'But one may keep them thirty days before Yom-Tov, not that they go out and graze in the market, but that one ties them to the bed-post. They asked Raban Gamliel ... '.

Clarification: It means that its calves are thin. And it is called 'Chartza' because, due to the thinness of its calves, the spaces between them are discernable, seeing as the calves are so thin and give the appearance that it is tall.

Mishnah in Ohalos: That is why the Mishnah in the first Perek of Ohalos states in connection with Chuldas ha'Sena'im, quoting Rebbi Yossi says that 'According to Beis Shamai, it is Metamei a Kezayis be'Masa, and k'Adashah be'Maga' ...

Mishnah in Ohalos: Because, since its legs are tall and thin, Beis Shamai has a Safek that perhaps it is not "the weasel" mentioned in the Pasuk, in which case it is subject to Tum'as Neveilah, or perhaps it is, and it has the Din of a Sheretz ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and when the Gemara concludes 'u'Mai Shartza? de'Mitsa'i Shakeih' ('What is a Sheretz? One whose calves are short') - it is referring to the weasel in the Pasuk, of which it does not have a Safek, since its legs are short and it crawls along the ground. This is how Rabeinu Tam explains it.

Explanation #1: Rashi interprets this as a rhetorical question - 'Is it the way of Chovah to bury her children, that instead of occupying herself with their upbringing, she busies herself rearing sheep?'

Explanation #1: 'And it turned out to be "An erroneous statement that is made before the ruler".

Sugya in Nazir: It is not possible however, to explain like this the Sugya in Perek Sh'nei Nezirim (in Nazir, Daf 57b & 58a) ...

Sugya in Nazir (cont.): ... where Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rav Huna 'According to you, who cut off their hair?' And in response to Rav Huna's reply 'Chovah', he commented 'Chovah Tikberinhu li'Benah!' There is no way of explaining that other than as a curse.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one can explain it (both Sugyos) to mean 'Is she not afraid that she will be punished by having to bury her children?'

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the members of his Yeshivah settled there, and most of the fields there belonged to Jews.

Precedent: And in similar vein, he explained in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 6a, Tosfos there DH 'mi'Chi') - 'We made ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin, from the time that Rav came to Bavel and we became experts in li'Shemah', on account of the increase of Yeshivos'.

Question: If so, asks Rabeinu Tam, how can the Gemara there query this from the Mishnah 'Acco is like Eretz Yisrael for Gitin' - 'Acco, but not Bavel?' ...

Question (cont.): ... bearing in mind that the Mishnayos were written before Rav arrived in Bavel?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'When Rav came to Bavel' - and taught them that already from the time of Yechonyah, when the Cheresh and the Masger (the Talmidei-Chachamim) were exiled to Bavel (See Gitin, Daf 88a), regarding Gitin it had the Din of Eretz Yisrael, where they were experts in li'Shemah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And likewise here regarding Beheimah Dakah, since there are a majority of Yisrael living there.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And so it is possible to explain the Sugya at the beginning of 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' (Eruvin, Daf 28a).

Explnation #1: Rashi explains 'Pidyon ha'Ben', and so does the Aruch.

Question: ... even though Unklus translates "Pidyon" (Sh'mos 13:13) as 'Purkan', the term 'salvation' is not applicable to it.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that a son was born there (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim 'ש & 'ר ) ...

Reason: ... and because a baby is saved and rescued from its mother's womb - as the Pasuk writes in Yeshayah (66) 've'Himlitah Zachar", it uses the expression 'Yeshu'ah' ...

Conclusion: ... and they were accustomed to prepare a Se'udah on that occasion.

Clarification: He did not institute it now on account of this incident ...

Source: ... since the Gemara queries it from a Beraisa (which preceded it) ...

Clarification (cont.): ... only he Darshened that it had been instituted earlier.

Implied Question: When Resh Lakish, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 15b & 16a), states, in connection with a lion, a leopard, a bear, a wolf and a Bard'las, that, even according to Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that whoever kills them first, has merited a good deed, that applies exclusively to where they killed, but otherwise, not ...

Answer #1: That speaks where they are tied by a chain, which was how they tended to be reared, whereas here it speaks about a cat that is not tied.

Answer #2: Alternatively, from the above listed animals people tend to be wary, in which case, we are not worried that they will cause harm, which is not the case by a cat ...

Reason: ... because people do not know whether it is the son of a black cat or of a white one, since one is not acquainted with thei ancestry.

Clarification: Meaning that a person who finds it dead is not obligated to return its skin.

Question: Now that Rav has taught us that it is not subject to theft, why does he need to add that one is permitted to kill it?

Answer: The question is irrelevant, seeing as he first mentioned than one is permitted to kill it.

Clarification: This cannot be referring to blowing the Shofar, because 'Since when does one blow the Shofat on Shabbos?', as the Gemara asks at the end of the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 14a & 14b) ...

Clarification (cont.): It must therefore be referring to crying out with 'Aneinu', and he holds like the opinion there that 'Aneinu' is called 'Hasra'ah'.

Question: In that case, what is the Gemara then asking from the case of 'other forms of punishment', about which the Tana says 'Lo Hayu Masri'in al ha'Chikuch (itching/boils) Ela Tzo'akin'?

Possible Answer: Perhaps what he means is that they did not blow the Shofar; they only cried out verbally, with 'Aneinu'?

Refuted Question: Nor can one answer that, even though both expressions refer to verbally crying out, 'Hasra'ah' is one thing, and 'Tze'akah', another ...

Refutation: ... since the Gemara there implies that, according to the opinion that holds 'Aneinu' is called 'Hasra'ah', they are one and the same.

Answer: What the Gemara means is - Since the Tana says that on Shabbos one cries out at least with 'Aneinu', it stands to reason that for itching during the week, one should even blow the Shofar, seeing as it is such an important issue that it merits crying out on Shabbos.

Amendment of Text: We do have the text 'Guvai' ...

Reason: ... seeing as the Mishnah in 'Seider Ta'aniyos ha'Eilu' (Ta'anis, Daf 19a) states 'Masri'in al ha'Arbeh, ve'al he'Chasil ve'al ha'Guvai'.

Refutation #1: There it is referring to Masri'in verbally.

Refutation #2: It is possible to insert it, because there it is speaking about a plague of Guvai that damages fields, similar to Arbeh and Chasil that the Tana mentions there ...

Reinstating Text (cont.): ... whereas the Guvai here refers to one that damages people, similar to hornets and a plague of snakes. So the Ri explained.

Question: When Rav Acha mi'Difti himself stated in the first Perek of Bava Basra (on Daf 12b) regarding an incident that occurred with him 'Lo bi'Meheirah Mativin lo' ...

Answer: ... he said it at the time when he believed that they would reinstate him as the Rosh Yeshivah ...

Answer (cont.): But ultimately, when they did not, he said 'le'Olam Ein Mativin lo!'

Clarification #1: Specifically in connection with this Mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael, but in order to fulfill another Mitzvah, Amirah le'Nochri is not permitted ...

Clarification #1 (cont.): And even for the Mitzvah of Milah the Gemara in Perek Hadar (Eruvin, Daf 68b) implies that one may not ask a Nochri to perform an Isur d'Oraysa ...

Source: ... in the case of a baby whose hot water spilled, where the Gemara rules that one asks the mother whether she does not need hot water; and that, if she does, one may heat up water for the baby on account of his mother ...

Source (cont.): ... implying that, in the event that the mother would not need it, it would not be permitted even via a Nochri.

Support: In fact, some commentaries have the text 'Let us heat up water via a Nochri on account of his mother'.

Clarification #2: It appears that this episode occurred before the Milah, and they needed to heat the water in order to be able to perform the Milah, and this they did not permit even via a Nochri, as the Gemara does here, only on account of the mother.

Implied Question: And in the earlier case there, in connection with another baby, where the Gemara said to ask a Nochri to bring hot water from the house ...

Answer: ... that was a matter of an Isur de'Rabanan, to bring it by way of a Chatzer which did not have an Eiruv.

Opinion #1: And even an Isur de'Rabanan, says the Ri, one may not permit in the case of any other Isur via a Nochri ...

Example: ... such as bringing a Seifer through a Karm'lis in order to learn in it ...

Reason: ... because it is only Milah, which itself overrides Shabbos, that an Isur de'Rabanan is permitted via a Nochri.

Opinion #2: The B'hag however, implies that for the purpose of Milah, even an Isur d'Oraysa is permitted via a Nochri ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): ... when he explains that it was permitted for the Nochri to bring the hot water even via the R'shus ha'Rabim, for the sake of the Milah, just as the Gemara here permits it for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

Implied Question: According to him, the second episode, where the Gemara permitted a Nochri to heat the water only on account of the mother ...

Answer #1: ... occurred after three days after the Milah, where the baby had already fully recovered.

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the Sefarim that do not have the text 'Nochri', we can answer that it is speaking via a Yisrael, within seven days, where it is permitted to desecrate the Shabbos on behalf of the mother, should she need it, as the Gemara says in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 129a & 129b).

Refutation: This is not correct however, since, via a Yisrael, it would not have been allowed to add water on behalf of the baby, as the Gemara rules in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 15b).

Opinion #2 (cont.): According to the B'hag, it transpires that it is preferable to permit an Isur d'Oraysa via a Nochri than an Isur de'Rabanan via a Yisrael ...

Proof #1: ... as the Gemara concludes there on that case - 'And we do not draw a distinction between an Isur de'Rabanan with an act, and one without an act'.

Proof #2: And the Gemara also says in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (Shabbos, Daf 130b) that just as one may not bring (a knife) through the R'shus ha'Rabim, so too, may one not bring it by way of roofs, courtyards and enclosures.