Explanation: This refers to doing so on Shabbos, even according to Beis Shamai, as he is going to normally eat it right away. However, this is specifically referring to food. Other items cannot be given to him even according to Beis Hillel, as Beis Hillel only permitted this on Erev Shabbos (see 18b), not on Shabbos.

Question: Why is one allowed to give food to a Nochri on Shabbos? Since they do not depend on us for food, as stated here and in Beitzah (21b) that a Nochri is excluded because he does not depend on you for food, it should be forbidden! This is as the Gemara says later (155b) that it is forbidden to trouble oneself on Shabbos to give food to an animal because they are not dependent on you for food. It therefore should be similarly forbidden to give food to a Nochri!

Answer: Since we support poor Nochrim alongside poor Jews due to maintaining peaceful relations, it is considered enough that they depend on us for food to say there is no Rabbinic prohibition of troubling oneself unnecessarily on Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): However, regarding doing Melachah on Yom Tov which is only permitted according to Torah law for those who depend on you for food, a Nochri is not considered dependent on you for food.

Opinion: The Or Zarua writes that once a Nochri fell sick. The Nochri sent a message to a Jew on Yom Tov that he should send him a bottle of wine, and that if he doesn't he will die. This Nochri was known in the city. The Or Zarua permitted the Jew to send him the wine via a Nochri messenger due to the need to maintain peaceful relations. He sent this question to Rabeinu Simchah who similarly permitted this, and he similarly said that a Jew should not carry the wine.

Opinion: Rabeinu Yitzchak understands that this would also be true regarding Shabbos if a similar question of maintaining peaceful relations would arise, for example if the Nochri would be a tough person (who could stir up trouble if the Jews do not comply with his request). It would seem that it is permitted to send a Nochri with whatever the Nochri requests, as we do not have a public domain according to Torah law [Tosfos Yeshanim].

Explanation: One cannot explain that the reason is due to Shevisas Keilim and it is according to Beis Shamai. If so, it would even be forbidden to do on Wednesday or Thursday! Rather, it is according to Beis Hillel who does not hold of Shevisas Keilim.

Explanation (cont.): It could also be discussing a robe or Talis and similar items that are not relevant to Shevisas Keilim. The reason it is forbidden is because it appears as if he is taking money for renting these things out on Shabbos. This is despite the fact that he is hiring him for a month or a week.

Explanation (cont.): If he is renting it out for a day (Shabbos), even on Wednesday or Thursday it would be forbidden to do so as is implied in Bava Metzia (58a) regarding a person who hires workers to guard a cow or child. This is specifically regarding renting it out, as it appears that he is taking money for working on Shabbos. However, to lend it to him is permitted.

Explanation: When the Mishnah says that we give clothes to a cleaner and skins to a tanner, it is also referring to a set price. The question, "Didn't he make a set price?" is according to Beis Hillel.

Explanation: This is even forbidden within the Techum due to the prohibition against boating.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara later (139b) regarding a Rabbinic student who said that he boarded a boat because he intended to sleep there. The Nochri ended up taking him to the other side, and the student guarded his fruit. This implies that it was within the Techum, and even so if it would not be for his trickery (of saying he intended merely to sleep on the boat, not to get a ride to the other side) it would be forbidden.

Explanation: According to the Gemara later (143b) that says that the Chachamim admit to Rebbi Yehudah regarding other fruits, and it quotes a Beraisa stating one can squeeze prunes and Uzradin but not pomegranates, it must be that garlic and unripe grapes are more normally used for juice than prunes and Uzradin.

Implied Question: However, the Gemara there concludes that even though spinach is not normally squeezed, since one wants it for this purpose it (the juice that comes out of it) is considered a liquid. (Prunes should definitely be forbidden to squeeze!)

Explanation #2: Accordingly, it must be that when the Beraisa says one can squeeze prunes it does not refer to regular squeezing, but rather squeezing out some juice to cause the fruit to become sweeter.

Explanation: This means that one does not have to take away the press, but rather can let it flow the entire Shabbos.

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this. What is the proof that Rebbi Yishmael understands that if something happens by itself, one is not even liable to bring a Chatas if he does it by accident on Shabbos? Perhaps Rebbi Yishmael holds like Beis Hillel who permit Melachos that do not happen by themselves as long as they (i.e. their action) are done before Shabbos!

Implied Question: Why, then, would the Beraisa give a case where they were already crushed? (According to Beis Hillel he could crush it right before Shabbos!)

Answer: This is in order to teach the novel position of Rebbi Akiva.

Question #2: There is another difficulty, as Rebbi Akiva who says that one cannot finish this process does not hold like Beis Shamai (the Maharsha takes out Beis Shamai) or Beis Hillel!

Answer #1: It appears to the Ri that "he should finish" means he should finish and he can eat it on Shabbos.

Implied Question: This is unlike the Rabbinic decree that liquids that ooze out of fruits on Shabbos are forbidden, lest a person come to squeeze them on Shabbos. (Why?)

Answer: This is because in this case, even if he does squeeze them there is no Torah prohibition because it happens by itself.

Answer #1 (cont.): It is now understandable why Rebbi Yishmael holds that whatever happens by itself is permitted even according to Beis Shamai, as if he would do it on Shabbos he would not be held liable.

Answer #1 (cont.): Rebbi Akiva who says that he should not finish does not hold that he has to take away the beam of the press, as he holds like Beis Hillel. Rather, he means "he should not finish" in order to partake of this once it becomes Shabbos, as this liquid is forbidden even according to Beis Hillel like other liquids that ooze out of produce on Shabbos. This squeezing is still considered a Torah prohibition even though it happens by itself.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yishmael holds he can finish it with his hands when Shabbos starts. It is unlike our Mishnah, as Beis Hillel only permitted loading up the press before Shabbos. However, they did not permit pressing, and our case is referring to when it is already ground, as stated later.

Answer #2 (cont.): The Gemara is now understandable that since Rebbi Yishmael permits squeezing with his hands and he does not decree against it due to cases where it is not ground, it must be that he holds if it is not yet ground it is still not a Torah prohibition.

Answer #2 (cont.): Afterwards, the Gemara says Rebbi Yishmael does hold that if it is not ground up he is liable. Even so, when it is ground it is permitted to finish it with his hands, and he does not make a decree due to cases where it is not ground.

Answer #2 (cont.): However, this is unlike Rebbi Akiva, since he prohibits finishing when it is ground lest one come to do so when it is not ground. This implies that when it is not ground it is a Torah prohibition. If so, it is forbidden to do so immediately before Shabbos according to Beis Shamai.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this refers to the oil left in the corner of the oil press.

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this, as why should it mention the law of Muktzah here?

Question #2: Additionally, why would the oil be Muktzah?

Explanation #2: The Ri answers (Tosfos Yeshanim says it should read "understands" meaning he is arguing on Rashi), that this is referring to the case earlier where a person loaded up a press before Shabbos, and the oil is oozing out the entire Shabbos.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rav forbids using that oil because it is Muktzah, as it is Nolad. Just because there was a press and stone on the olives, the oil was not yet able to be eaten before Shabbos. Even though it was set up to produce the oil on Shabbos, since the oil was not extant before Shabbos his reliance on it coming out is insignificant, and therefore the oil is considered to be Nolad.

Implied Question: This is unlike raw meat that is permitted to be put on the fire immediately before Shabbos (18b), even though it is not fit to eat during Bein Hashemashos (when an item's Muktzah status is determined). (Why not?)

Answer: In that Gemara (ibid.), since the meat is extant it is not Muktzah, as he is putting it on the fire so it can cook. Similarly, spring water is extant even though it used to be in the ground before Shabbos. Similarly, the excrement of a minor that was in his intestines before Shabbos can be relied upon to be used (to feed dogs, see 121b) on Shabbos.

Implied Question: It is unlike olives and grapes that were initially crushed before Shabbos, or garlic and young grapes crushed before Shabbos. (Why?)

Answer: In those cases, they could have been eaten before Shabbos. However, here it could not have been eaten Bein Hashemashos before Shabbos, and the liquids were not yet present. It is therefore Nolad and forbidden according to Rav.

Question: Later (29a), Rav says that if a person eats dates he can throw the pits to his animals. The Gemara says that it must be he was talking about good dates where no flesh is left on the pit, and they did not accept his ruling (as the pits are Muktzah). The Gemara concludes that this was regarding bad dates, and there was flesh on the pits which is why they accepted his ruling (as the pits are still fit to be eaten).

Question (cont.): How is it even possible that Rav would say this regarding good dates? Rav forbids Nolad in our Gemara!

Answer: The Gemara (ibid.) means that it is possible Rav is referring to good dates because he holds the pits are not Nolad, since the pit is the same pit that it was before Shabbos! However, in our case the oil that was in the olives is not considered liquid oil until it comes out of the olive, and it is therefore Nolad.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara later (143a) says that Shmuel would carry the pits of good dates if they were on bread. This means he would carry the pits of ripe dates that have no pieces of date on them. Since Shmuel permitted Nolad in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, he should even have permitted carrying them without bread!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Shmuel was more stringent on himself, since he was an important person. This is also implied in the Gemara (ibid.) where Abaye says, "If I was not an important person (etc)."

Explanation: He forbids carrying the mats due to Muktzah.

Question: This is difficult, as the Gemara later (128a) says that Rav holds of the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah regarding Muktzah for the purpose of eating, and he holds like Rebbi Shimon regarding Muktzah for the purpose of moving an item. In this case, he forbids carrying these mats!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that these mats are Muktzah due to their being disgusting, as they are clothing and mats that are used to cover fish and other things that cause them to become dirty.

Implied Question: The Gemara (ibid.) says Rav holds regarding carrying Muktzah like Rebbi Shimon. (How can this be?)

Answer: This is referring to Muktzah merchandise that a person sets aside in his storehouse to be sold in his business, but it is not disgusting.

Implied Question: The Gemara (156b) says that even Rav holds like Rebbi Yehudah, since he rules that these mats are forbidden. (How can we reconcile this statement with what we have just said?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that an animal that becomes Neveilah on Shabbos is Muktzah due to Issur, as it was not even fit for dogs when it was alive. Muktzah due to Issur is more stringent than Muktzah due to being disgusting.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Chulin (14b) says regarding this topic that people (Rav Sheshes the son of Rav Idi) wanted to say that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara asks, we only know that Rebbi Yehudah holds of Muktzah due to something being disgusting, but not regarding Muktzah due to Issur! (This implies that Muktzah due to something being disgusting is more stringent than Muktzah due to Issur!)

Answer: The Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) is merely pushing aside the answer. However, in conclusion we can say that Muktzah due to prohibition is more stringent than Muktzah due to something being disgusting.

Proof: This is clearly true, as the Gemara in Chulin says (15b) that while Rebbi Meir holds this regarding cooking as it was fit to chew beforehand, slaughtering an animal that is not even fit to chew beforehand is not the same! This implies that Rebbi Meir holds of Muktzah due to prohibition.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara later (44a) implies that Rebbi Meir does not hold of Muktzah due to an item being disgusting. When it says that one can carry a new candleholder but not an old one, Rebbi Meir says that one can carry any candleholder besides one that was used this Shabbos to have a lit candle in it. (This shows Rebbi Meir is stringent regarding Muktzah Machmas Issur but not Machmas Mius.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he folds them into one vessel and carries them at one time.

Question: Rabeinu Tam does not think this is correct, as the Gemara later (120a) says that the Amoraim do not argue regarding this question. The question was asked, and it was answered that this is like someone who is coming to save, and it is therefore permitted according to everyone.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that a person can save even one hundred meals in one container. However, in four or five containers, for example if he would keep going back to save more, he could not even do this in the same yard. One person can save in four or five vessels if he brings it (at one time) to the same yard. This is the argument there between Rabah bar Zavda and Rav Huna.