1)

(a)

1. A Zav and a Zavah, a Metzora and a Metzora'as, a Bo'el Nidah and a Tamei Mes - are all Tamei for a minimum of seven days.

2. When the Beraisa states 'Tevilasan ba'Yom' - it means that they are permitted to Tovel during the course of the seventh day (even though it falls on Yom-Kippur (and do not need to wait for Motza'ei Yom-Kippur).

(b)A Nidah and a Yoledes - may only Tovel the night after the seventh day (i.e. the eighth night) before Toveling. They too however, are permitted to Tovel on 'Kol Nidrei' night, should the seventh day fall on Erev Yom Kippur.

(c)When the Tana says 'Ba'al Keri Tovel ve'Holech Kol ha'Yom Kulo', he means - that (not only is he permitted to Tovel on Yom Kippur immediately after a sighting, in order to Daven the next Tefilah, whatever it may be, but) that he is even permitted to Tovel after Minchah due to the principle 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah'.

(d)Whereas Rebbi Yossi, who says (regarding the previous ruling, 'min ha'Minchah u'Lema'alah, Eino Yachol li'Tevol' (because he holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'av Mitzvah') is not the same Rebbi Yossi as the one quoted above (i.e. Rebbi Yossi bar Chalafta), but Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

(e)We reconcile this statement with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, where he holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah' - by establishing it like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (whereas Rebbi Yossi S'tam is Rebbi Yossi ben Chalafta).

2)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids instructing a Nochri to extinguish a fire on Shabbos ('Kabeih'). When the Tana says 'Ein Omrin Lo ... Al Techabeih', he means -that one is not obligated to order him to desist should he come to extinguish it of his own accord.

(b)The Tana does however - require that one orders a child who comes to extinguish it fire to desist ...

(c)... because one is obligated to prevent a Jewish child from breaking Shabbos, but not a Nochri.

3)

(a)In the event of a fire, Rebbi Ami permits a Yisrael to announce - 'Anyone who puts it out will not lose!'

(b)We counter the proof for Rebbi Ami from the Mishnah 'Ein Omrin Lo Kabeih', implying that 'Kol ha'Mechabeh Eino Mafsid' is permitted - by citing the Seifa 've'Al Techabeh', which implies that only silence is permitted, but not 'Kol ha'Mechabeh Eino Mafsid'.

4)

(a)The mayor's fire-brigade came to put out the fire in Yosef ben Simai's courtyard in Shichin - because he was the King's financial agent.

(b)When he stopped them due to Kavod Shabbos - a miracle occurred; it began to rain and the rain doused the flames.

(c)After Shabbos, Yosef nevertheless acknowledged their efforts, by sending them all two Sela'im and their manager, fifty Sela'im.

(d)The Chachamim subsequently commented - that what he did was Halachically unnecessary, as we learnt in our Mishnah ('Nochri ha'Ba Lechabos, Ein Omrin Lo "Al Techabeh"'), and what he therefore did was Midas Chasidus.

5)

(a)From our Mishnah it seems that Beis-Din (i.e. anyone who sees) is obligated to stop a child from eating Nevelah - a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, who says in Yevamos, that they are not.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan himself refutes the proof - by establishing the Mishnah where the child is old enough to understand that it is for his father's benefit, whereas in the Sugya in Yevamos, it is for his own benefit that the child eating Nevelos.

(c)On the other hand, the Tana permits a Nochri to put out a fire under similar circumstances - because a Nochri generally does this for his own benefit, and not for the sake of the Yisrael.

6)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits overturning a dish for any one of three reasons; to cover a. a lamp, (to prevent it from setting the beams alight); b. a child's mess (to prevent the child dirtying himself in it) - and c. a scorpion (to prevent being bitten by it).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah citing Raban Yochanan ben Zakai in Arav says - 'Chosheshani Lo me'Chatas', because (seeing as the scorpion was not chasing him) he is not sure that there the case involves an element of danger.

(c)When, together with Rav Yehudah and Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba, Rav Chanan bar Rava arrived at Avin from Neshikaya's house, he was upset with him - for offering his two colleagues chairs but leaving him to stand.

(d)When he therefore heard his host teach our Mishnah to his son, including the middle case (of a child's mess) - he commented that Avin the fool teaches his son foolish things, since baby's dirt is fit for dogs to eat, in which case one is even permitted to remove it (so why does the Tana restrict the owner to covering it?

7)

(a)We reject the suggestion that maybe the baby's dirt is Muktzeh because it did not yet exist on Erev Shabbos, from a Beraisa. What does the Tana say about flowing rivers and fountains, regarding Eruv

(b)Our Mishnah therefore, must be speaking, not about a child's mess, but the mess left by roosters, and which one is permitted to cover, to prevent children playing in the vicinity, from dirtying themselves in it.

(c)Rav Chanin bar Rava therefore amends the Mishnah - to read 'chicken's dirt' (to replace that of babies and) which it appears, does not appeal to a dog's palate.

8)

(a)We query Rav Chanan's explanation, based on the fact that it is a 'G'raf shel Re'i' - a baby's potty containing baby's dirt, which Chazal permitted to remove, because it is disgusting (so why does our Mishnah confine the owner to covering it?).

(b)We reject the suggestion that perhaps one is only permitted to remove the actual dirt together with the potty that holds it, from an episode with Rav Ashi - who instructed them to pick up the dead mouse that they found among the spices by its tail, and get rid of it.

(c)We reject the suggestion that the chicken's dirt was found in ...

1. ... the trash-heap in the street - because what would we need to be afraid that a baby might play there and get himself dirty?

2. ... the Chatzer - because the it would have the Din of a G'raf shel Re'i.

(d)We finally establish the Mishnah - by the trash-heap in the Chatzer (where a baby is likely to play, but where the Din of G'raf shel Re'i will not apply.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - permits killing any dangerous animal on Shabbos.

(b)Rav Yosef queries him from a Beraisa, which permits killing an Egyptian fly, a hornet from Ninveh, a scorpion from Chadiav, an Israeli snake and a mad dog anywhere, even if he is not being chased by them (implying that all other wild animals are only permitted if he is.

(c)Initially, we establish the author as Rebbi Shimon - on the understanding that the animals are not actually chasing him, in which case, Rebbi Yehudah (who holds forbids Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah) would certainly permit it, and the author must therefore be Rebbi Shimon (posing a Kashya on Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi).

10)

(a)We query the Beraisa's authenticity - on the grounds that it is cited by Rav Yosef (as he himself admits) and not by Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshaya.

(b)Rav Yosef insists however, that the Beraisa is authentic, and he establishes ...

1. ... the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who permits these five, seeing as they more dangerous than other animals, and (seeing as he holds 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah Patur') there is no Melachah d'Oraysa involved anyway.

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - when the animals are running after him, in which case, even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that one is permitted to kill them. when they are not running after him.

11)

(a)When a Beraisa expert quoted the Beraisa 'ha'Horeg Nechashim ve'Akrabim be'Shabbos, Ein Ru'ach Chasidim Nochah Heimenu' - Rava bar Rav Huna commented 've'Osan Chasidim, Ein Ru'ach Chachamim Nochah Mehem', because he holds that one is permitted to kill all potential killers on Shabbos.

(b)Rav Huna said to the man he saw kill a wasp (that was not threatening him): 'Have you now killed them all'? (In other words, what is the point of killing potentially dangerous animals, unless they are actually threatening him?)

(c)The Beraisa states that someone who kills a snake that is threatening him - then it is clear that Hash-m brought them to him to be killed by a snake; whereas if he does not do so - then it is equally clear, that Hash-m brought them to him to kill him, and he only survived through a miracle.

(d)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the last statement - establishing it when the snake actually hisses at him.

12)

(a)When a Talmid from Nivsi killed the snake that fell into the Beis Hamedrash on Shabbos, Rebbi commented 'Paga Bo ke'Yotze Bo'!, implying that Rebbi was displeased with him. He might have meant it as a compliment - if what he was saying was that the snake met its match.

(b)When Rebbi Aba b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya bar Aba and Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Yanai whether one may kill snakes and scorpions on Shabbos, he replied - that he would even kill a hornet, let alone a snake or a scorpion.

(c)We reject the proof from there that when Rebbi said 'Harag Zeh ke'Yotze Bo', he must have meant it as a compliment Bo' was a compliment - because perhaps Rebbi Yanai was speaking, not about killing them directly, which is prohibited, but about treading on them in one's stride, ('Ma'si'ach L'fi Tumo') which is considered a 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' (which is permitted).

13)

(a)The Resh Galusa was pressuring Aba bar Marsa for the money that he owed him - alias Aba bar Minyumi.

(b)The Resh Galusa changed his mind however - when he discovered that the latter was a Talmid-Chacham.

(c)The discovery occurred when the Resh Galusa once asked for a K'li to cover some spit that was disturbing him on the way - to which Aba bar Marsa commented that this was unnecessary, as it was permitted to step on it 'Masi'ach L'fi Tum'ah'.

14)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Kahana Amar Rebbi Chanina allowed moving P'mutos shel Beis Rebbi on Shabbos. 'P'mutos' are - metal Menoros made out of one piece.

(b)When, in reply to Rebbi Zeira's query, he replied 'ke'Osan shel Beis Avicha, he meant - specifically small ones (see also Tosfos DH 'Amar Leih').

(c)Rebbi Aba bar Kahana ... also permitted moving Keronos shel Beis Rebbi - a sort of wagon like a sedan-chair.

(d)When Rebbi Zeira asked him whether he was referring to small ones that are carried by one person, or large ones that are carried by two people, he replied - the former.

(e)The reason for both these rulings is - because the owner of a large lamp and a large wagon generally designate a specific location for them, and not use them for anything else.

15)

(a)And finally, Rebbi Aba bar Kahana cites Rebbi Chanina, who permitted non-Jewish wine with one seal. We suggest that perhaps this ruling is based on the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - who permits wine with one seal.

(b)Alternatively, we reconcile Rebbi Chanina's ruling with the Rabbanan - who will agree that here, one seal will suffice, because the gentile who transported the wine, would have been too afraid of the bei Nesi'a, who was appointed by the king, to tamper with it (and whenever an element of fear is present, even the Rabbanan agree that wine does not require more than one seal).

(c)What all these latter rulings have in common is - the fact that they are all rulings of Rebbi Aba bar Kahana (who began with the case of the snake that fell into the Beis ha'Medrash).