Text: This is also the text of Rashi and Rabeinu Tam. However, we do not have the text, "he cannot immerse" as even the one who holds that it is not a Mitzvah to immerse at the exact time holds it is permitted to do so.

Proof: This is as the Gemara implies in Yoma (87b) when it asks that according to Rav who says that saying Neilah exempts one from Ma'ariv because he holds Neilah is said at night, doesn't the Beraisa say that the night of Yom Kippur...during Neilah one says seven blessings and he confesses in Ma'ariv?

Proof: The Gemara answers that this is an argument among the Tanaim, as the Beraisa says that all those who are obligated to immerse do so during the day (meaning Yom Kippur day). A Nidah and a woman who gives birth do so at night. A Ba'al Keri immerses until Minchah. This is because he holds that Neilah is at night, and that it is not a Mitzvah to immerse on time. Rebbi Yosi says he can immerse the entire day, as Neilah is during the day.

Proof (cont.): This implies that even though the Tana Kama holds that immersing at the exact time is not a Mitzvah, even so he says that all who are obligated to immerse can do so on Yom Kippur day. This even refers to a Tamei Mes and Tamei Sheretz who do not require immersion for prayer.

Implied Question: Rashi's explanation that Rebbi Yosi holds like Rav who says that Neilah is said at night is not accurate.

Proof: The Gemara in Yoma (88a) asks a contradiction in Rebbi Yosi from this Beraisa. Rebbi Yosi in our Gemara says that one does not have to immerse after Minchah, and in Yoma (87b) he says one can immerse the entire day! It answers that the Gemara here is discussing a case where he already said Neilah, as opposed to the Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) where he did not yet say Neilah. In both of these cases, Rebbi Yosi does not agree with Rav.

Question: If so, how does Rav in Yoma (88a) know that the Tana Kama of the first Beraisa who says that a Ba'al Keri immerses until Minchah holds like him that Neilah is at night? Perhaps the case is where the person already said Neilah, and he holds that immersing at the exact time is not a Mitzvah while Rebbi Yosi holds it is a Mitzvah? The Tana Kama in our Gemara would hold like Rebbi Yosi there!

Answer: It is possible to answer that he understands that the Rebbi Yosi quoted both here and there are the same person, namely Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah who is discussing a Ba'al Keri who immerses on Yom Kippur. If so, this is a contradiction in Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah! It must be that we have to answer that one is a case where he already said Neilah, and one is where he did not yet say Neilah.

Explanation: Telling a Nochri to perform a Melachah is forbidden according to Rabbinic law, even if one tells him to perform a Melachah that is only forbidden according to Rabbinic law.

Proof: This is as stated later (150a), "A person should not say to his friend that he should hire workers for him etc." The Gemara establishes that this is referring to a friend who is a Nochri. This is also apparent from the Gemara's question in Eiruvin (67b), "let him bring hot water from his house."

Opinion: Even so, we rule like Rebbi Ami. The Yerushalmi records that Rebbi Ami practically ruled that this may be done.

Explanation: It must be that the Gemara understands the Mishnah as either being according to Rebbi Yehudah who says that one is liable for a Melachah she'Ainah Tzerichah l'Gufah, or according to Rebbi Shimon and when he needs to extinguish the fire to make coals. If it would merely be a Rabbinic prohibition, it is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (114a) that Beis Din would not be obligated to stop a minor.

Observation: It must be that this case is regarding a minor who is not yet supposed to be trained to perform Mitzvos. If he was already at this age, since he is obligated to train him he would certainly be obligated to stop him from sinning!

Implied Question: The Gemara's questions in Yevamos (ibid.) from cases where we see one is obligated to stop a minor from sinning could have been answered as being regarding a minor who is already obligated to be trained to perform Mitzvos. (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer if indeed one is obligated to stop him from sinning?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara wanted to give answers that apply in every case (even when he is not yet at this age).

Implied Question: The Gemara there attempts to prove Beis Din does not have to separate a minor from the fact that it says that a child nurses normally from an unkosher animal, but it would be forbidden for an adult. This implies that it is only forbidden for an adult, not a minor who is supposed to be trained (unlike what we have said)!

Answer: When the Gemara there says adult, it clearly does not mean one who is able to be punished, as the Gemara concludes that the reason is because a child usually needs milk to live. This clearly only applies to a child who is two or three years old.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that the Mishnah says that one can cover a scorpion with a bowl so that it should not bite, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi still needed to teach that it is also permitted to kill any such creatures on Shabbos. (Isn't this clearly implied by the Mishnah?)

Answer: One might think that this is forbidden, as it becomes more known (and therefore is a denigration of Shabbos) than an act of trapping. This is indeed why Rav Huna later argues and says that killing is forbidden.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to a case where the animal is running after him and it is therefore a matter of life and death, while the Beraisa is referring to a case where it is not running after him, and the Beraisa holds like Rebbi Shimon.

Question #1: This is difficult. If so, one should ask a question from the Beraisa on Rava bar Rav Huna who permits killing snakes and scorpions on Shabbos. He must be discussing a case where they are not chasing him, as if they were, why wouldn't the pious ones approve according to Rashi who says that this is a case of life and death?

Question #2: Additionally, when the Neyusi killed a snake, the Gemara inquires as to whether he did the right thing. We should extrapolate from here that Rebbi Shimon only permits killing five specific creatures if they are not chasing a person!

Question #3: The Ri also has difficulty with the fact that the term, "I answered it" implies he is explaining the Beraisa.

Explanation #2: The Ri understands that the Beraisa is referring to a case when the animal is chasing him and it is according to everyone, meaning even Rebbi Yehudah admits that it is permitted these five specific types of animals if they are chasing after a person. However, Rebbi Yehudah understands that it is forbidden to kill other types of animals even if they are running after a person.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like Rebbi Shimon that it is permitted to kill other dangerous animals even if they are not running after him. Rav Huna who forbids later does not agree with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Opinion: The Ri understands and Rabeinu explains that one should not be lenient like the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rather, the law is like the Amoraim later who only permit trampling these things if they are in his path when he is walking.