1)

(a)Be'Di'eved, Rebbi Eliezer permits carrying an Izmal (Milah knife) to be carried openly through the streets on Shabbos if necessary. In time of danger (when the Nochrim would kill any Jew they found keeping the Mitzvah of Milah) - he says one should transport the Izmal secretly, but accompanied by two witnesses (to testify that it is an Izmal that he is carrying and not something else).

(b)He also - permits cutting wood on Shabbos for firewood to make an Izmal.

(c)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with his Rebbe. He maintains - that it is only the Mitzvos themselves, which cannot be performed any other time, that over-ride Shabbos, but not Machshirin which could have been performed before Shabbos.

2)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer might require the knife to be carried through the streets openly because of Chibuv Mitzvah. Alternatively - it may be in order to avoid suspicion (that he is carrying on Shabbos).

(b)According to the first reason - it will not do to carry it (when it is not time of danger) covered even if he is accompanied by two witnesses; whereas according to the second reason, it will be in order to do so.

(c)Levi concludes - that Rebbi Eliezer's reason is because of Chibuv Mitzvah.

(d)We cite a Beraisa which supports Levi's conclusion; whereas Rav Ashi extrapolates that from the Mishnah itself - which states 'u've'Sakanah, Mechaseihu al-Pi Eidim', implying that when there is no Sakanah, one should bring it open at all costs (because of Chibuv Mitzvah).

3)

(a)We are uncertain what Rebbi Eliezer means when he says that in time of danger he covers it through two witnesses - whether he means himself plus one witness, or two witnesses besides himself.

(b)We try to prove from the Lashon 'u've'Sha'as ha'Sakanah, Mechaseihu al-Pi Eidim' - that it must mean two witnesses besides himself, since one cannot testify on ones own deeds.

(c)We refute the proof from there however, in that - Rebbi Eliezer might have meant to say that he requires two witnesses who would be Kasher to testify elsewhere, though he really requires only one Kasher witness here ...

(d)... since the Torah does not require witnesses here, the same Chachamim who instituted the need for witnesses, sufficed with one.

4)

(a)In the town of ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer, if on the eighth day which fell on Shabbos, they did not have an Izmal with which to perform a Milah - they would cut firewood in order to make an Izmal.

2. ... Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - they would cook birds in milk?

(b)Rebbi was surprised that Levi had not put Yosef the bird-hunter in Cherem - for serving him birds fried in milk.

(c)Levi justify not doing so, because, he argued, the Rav of the town was Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - who, he suspected, held like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, who Permitted it.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... which juxtaposes "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" and "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" - that any animal that is subject to the Isur of Neveilah may not be cooked in milk.

2. ... "Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo" - the prohibition is confined to animals whose mother's have milk, but not to birds.

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak referred to a town in Eretz Yisrael that practiced the leniencies of R. Eliezer regarding Milah - where nobody died prematurely.

(c)And he added that when the Romans once issued a decree forbidding Milah on pain of death - they precluded that town from the decree.

6)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel informs us - that whereas the Mitzvah of Milah is always performed with Simchah, that of Arayos ([forbidden] marriages) is not, as there is not a Kesuvah that is not accompanied by squabbles (before the text of the Kesubos became fixed).

(b)And he ascribes this to the spirit that pervaded when the Mitzvah was first given - since one Pasuk writes "Sas Anochi al Imrasecha, ke'Motz'ei Shalal Rav" (expressing Yisrael's Simchah at receiving the Mitzvah of Milah as if they had found a treasure), whereas another Pasuk writes "va'Yishma Moshe es ha'Am Bocheh le'Mishpechosav" - from which we learn that they accepted the Mitzvah of Arayos with reluctance.

(c)When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that Yisrael still observe the Mitzvah of Milah 'be'Simchah' - he means that they make a Se'udah whenever they perform it.

7)

(a)"Imrasecha"- refers to a single Mitzvah, and the first Mitzvah to be given to Avraham Avinu was that of Bris Milah.

(b)The Mitzvah of Bris Milah is unique - inasmuch as it the only Mitzvah which applies continuously throughout one's life even in the bathroom (like we find by David ha'Melech, who cheered up when he realized that, even when he in the bathroom, he was not devoid of Mitzvos, because he had the Mitzvah of Milah)

8)

(a)Those Mitzvos which Yisrael observed with self-sacrifice at the time of Sh'mad - such as Avodah-Zarah and Bris Milah, are still widely observed; whereas those Mitzvos which they did not observe with self-sacrifice at the time of Sh'mad, such as Tefilin, are not.

(b)Abaye says that the clean body associated with Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim (though it is unclear how) refers to the fact that he was able to hold himself back from emitting a smell whilst wearing them. Rava maintains - that everybody has a Chazakah that he is able to do that, and Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim was unique in that he was able to hold himself back from falling asleep in them (thereby avoiding abusing them in his sleep).

(c)Rebbi Yanai cites the exceptional case of Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim kept the Mitzvah of Tefilin with much self-sacrifice (See also Tosfos DH 'Amar Lei'). If the Romans caught someone wearing Tefilin - they would bore a hole in his head.

(d)He was called 'Elisha Ba'al Kenafayim' - because on one occasion, a Roman officer caught him wearing Tefilin, which he hid in his hand. When he asked him what he was holding, he replied 'doves wings' (See also Tosfos DH 'Amar Lei').

(e)He referred to Tefilin as 'Kanfei Yonah' - because in the same way as a dove defends itself with its wings, so too, do the Mitzvos serve to protect Yisrael.

9)

(a)When Rebbi Aba bar Rav Ada Amar Rav Yitzchak said that they once forgot to bring the Izmal before Shabbos, so they brought it via the roof-tops and courtyards without the consent of Rebbi Eliezer, he meant - that Rebbi Eliezer would have objected to bringing it via the roof-tops and courtyards, and not directly through the Reshus ha'Rabim, because by doing so, they demonstrated that, in their opinion, it is forbidden to bring it through the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(b)Rav Yosef queried this on the grounds that, on the contrary, Rebbi Eliezer is the only one who would permit it - since the Rabbanan forbade carrying via roof-tops, courtyards and enclosures without an Eiruv (a decree which they did not waive even in face of a Chiyuv Kares ('He'emidu Divreihem be'Makom Kares').

(c)And we reject the suggestion that the Rabbanan only forbid bringing the Izmal through the Reshus ha'Rabim, but not via roof-tops and courtyards (and enclosures) on the basis of a Beraisa - which specifically equates roof-tops, enclosures and courtyards with the Reshus-ha'Rabim in this regard.

(d)Rav Ashi therefore concludes that when Rav Yitzchak said 'she'Lo bi'Retzon Rebbi Eliezer' he meant - 'she'Lo bi'Retzon Rebbi Eliezer u'Machlekaso' (since neither would have agreed with what they did, as we explained).

(e)It did however, conform however, with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says in a Beraisa that roofs, enclosures and courtyards are all considered one Reshus (and do not require an Eiruv - provided, when Shabbos entered, the Kelim were lying there (and not in the house [in which case, we must assume that, in the case under discussion, the knife had already been taken out of the house before Shabbos).

10)

(a)We grouped a Karfaf (an enclosure) together with a rooftop and a Chatzer. Karfaf is - a walled area of more that a Beis Sasayim (fifty by a hundred Amos) which was not initially walled as part of a residence.

(b)Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Asi whether, according to Rebbi Shimon, one may carry Kelim that are already in the Mavoy when Shabbos enters, without an Eiruv on Shabbos, like those that are in the Chatzer. One may not be able to do so, because unlike a Chatzer, a. a Mavoy does not have four walls and b. - it is not made to live in.

(c)Rav Asi's response to the She'eilah - was silence, because he did not have an answer.

11)

(a)On another occasion, he overheard Rav Asi citing Resh Lakish in the name of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, who related a case where they once forgot to bring the Izmal to the house on Friday where the baby was to be circumcised the following day - and where they brought it on Shabbos (ostensibly like Rebbi Eliezer).

(b)The Chachamim objected to the fact - that they ruled like Rebbi Eliezer, firstly because it contravenes the principle 'Yachid ve'Rabim, Halachah ke'Rabim'; and secondly, because he was a Shamuti (a. he was in Cherem b. he was from Beis Shamai).

(c)Rebbi Oshaya however, found the solution by asking Rebbi Yehudah ha'Gozer - who was a Mohel (as the word 'ha'Gozer implies') ...

(d)... who explained to him - that the baby was in a house at one end of the Mavoy, and the Izmal in a house at the other end, and they carried the Izmal to the house where the baby was (like Rebbi Shimon).

12)

(a)Besides Kelim that were left there, one is permitted to carry in a Chatzer or in a Mavoy - clothes that one is wearing when one enters it (i.e. one may take them off and carry them there.

(b)Rebbi Zeira was surprised when he heard this episode from Rav Asi - because is transpired that he had an answer to the She'eilah that he asked him earlier, but had said nothing.

(c)The reason that Rav Asi did not answer Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah earlier is - because he did not know at the time of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Gozer's explanation, which he only found out later.

13)

(a)'Shituf Mavo'os' is - an Eiruv that combines a number of Mavo'os.

(b)Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav ruled that in a Mavoy which did not make a Shituf Mavo'os - one is permitted to carry up to four Amos, but no more.

(c)Abaye required Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav to explain this to us. Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav ...

1. ... forbids carrying more than four Amos in a Mavoy which has no Eiruv - if one made another Eiruv joining the houses with the Chatzeros.

2. ... permits carrying more than four Amos in a Mavoy - if one did not make such an Eiruv.

14)

(a)The reason that one is one not permitted to carry in the earlier case is based on another statement of Rav - who permits carrying in a Mavoy which has a Lechi or a Koreh at its entrance - provided at least two Chatzeros open into it, and at least two houses open into each Chatzer.

(b)Consequently, Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav forbids carrying in the Mavoy, if the Chatzeros made an Eiruv with the houses, since the Chatzeros then adopt the Din of the houses, leaving the Mavoy with no Chatzeros opening into it.

(c)Rebbi Chanina Chuza'a queries Rav Nachman however, from the latter case - which ought to be Asur too, because, since one is not able to carry from the houses, it is as if they are boarded up, leaving the Mavoy without a house.

(d)And he counters Rabah's ...

1. ... initial answer that it is possible for all the house-owners to negate their apartments to one of them - inasmuch as if they were to do so, there would only be one house and not two, as required by Rav.

2. ... that it is possible to negate their apartments to one owner in the morning and to another owner in the afternoon - inasmuch as this will not answer the question, seeing as there is still only one house at a time.

(e)Rav Ashi solves the problem, based on the fact that Rav holds like Rebbi Shimon - who considers Chatzeros Karfifos and Mavo'os all one Reshus, and it is only if the Batim combine with Chatzer that prevents one from carrying there.