Clarification: Here the Gemara first mentions the less obvious, and in Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos 41.) 'All women are not allowed to marry for three months, whether they are virgins or widows ... ', it mentions first 'virgins', which are not so obvious.

Clarification (cont.): But wherever there is a Machlokes or where it refers to a Pasuk. It is customary to mention the one that is more obvious first, like it does in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 29:) where the Mishnah states 'Amar Rebbi Elazar, Lo Hiskin Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai she'Yehu Tok'in Ela be'Yavneh. Amru lo Echad Yavneh ... !' ...

Conclusion: As if to say 'Just as it is obvious to you that one blows in Yavneh, so too is it obvious that one blows wherever there is a Beis-Din!'

Precedent #1: And similarly in Bava Kama (Daf 50:) 'Both a pit, a trench and a cave' - with reference to the Pasuk, which specifically mentions a pit.

Precedent #2: And we find the same in Sotah (Daf 43.) 'Irrespective of whether one builds or purchases ... ', and again in the first Perek of Succah (Daf 20.) in connection with 'Whether it is a large one or a small one'.

Clarification: The Gemara in Perek Dam Chatas, in Zevachim (97:) learns from here that an Asei does not override a Lo Sa'aseh in the realm of Kodshim, since the Torah writes "ve'Etzem Lo Sishb'ru bo".

Question #1: a. How can the Gemara learn this from here? And b. Why do we even need a Pasuk for it, seeing as one does not fulfill the Asei at the same time as one transgresses the La'v?

Question #2: Furthermore, asks the Rashba, it is possible in this case, to fulfill both of them by using a coal (to extract the marrow from the bone), since burning the bones is not subject to the La'v of Sheviras Etzem ...

Conclusion: And we Pasken that, wherever it is possible to fulfill both (the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh), the Asei does not override the La'v?

Answer: Rabeinu Chayim answered the Rashba, that according to Rava, who explained above that one may not use a hot coal, because it spoils Kodshim (See Hagahos ha'Bach), this question is answered.

Question: Why do we also not suspect that they will bring it be'Tum'ah?

Answer: Because even the Resha'im are heed-full of Tum'ah, as we learned in Yoma (Daf 23.), where the Gemara concludes 'To teach you that they were more concerned about Taharas Keilim than they were about murder!'

Question: This is in order according to Rebbi Yossi, but what will we say according to Rebbi Meir, who argues with him and whose opinion that it is Metamei is cited in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh' (Chulin 72:)

Answer: We hold like Rebbi Yossi whenever he argues with Rebbi Meir.

Question: Since as the Gemara thinks that there is a Shi'ur Tum'ah in what left the Azarah, one can ask the Kashya even without Ravina ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Gemara concludes in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh (ibid.) that Rebbi Yossi concedes that by three by three Etzba'os which comes from a large garment, at the time that it separates from the whole garment it receives Tum'ah from it. So why does the same not apply here?

Answer: One can establish the case where they pulled it off using a lot of force.

Precedent: And that is how the Gamara answers in Perek Amru lo (Kerisus 15:) in connection with 'the loose limb of a person, which is Tahor').

Implied Question: Here however, it is not possible to tear it off by force, seeing as he cuts around the bone, and not the actual bone itself.

Answer: The Yerushalmi however, establishes the case where one cuts off a bit at a time and throws it away.

Question: The Gemara in Perek ha'Motzi Tefilin (Eruvin 103.) implies the opposite - when it says that 'Kohanim are Zerizin we do say, but that B'nei Chaburah are Zerizin we don't'?

Answer: The Ri answers that the two cases are not comparable, since, on the one hand there is more reason to decree that the B'nei Chaburah will come to stoke the fire than the Kohanim ...

Reason: By whom such a decree is simply not applicable with regard to the Pesach.

Conclusion: Whereas on the other, by issues that do apply to the Pesach, such as 'Yotzei', the B'nei Chaburah are more Zariz than the Kohanim.

Clarification: Where the Torah writes "Al Yeitzei Ish mi'Mekomo (a man may not leave his place)", which really means "Al Yotzi ... " (that he may not carry), since Techumin is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Implied Question: And even the opinion that holds Techumin is mi'd'Oraysa ...

Answer: That is only because the Torah changes (the Lashon) and does not write 'Al Yotzi', but even he agrees that the Pasuk is speaking about carrying as well ...

Source: As is implied at the end of the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 17:), where Rebbi Chiya cites a Beraisa 'Lokin al Techumin D'var Torah' - from "Al Yeitzei", which the Gemara queries in that it is a 'La'v she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' ...

Conclusion: Implying that the Pasuk comes to teach us carrying too.

Question: At the beginning of 'ha'Zorek' (Shabbos 96:) the Gemara learns Hotza'ah from "Vayikalei ha'Am me'Havi"?

Answer: The Ri answers that we need two Pesukim, one for the Hotza'ah of poor man (into the R'shus ha'Rabim) and one for the Hotza'ah of the Ba'al ha'Bayis (into the R'shus ha'Yachid).

Reason: And the Torah needs to write both because carrying is a minor sort of Melachah.

Precedent: And this also explains why at the beginning of the Masechta, the Gemara reckons it as two Melachos, since they are written in two different Pesukim

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara concludes there 'What are Avos - Yetzi'os' - there are two Yetzi'os!

Clarification: The Ri explain that 'Nigrarin' is La'v Davka, since it only needs to be within three Tefachim of the ground

Source: Seeing as even the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva, who do not hold 'K'lutah K'mo she'Hunchah Damya by throwing, concede that we do say it where one carries within three Tefachim of the ground.

Proof: As the Gemara quoting Rava, says in 'ha'Motzi Yayin' (Ibid. Daf 80.) 'If after carrying out half a G'rogeres and putting it down, one carries out another half a G'rogeres over the first one, he is Chayav.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara then asks from Rava, who says that within three Tefachim according to the Rabbanan, needs to rest on something?" '

Conclusion: And it answers that whereas the latter is speaking about throwing, the former is speaking about carrying.

Clarification: 'Derech alehah' (in Rava's first statement) is La'v Davka, since the same will apply even if it is not on top of the first

Conclusion: And the reason that it mentions it is because then, in order to be Chayav, it is unnecessary to carry it within three Tefachim of the ground, only within three Tefachim of the first half-G'rogeres.

Question: How do the first ones become Tamei, seeing as on Shabbos, this is not considered Hotza'ah, seeing as the bull is still 'tied' to those at the back, who are still inside? ...

Source: As is evident in 'ha'Matzni'a (ibid. Daf 91:).

Answer: It speaks here where the entire cow is outside the walls of the Azarah.

Implied Question: And even those who hold there 'Eged K'li Sh'meih Eged' (the vessel 'ties' what is inside it to the inside) ...

Answer: That only applies to a receptacle, that has an inside, that one is not Chayav for taking part of it out, since via what is still inside, one is able to bring it back inside.

Conclusion: But by pulling the pole, those at the back would not have been able to pull the cow back to where they are.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this in connection with combining (to make a Minyan).

Refutation: But this is not correct, since the Sugya in Eilu Ne'emarin (Sotah, Daf 38:) implies that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that 'Even a partition made of iron does not divide ... ' ...

Refutation (cont.): Yet in Perek Kol Gagos (Eruvin 92:) the Gemara seems to take on that a partition does interrupt with regard to Tziruf?

Refuted Explanation: Neither can we learn it with regard to Shofar and Megilah ...

Refutation: Since we explicitly learned in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 27:) that 'If somebody passes behind a Shul or if his house was close to a Shul, and he hears the Shofar being blown or of the Megilah being read, as long as has Kavanah, he is Yotzei.

Explanation #1: The Ri therefore explains that it speaks here with regard to an individual answering Kedushah and 'Yehei Sh'meih Rabah ... ', where a partition does not interrupt according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, whereas according to Rav Yehudah it does ...

Conclusion: And just as they do not combine (according to Rav Yehudah), so too, one is not Yotzei one's obligation. Shofar, on the other hand, does not require a Minyan.

Question: In that case, let the Mishnah differentiate in the gates of the Azarah itself, between the Sha'ar Nikanor and the other gates?

Answer: The Mishnah is speaking about the Pesach, which only becomes Pasul once it leaves the wall of Yerushalayim.

Clarification of Sugya in Shevu'os: In the second Perek of Shevu'os (Daf 15:) they argue over how the two Todos with which they sanctified the Azarah walked; One says that they walked next to each other, the other says, one behind the other.

Clarification of Sugya in Shevu'os: And it implies there that they walked on the inside (of the Azarah), since the Gemara asks 'Well and good according to the opinion that holds 'one behind the other', that explains why the inner one is eaten, seeing as the first one has already sanctified it; but according to the one that holds ... ?'

Proof: Now if they were walking on the outside, how can the Gemara say that the first one already sanctified it 'outside the wall'?

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says there that 'according to the opinion that they walked next to each other, 'the inside one' refers to the one that is closest to the wall ...

Implied Question (con.): Even though they walked on the inside.

Answer #1: It calls the one that is towards the outside - Yerushalayim 'the inside', because it was between the second animal and the wall.

Answer #2: Or because it was the closest to the wall of the Azarah.

Implied Question: And when the Tana says here (in our Sugya) 'that the thickness of the wall is sanctified ...

Answer #1: The sanctification depended on the intention of the Beis-Din, in which case the thickness of the walls and the windows were sanctified too.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it can be justified according to the Gemara's conclusion that the thickness of the walls refers to a small wall inside the thick wall, where it is certainly possible for the Todos to walk and to sanctify it.