Clarification: R. Eliezer's Tefilin, Rashi explains.

Implied Question: Even though R. Eliezer did move from his place?

Answer: The Gemara nevertheless referred to it as an Isur Sh'vus, because whatever the Rabbanan forbade going out into the street is forbidden to go out with it even into the Chatzer, and even to remain with it in one place.

Clarification: This implies that one kindles the Shabbos lights before removing one's Tefilin.

Question #1: In Perek Bameh Madlikin however, implies the opposite. The Beraisa there states that according to R. Nasan, the third trumpet blast was a signal to kindle the Shabbos lights, whereas according to R. Yehudah (ha'Nasi), it was to remove one's Tefilin; and Rashi there explains that one kindles the Shabbos lights at the fourth blast.

Suggested Answer #1: In any event, one cannot learn that one kindles the lights at the second bast ...

Refutation: Because the Gemara asks there 'The second one to light - like whom does this go, neither like R. Nasan nor like R. Yehudah ha'Nasi?!'

Suggested Answer #2: Nor can we explain that one kindles the lights at the third blast, and what the Beraisa means is that one also removes one's Tefilin too at the third blast ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara there establishes its statement there that the third blast is a signal to kindle the lights like R. Nasan, and not like R. Yehudah haNasi.

Question #2: How can Hurkenus possibly not have known his own family Minhag?

Answer: There is no question that one first removes one's Tefilin, only it so happened that, due to their having been busy with R. Eliezer's sickness, they were now late with kindling the Shabbos lights, and that is why R. Eliezer scolded Hurkenus (not because he he erred by wanting to remove his Tefilin before kindling the lights).

Clarification (Part 1): Rashi establishes the Machlokes with regard to Tevilah of leather vessels that are torn, as to whether what is inside them is considered a Chatzitzah or not.

Clarification (Part 2): We do not find a specific Machlokes in this point. However, on the one hand, the Mishnah in Keilim declares Tamei anyone who touches a ball, a shoemaker's last, a Kame'ah or Tefilin that tore, but Tahor, should they touch whatever is inside them, clearly indicating that the inside of these objects is not considered joined to them ...

Clarification (Part 3): Whereas in the Tosefta, R. Yehoshua ben Korchah citing R. Eliezer, permits Toveling them as they are, from which we can extrapolate that, since the inside is not a Chatzitzah, they are considered joined.

Implied Question: There was no question of the Isur of "ve'Seret la'Nefesh" (making cuts on oneself as a sign of mourning) ...

Answer: Since he did it on account of the Torah that was lost, as he himself said 'I have a lot o money, but (now) I have no banker with whom to check it!'

Question: Perhaps this means one year before reaching the age of Gadlus, like we find with regard to Nedarim, with regard to a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish'.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara here is Darshening the word "le'Ish", which implies 'strength', like the Pasuk in Melachim, where David ha'Melech told his young son Sh'lomoh "ve'Chazakta ve'Hayisa le'Ish".

Question: Then why does the Mishnah give the reason as 'she'Lo Ba ki'Kelal Mitzvos'?

Answer: We would otherwise have thought that the time of 'Samuch li'Gevurado shel Ish' begins already before his pubic hair has grown, and even if the time-period extends beyond three months, it would not have mattered if it began from the days of Katnus, seeing as he is not fit to have children, and will therefore fit into the category of 'Ben ve'Lo Av'.

Question: From where does this Katan have Mamon, seeing as the Gemara says in Perek Mi She'Meis that a Katan cannot acquire?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps our Sugya is speaking in a case where others placed the money into his R'shus?

Refutation #1: There is however, an opinion in Perek Mi she'Meis that holds that one may only be Zocheh on behalf of a Gadol, but not on behalf of a Katan.

Refutation #2: And even according to those who maintain that one may, that is only mi'de'Rabbanan, but not mi'd'Oraysa ...

Reason: This is because Zechiyah (via others) is a branch of Shelichus, as is evident in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a, where the Gemara says that 'Chatzer has the Din of Yad, and is therefore not worse than Shelichus - and a Katan is not subject to Shelichus.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): In Perek Hiskabel however, regarding (where someone gives a Katan) 'Tz'ror ve'Zorko, Egoz ve'Notlo', Rav Asi rules 'Zocheh le'Atzmo, ve'Ein Zocheh la'Acherim; Cheifetz, u'Machziro le'Achar Sha'ah, Zocheh bein le'Atzmo bein la'Acherim', implying that he acquires even mi'd'Oraysa ... (see Maharam).

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Since the Gemara queries the opinion that holds 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh, Zocheh le'Atzmo ve'Ein Zocheh la'Acherim' from the case of 'Ma'arimin al Ma'aser Sheini', implying that, according to Rav Asi, a Katan acquires for others even mi'd'Oraysa?

Implied Question: And the reason that the Mishnah in 'ha'Nizakin' says that he findings of a Cheresh and a Katan are subject to Gezel on account of Darkei Shalom and not mi'd'Oraysa ...

Answer: Is because it is not a case of 'Da'as Acheres Makneh', like the Gemara in Gitin.

Observation (Part 1): Now the Gemara in 'Lulav va'Aravah', which forbids giving one's Lulav to a child on Succos, because he acquires but cannot be Makneh, makes good sense ...

Observation (Part 2): Because, he acquires even mi'd'Oraysa (due to 'Da'as Acheres Makneh'), even on behalf of others, according to Rav Asi in Gitin, and for himself according to everybody

Implied Question: And why the Gemara in Kidushin then says that a man can be Zocheh but not a Katan ...

Answer #1: That is because he cannot appoint others on his Korban Pesach.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara means that he cannot be Zocheh on behalf of others, not like R. Asi.

Question: How can the Gemara in Gitin extrapolate that a Katan can acquire on behalf of others min ha'Torah (like R. Asi), from the fact that he is permitted to redeem Ma'aser Sheini on behalf of others, seeing as even for himself, he does not acquire min ha'Torah without Da'as Acheres Makneh Osan', and with regard to redeeming Ma'aser Sheini, there is no such case of Da'as Acheres Makneh for others through the Kinyan of a Katan?

Answer: The questioner thought that just as with regard to redeeming Ma'aser a Katan who is Mufla le'Ish (close to the age of Gadlus) can redeem his own Ma'aser min ha'Torah, so too, can he do so on behalf of others min ha'Torah (see Maharam).

Explanation #2: It does seem from the Yerushalmi in Perek Chalon however, that a Katan who is a ben Da'as (intelligent) acquires min ha'Torah, since, citing the Rabbanan of Caesaria, it specifically draws a distinction between a Katan who is a ben Da'as and one who is not.

The Bavli disagrees: Though the Gemara in 'Eizehu Neshech' which, according to most texts reads 'Granted that a Katan is not subject to Shelichis, he can however, acquire mi'de'Rabbanan, implies that he cannot.

Refutation: Some Sefarim however, erase the word 'mi'de'Rabbanan' from the text.

Explanation #3: There is another way for the Katan to possess money, and that is where he inherited his father before converting, and we have learned in the first Perek of Kidushin that a Nochri inherits his father min ha'Torah, as it says in Devarim " ... because I have given Har Se'ir as an inheritance to Eisav".

Explanation #4: Alternatively, whatever he manufactures, since his work and the wages for what he worked for belong to him min ha'Torah.

Question: How can one ever bring an Asham Gezeilos for stealing from a Katan, seeing as one does swear on the claim of a Chashu, as we Darshen in Bava Kama and in Shevu'os "ki Yiten Ish", that the giving of a Katan is of no consequence?

Answer #1: That is only as regards claiming, denying and admitting, but if there is one witness, one swears even on the claim of a Chashu.

Answer #2: Alternatively, where he 'jumped and swore' (without being told to by the Beis-Din).

Question: How can a Katan convert? When we say that a Katan can acquire min ha'Torah, that is specifically a Yisrael, but as far as a Nochri is concerned, the Gemara says in 'Eizehu Neshech' that since he will never enter the realm of shelichus, he cannot acquire even mi'de'Rabbanan?

Refutation (Part 1): This is not a Kashya however, because if it was, then we could ask how it is possible to Tovel all Gerim (even grown-ups)?

Refutation (Part 2): We must therefore say that Geirus is different since his right to acquire and his Yad come simultaneously.

Question: But if a Katan cannot acquire min ha'Torah, the question remains - How can he convert?

Answer (Part 1): There where the Katan's mother converted wilst she was still pregnant with him, like we say in Perek ha'Areil 'If the pregnant wife of a Nochri concerted, her son does not require Tevilah'.

Answer (Part 2): In such a case it is possible for the Ger to inherit his mother.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara says in Kidushin however, that Beis-Din Tovel a Ger Katan ...

Question (Part 2): The Ger is then considered a Ger in all regards - to be permitted to marry a bas Yisrael, to perform Kidushin, for his children to be subject to Chalitzah and Yibum, and regarding all matters that are min ha'Torah.

Implied Answer: Nor does this appear to be based on the right of Beis-Din to uproot a Torah law ...

Refutation #1: Firstly, because that is confined to matters of 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' (negating obligating), whereas this is 'Kum va'Asei' (performing things that are forbidden).

Refutation #2: Secondly, since the Gemara asks 'What is this coming to teach us', seeing as we have already learned that one can acquire on behalf of a person even when he is not there?'

Answer (Incorporating New Explanation (Part 1): It would therefore seem that the acquisition of Geirus is not comparable to other acquisitions, inasmuch as when Beis-Din Tovel the Ger Katan, they are not actually acquiring anything on his behalf. But it is he who acquires himself and his body, in that he becomes a Ger and enters the protection of the Shechinah.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Kesuvos asks 'Tenina, Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav ' and it answers that we would otherwise have thought that Nochrim enjoy licentiousness (and it is therefore a Chov).

Answer (Part 1): What it means is that, had it (the conversion) been to his detriment, Beis-Din would not have made efforts to bring him under the wings of the Shechinah.

New Explanation (Part 2): Even a child, who is not a bar Da'as, is considered a Ger, since the Gemara mentions the case of a Ketanah under the age of three.

Reason: This is because the acquisition takes place on the Ger's body, as we just explained, since the Milah and the Tevilah are performed on his body.

Proof: Indeed, we find that our fathers entered into the covenant with B'ris Milah, Tevilah and the sprinkling of the blood of Korbanos, including many Ketanim who were present at Matan Torah.

Proof (Part 1): In Perek Asarah Yuchsin, Rebbi Shimon permits a Giyores who converted before the age of three to marry a Kohen, since 'her Besulim were sown when she was already a Yisre'eilis'.

Proof (Part 2): The Gemara proves this from the Pasuk in Matos (in connection with the booty that they brought back from Midyan), which allowed the returning soldiers to keep for themselves as wives all the little children (under the age of the three) as wives; and this included Pinchas, who accompanied them as the Kohen Gadol for war.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Kesuvos permits young Geirim to retract the moment they become Gedolim?

Answer: But the Gemara also says that if they did not retract within 'an hour' of attaining Gadlus, they can no longer retract. This is because the Milah and Tevilah on their bodies took effect even though they were only Ketanim. All that was lacking was Kabalas Mitzvos, and the fact that after the first hour, they declined to retract, that is considered Kabalas Mitzvos.