Explanation #1 (Rashi): Kores is that he cuts off the testicles from where they are connected, and they are still in the sac. Nosek is that he totally uproots them from the sac and casts them to the ground.

Objection (Ri): In Bechoros (39b) it says that Nasuk and Karus are not visible Mumim, for they are intact. I.e. they are in their sac!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Karus is when they were not totally uprooted from where they are connected. Rather, they are still entwined. Nasuk is when they were totally uprooted, but they are in their sac.

Implied question: It should be forbidden due to castration after castration!

Answer: [Sterility due to] old age is not castration.

Remark: For a woman, also castration after castration does not apply, for castration does not apply to her.

Explanation: The Seifa taught "but he may dip (in vinegar, and eat the food) normally" - likewise, it could have taught that he may ingest and swallow, just it discussed the usual case.

Question: What is the source that he retracted due to this? Perhaps it was due to the reason that he explains there, that we do not immerse [Kelim] on Shabbos, because it looks like fixing a Kli...

And he [now] explains the Isur to immerse due to a decree lest one carry four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, or one of the others reasons that it explains there...

And these reasons do not apply to man. Therefore, it is permitted on Yom Kipur without the reason of Ho'il (since...). We do not ask against all the Amora'im there that it should be forbidden on Yom Kipur, only according to Rava!

Answer (Ri): It is unreasonable to switch two matters due to one. It is two matters [that we would have to switch the opinions] - one that the reason is because he looks like one who fixes, and one this matter, that he holds "Ho'il";

Therefore, [the Gemara] prefers to say that he retracted from this matter here, and the two matters [that he said] are sustained.

Question: We should establish this Beraisa that they immerse normally like the opinion that Tevilah bi'Zmanah (at a person's first opportunity to become Tahor) is a Mitzvah, a Rava holds like the opinion that it is not a Mitzvah!

Answer #1: We would not permit the Isur of fixing a Kli due to Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah.

Answer #2: Below (121a) it connotes that even according to the opinion that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah, everyone obligated to immerse may immerse [on Yom Kipur]!

A Beraisa there teaches that R. Yosi says, from Minchah and onwards, [one who had an emission] need not immerse. This implies that he may immerse, even though he holds that Tevilah bi'Zmanah Lav Mitzvah.

Question: A Beraisa in Yoma (88a) says that a Zav, Zavah, Bo'el Nidah and Tamei Mes immerse on Yom Kipur;

How does the Tevilah help him? There is no [effect] of Tevilah (for a Tamei Mes) without Haza'ah, and Haza'ah is not Docheh Shabbos, like we say in Pesachim (69a)!

Implied suggestion: The Tevilah helps him so he can [receive] Haza'ah tomorrow.

Rejection: A Mishnah at the end of Parah teaches that he himself may immerse at night and [receive] Haza'ah tomorrow. This implies that Haza'ah must be on the day he immerses!

Answer #1: Really, Haza'ah need not be on the day he immerses. There, the Chidush is that he can immerse at night, even though Tevilah is like the beginning of Haza'ah, for there is no Haza'ah without Tevilah, a Tevilah is during the day.

Answer #2: There we discuss Tevilah after Haza'ah, like it says in Sifra "if he immersed before Haza'ah, he did not accomplish anything." This implies that there is also Tevilah after Haza'ah.

Reference: In Ta'anis (13a), R. Chanina Segan ha'Kohanim argues with him, and says that the Beis ha'Mikdash is worthy that one Tevilah a year (Tish'ah b'Av) be lost due to it. The Halachah follows him, like it says in the Yerushalmi.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This means that Rav holds like R. Shimon in all of Shabbos.

Objection #1: If so, the Gemara should have asked from wrapped coins, which Rav forbids (19b)!

Objection #2: Several Amora'im distinguish in Isurim of Shabbos, like it says below (128a) "regarding Muktzah for eating, he holds like R. Yehudah. For Muktzah for moving..."!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): It connotes to him that R. Shimon's reason in our Mishnah is due to Davar she'Eino Miskaven;

And the first Tana forbids him even for the sake of pleasure, for sometimes he does it for Refu'ah, and he forbids in general Davar she'Eino Miskaven.

And R. Shimon, who is normally lenient, permits here when he does not intend for Refu'ah. Now it is fine.

Explanation: The seal of a barrel of beer, one may not tighten it, due to squeezing, like Rashi explained. And so explained R. Chananel.

Implied question: We find that he is concerned only for squeezing water, like it says below (113b) regarding one who was walking on Shabbos and encountered a stream. It says that he may not enter the water, lest he come to squeeze!

And below (147a), it says that one who bathes in cave water and dried himself with a towel may not bring it in his hand, and the Gemara explains that this is lest he come to squeeze;

And below (148a) and in Beitzah (30a), regarding women who do not deviate [on Yom Tov, and fill jugs with water normally, we asked] "we should require them to spread a garment", i.e. on the jug, [and answer that we do not,] lest water come] on and they come to squeeze.

However, regarding wine we do not decree due to squeezing, like it says below (139b) that we strain wine through a cloth;

The reason is because a person is not concerned to squeeze it, since through squeezing he cannot cleanse it from its smell and appearance (that it received from the cloth). Also, it is not normal to squeeze a garment for the sake of the liquid inside it.

Answer: However, in any case it is forbidden to squeeze [other liquids from a garment], for when he squeezes the garment is whitened a little, and this is laundering;

Or, [squeezing other liquids from a garment] is forbidden due to Mefarek (extracting), like one who squeezes olives and grapes, like it says below (128b, about a Yoledes) "if she needs oil... her friend brings for her in her hair";

[The Gemara] asks, she comes to squeeze! This shows that squeezing applies to oil.

And below (141a), Rava says that one may not tightly pack tufts in the opening of a flask, lest he come to squeeze, and Rashi explained that it is a flask of oil.

And below (143a), it says that if a sponge has a handle, one may clean with it. If not, one may not clean with it, due to squeezing.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is forbidden to pack tightly [a rag in the spout of a barrel on Yom Tov].

Question #1: It says in Yoma (77b) that one who goes to greet his Rebbi, father or someone greater than himself, he may pass through water up to his neck [on Yom Kipur], and he is not concerned!

Question #2: It says also in Beitzah (18a) regarding Tevilas Kelim on Shabbos, that a Nidah without [Tahor] clothes may scheme and immerse in her clothes, and we do not decree lest she come to squeeze!

Answer: A Mitzvah is different.

Question: How do we permit there to enter [the water] in clothes, and how may a Nidah immerse in her clothes? We should say that soaking [a garment] is laundering it, like we say in Zevachim (94b)!

Answer #1: Only when there is a drop of blood or filth, we say that soaking it is laundering it, for it discusses this in Zevachim.

Answer #2: The Ri found corrected in Sefer ha'Yashar that we do not say that soaking it is laundering it in a matter that is merely dirtying [the garment], e.g. drying with a towel or cleaning hands on a cloth;

These who go in water with clothes, also this is the way of dirtying, and not the way of cleaning.

Consequence: If a baby dirtied his mother's garments with urine, one may not throw water on it, for soaking it is laundering it.

Ri heard from women that R. Tam permitted to wash her hands and clean (dry) her hands on the garment, for this is the way of dirtying, so she can pray and bless.

Rebuttal (Ri): She intends to purify the filth. This cleaning [on her garment] is the way of washing and laundering!

Question: It says (below, 141a) that one may not tightly pack tufts in the opening of a flask, lest he come to squeeze, and it is not a Pesik Reishei!

Answer: We can distinguish. There we discuss a cover that does not absorb so much, and also, he does not seal [the opening] so strongly. He is concerned only that it is covered;

However, here, [the spout] is on the side of the barrel. It absorbs much, and also, he tightens it strongly, lest wine go out, and it is a Pesik Reishei [that he will squeeze].

Remark: Some texts omit this. (Maharshal - according to the text, the first Tana always forbids, R. Shimon always permits, and Rav permits only where it is abundant.

Question: Why is it not obvious? A Beraisa below (113a) taught "if the rope of a bucket snapped, one may not tie it. Rather, one makes a bow";

And it is proven in Pesachim (11a) that these Rabanan (the first Tana of the Beraisa) are R. Meir, for it asks there to Rabanan, who are R. Meir!

Answer: Also there, [the Gemara] asks from Safek, if these Rabanan are R. Meir, like it is unsure here.