Answer #2: Rather, surely this is R. Gamliel of Yavneh. First he decreed about Shechitah mid'Oraisa, and neglected (did not decree about) wine mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: R. Gamliel was before R. Meir! Why do we attribute [the decree about the Kusim] to R. Meir? (In Chulin 6a, it says R. Gamliel holds like R. Meir.)

Answer: It is this is obvious to us in every place that R. Meir is concerned for the minority.

Support #1: Also according to Seforim that say here "R. Shimon ben Gamliel" [the reason is not because he holds that Kusim are Gerei Arayos]. We heard in Chulin (4a) that he holds that Kusim are Gerei Emes, regarding "Matzah of a Kusi is permitted";

Citation (4a - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Every Mitzvah that Kusim are established to observe, they are more meticulous in it than Yisrael.

Support #2: Also, if so (Kusim are Gerei Arayos), what is the Chidush of R. Ami and Rav Asi (Chulin 6a) that they made them like total Nochrim [and hence unable] to be Mevatel Reshus and give Reshus? They were always like this, according to everyone!

Suggestion: Initially it was decreed, and people did not accept it.

Rejection: [Only] regarding Shechitah and Yayin Nesech, it says that it was decreed, and people did not accept it.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Both Tzedukim and Kusim are not like Nochrim regarding Dirah.

Implied question: When the Gemara says (68b) that our Mishnah is abbreviated [and R. Gamliel says that a Tzeduki is not like a Nochri], why didn't we add a Kusi, i.e. R. Gamliel says that Tzedukim and Kusim are not like Nochrim?

Answer #1: The Tartzan comes to answer the question "we were not discussing Tzedukim!"

Answer #2: Even R. Gamliel himself, when he argued with the first Tana, mentioned in his words only Tzeduki, for he brought a proof only from [an episode with] a Tzeduki.

Question: If the text says R. Shimon ben Gamliel, how do we rule in the Gemara like R. Eliezer ben Yakov? Also, why did R. Yochanan say that the custom is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov? R. Yochanan also said (Bava Basra 174a) that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah [with only three exceptions, and this is not one of them]!

Answer #1: We rule like R. Eliezer ben Yakov only regarding his primary words, that he does not forbid one Yisrael, until there are two Yisraelim. However, in this that he holds like the first Tana, that Kusim are like Nochrim, we do not rule like him. Perhaps regarding this, the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, that they are not like Nochrim.

Answer #2: Nowadays it does not make a difference, for in the end they made [Kusim] like total Nochrim.

Explanation: If there are many houses of Nochrim open to a Chatzer, a Yisrael may enter and take out from there, since no Yisrael lives there.

Question: Initially, that he thought that the reason is because Diras (residence of) Nochrim is considered Dirah, why does Eruv not help, and renting helps?

Answer: Eruv and Bitul, it is proper that they not help, because Nochrim do not recognize them. However, he knows that a Yisrael acquires his Reshus through rental;

However, now that we conclude that [his Dirah] is like an animal pasture, and according to letter of the law nothing is needed, he must explain why Rabanan enacted rental more than Eruv and Bitul.

Explanation (Rashi): Regarding Yisrael it says "v'Heshiv Es ha'Gezeilah Asher Gazal." This is not written regarding Nochrim. Therefore, since he transgressed, he is killed (a Ben Noach is killed for any of his seven Mitzvos), and he does not pay.

Inference: Rashi holds that even if he stole from another Nochri, he is not obligated to return it.

Question: We cannot say so according to the opinion in Avodah Zarah (71b) that wanted to infer that Meshichah acquires for Nochrim, for if it did not acquire, why is he killed? (He did not acquire the theft! Later, Tosfos proves that also the opinion there that disagrees, obligates returning theft to a Nochri.)

Observation: That opinion did not ask why he is killed for Shaveh Perutah. It is proper that he be killed, even though Meshichah does not acquire for him, since it is important Mamon (money);

However, less than Shaveh Perutah, which is not Mamon, and also through Meshichah he does not acquire, [he asks] why is he killed?

Implied suggestion: We discuss theft from a Nochri.

Rebuttal: If so, even less than Shaveh Perutah is important money regarding Nochrim, for they do not pardon less than Shaveh Perutah. It is proper that he be killed, even though he did not acquire it, since it is considered money for him.

This is just like a Shaveh Perutah for Yisrael, and all Gazlanim who are liable for Gezeilah, even though they did not acquire it!

Rather, [we discuss theft from a Yisrael.] From this that he is killed for theft of less than Shaveh Perutah from a Yisrael, it is a proper proof [that Meshichah acquires], like I explained.

Explanation: It connotes to this opinion that [R. Yochanan] discusses stealing from a Yisrael, since it taught "it cannot be returned", i.e. he is not obligated to return it. [If a Nochri] steals from a Nochri, he is obligated [to return it], since [the Nigzal] is adamant.

Summation of question: This is unlike Rashi, who exempts [a Nochri] who steals even from a Nochri, because the Torah did not write [a Mitzvah for Nochrim] to return.

Implied question: He should be exempt due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei (one is not liable to pay due to an Aveirah for which he is Chayav Misah)!

Answer #1: This does not apply to Nochrim, for if bandits stole one's garment, it connotes in Bava Kama (114a) that they acquire only through despair, and we establish this to discuss Nochri bandits.

Answer #2: Even regarding Yisrael, if it would be intact, he would be obligated to return it, and we would not say Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei, like is proven in Sanhedrin (72a) regarding [a thief] who tunnels into a house. (This is unlike Rav. However, Rav's opinion was left difficult there.)

Citation (Avodah Zarah 71b) Answer: He is Chayav Misah because he pained a Yisrael. (Maharsha - this was the rejection, that Meshichah does not acquire for Nochrim. Surely, he gave this difficult answer because he always obligates returning theft to a Nochri. If not, he should have answered simply, that R. Yochanan discusses stealing from a Nochri!)

Explanation: It is considered Mamon in the hands of Nochrim. It is unreasonable to say that if he pained a Yisrael in any way (even not through theft of Mamon), he is Chayav Misah!

Citation (cont.) Question: Why does it say "it cannot be returned"?

Explanation: (Surely it must be returned!) Since he did not acquire through Meshichah, if so, wherever it is, it is of the Yisrael (the Nigzal);

[We cannot say that the Gazlan acquires] through [the Nigzal's] despair, for sometimes he does not despair.

Citation (cont.) Answer: [The law of] returning does not apply.

Explanation: [The law of returning does not apply] if [the Gazlan] consumed it, and it is not intact. He is not obligated to give its value. However, as long as it is intact, surely he must return it!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps "the law of returning does not apply" means that returning it would exempt him from death, just like a Yisrael is exempt from lashes [through returning theft]. In this way it is Nitak l'Aseh!

Rejection: If so, there was no need to establish it with difficulty to discuss a Yisrael, and [he is Chayav Misah] because he pained him. [The Gemara] should establish it when he stole from a Nochri!

Explanation #1: Mohariki is writing and signets, like "Moharikaihu of these are in the king's box" (he can authorize others to be masters over them - Yevamos 46b). V'Avoragani are Sheluchim.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Mohariki v'Avoragani are like building (he has rights to build).

Reference: In Ta'anis (26b), it explains that "Halachah" means that we expound it at the lecture. "Minhaga" means that we do not expound it at the lecture, but we rule like this [to one who asks]. The one who says "Nahagu" holds that we do not rule like this, but if people do like this, we do not protest against them.

Pesak: Even though everywhere, we hold like R. Yochanan against Shmuel, here we hold like Shmuel, who says Halachah, and we even expound so at the lecture, for we follow the lenient opinion in Eruvin, like R. Yehoshua ben Levi ruled above, and we hold like him (R. Yehoshua) against R. Yochanan.

Support #1: Abaye considered this (obvious that we permit, like) R. Eliezer ben Yakov's opinion, like [the Heter of] an egg with milk.

Support #2: Also Rava agreed to Abaye regarding the episode of Haman bar Ristak, if not that this would be Mevatel the law of Eruv from that Mavuy.

Pesak (Ri): Yisraelim who live alone in cities surrounded with a wall that have total Mechitzos and doors locked at night, they may carry in all of it on Shabbos, since there is no other Yisrael to forbid him.

Explanation (Ri): All these rulings discuss when a case occurred in front of him, and he rules to do so;

However, if they ask a Talmid "whom does the Halachah follow?", he may say what he thinks, as long as he does not rule about a case that occurs.

Explanation (Aruch): This does not refer to Stam eggs. No Heter is needed for them. There is no Am ha'Aretz who does not know that they are permitted with milk!

Rather, when one slaughters a hen and finds finished eggs inside, one may eat them with milk, like a Beraisa in Beitzah (6b) teaches.

Question: Why may one eat them with milk? Why is this different than the egg of a Neveilah, which we forbid, even if [it is so finished that] such eggs are sold in the market, like a Mishnah in Eduyos (5:1) teaches?

Answer #1 (Bahag): Regarding the Isur Neveilah mid'Oraisa, [Chachamim] were stringent. Regarding fowl and milk, which is mid'Rabanan, they were lenient.

Question: If so, why does it say "even [an egg with Kutach, i.e. a dip made with milk]"? The Heter is no simpler than other matters, for according to the opinion that the Torah forbids fowl and milk, it is forbidden, just like an egg of a Neveilah!

Answer #1 (Ri): It says "even", for even though everyone permits this in practice, (one may not rule about it in front of his Rebbi).

Support: Also in Beitzah (6b) it is obvious to the Gemara that it is permitted, regarding Rav's teaching that an egg is finished when it leaves. We say "for what [did he teach this]?"

Citation (6b) Suggestion: [He teaches that] one may eat it with milk. This implies that in its mother's innards, it is forbidden.

We reject this, for a Beraisa teaches "one who slaughters a hen..." This implies that it is obvious that Rav does not disagree!

Answer #2 (to both questions): According to R. Tam, this is fine. He explained that [Chachamim] were stringent about the egg of a Neveilah, because Neveilah is a forbidden matter. They were not stringent about meat and milk, for each is permitted by itself.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Megilas Ta'anis] is written - "one may not fast on these days..."

Rebuttal: This cannot be. One may separate someone from Isur in the place of his Rebbi, like we say below "Ein Chachmah v'Ein Tevunah..." (we do not stop to honor the Rebbi when Hash-m's name is being desecrated).

Explanation #2: Rather, it discusses permitted days, if one may rule about matters like "some of [the days] one may not eulogize on them." He rules which are permitted, or "[the day] before the day is forbidden [to fast], and [the day] after is permitted."

We discuss when Megilas Ta'anis applied. Nowadays it is Batel (except for Purim and Chanukah), like the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (19b) rules.

Explanation: This is like Rashi explained. [Kafri] was not Rav Huna's place, and Pumbedisa was his place.

We must say that he was a Talmid Chaver of Rav Huna, just like Rav Hamnuna, who ruled in Charta of Argaz in the years of Rav Chisda. It explains below that this was [permitted] because he was Talmid Chaver of him;

However, a full Talmid may not rule even not in the place of his Rebbi, like we say that in the years of Rav Huna, Rav Hamnuna did not rule in Charta of Argaz, even though Rav Huna's place was Pumbedisa.

Note: The Gemara did not say so explicitly, but it says that Rav Hamnuna ruled in Charta in the days of Rav Chisda. Had he done so even in the days of Rav Huna, it should have taught this bigger Chidush! Rav Hamnuna was already an "Adam Gadol" in Rav Huna's lifetime (Kidushin 29b). Tosfos infers that he did not rule at all in Rav Huna's lifetime, for he was a full Talmid.

Pesak: Even if he is three Parsa'os away, or even more, it is forbidden, but he is not Chayav Misah;

Source #1: We ask about the Talmid who was Chayav Misah for ruling three Parsa'os away from R. Eliezer. However, had he not been Chayav Misah, it would not be difficult at all, even if there is an Isur in the matter.

Source #2: Ravina checked [his own] knife in Bavel. It connotes that he was very far from Rav Ashi, and it would have been forbidden if he were a full Talmid...

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (5b) that Tanchum the son of R. Ami came to a place and expounded that Lesisah of wheat (to wet it and immediately grind it) is permitted during Pesach;

They told him that [his Rebbi] R. Mani of Tzur is here, and a Beraisa teaches that a Talmid may not teach Halachah in the place of his Rebbi unless he is three Parsa'os away, corresponding to the length of the encampment of Yisrael [in the Midbar]!

Answer: We must say that he was a Talmid Chaver, and therefore it is permitted three Parsa'os away.

Explanation: We say that in front of him is forbidden, and he is Chayav Misah. Anywhere within three Parsa'os is considered in front of him;

Source #1: The episode with the Talmid who ruled in front of R. Eliezer connotes like this. If he was within three Parsa'os, he was properly Chayav Misah. Presumably, he was not literally in front of him. (He would not be so brazen to rule literally in front of him.)

Source #2: Also Aharon's sons, presumably, they did not rule literally in front of Moshe. The primary Shi'ur that we learn three Parsa'os corresponding to Machaneh Yisrael we learn from Bnei Aharon, and there they were Chayav Misah.

Pesak (Ri): We discuss only a matter that appears to be a Chidush to the questioner, and even an egg with Kutach, and Megilas Ta'anis;

They were mentioned only to teach that even regarding these, that the Talmid himself knows that he does not err, it is forbidden to rule.

However, something that the questioner knows, for the custom of the matter is known, e.g. Nosen Ta'am li'Fgam (an Isur became mixed and is detrimental to teach that h taste) and matters like this, when he rules that it is permitted, it does not seem a Chidush, is permitted.

Ravina, who checked [his own] knife in Bavel, this was like a Chidush, for he takes authority, like we say (Chulin 17b) that they said to show the knife to the Chacham [of the area] only due to the Chacham's honor.