Question: I have a difficulty with the opinion of Rav Chisda. Why does Rav in Nidah (28b) exclude a Tumtum who saw both a white and red discharge from being liable for entering the Mikdash while impure?

Question (cont.): If you say it is because there is an extra Pasuk that can be used to exclude a Tumtum as the Pasuk says "from a male to a female you should send," and if it is just to exclude an Androgynus only "male" should have been said, this is incorrect.

Question (cont.): If the Torah would only say "male" I would think that a woman is not liable if she enters the Mikdash while impure, since the Pasuk says "male" and not "Adam." (This is why the Pasuk is not extra.)

Answer: Perhaps one can answer that Rav does not agree with Rav Chisda, as there are indeed other Amoraim that argue on Rav Chisda in Bechoros (42a).

Question: Why does Rav need to exclude Androgynus? He holds in Yevamos (83a) that Androgynus is a Safek. Do we require a Pasuk to exclude a Safek?

Answer: However, this is not really difficult, as I might think that if he sees a white and red discharge at the same time he should be liable because whether it is a man or woman it should be impure.

Question: However, this is difficult. Since Rav holds that an Androgynus is a Safek, why does he say "mi'Zachar Ad Nekeivah" teaches it has to be either clearly a male or clearly a female? Why not say that the Pasuk, "And if he is a Zachar" excludes him as he is not a regular Zachar, and "And if she is a female" excludes him because he is not a regular female (as explained by the Maharsha end of 136b)?

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rav used these Pesukim because he needs to exclude a Tumtum who can sometimes be completely male or female.

Question: This is difficult. Rebbi in Bechoros (42a) regarding Bechor requires "ha'Zachar, ha'Zecharim" to exclude a Tumtum and Androgynus. This implies that "ha'Zachar" alone would not suffice to exclude them. However, our Gemara excludes them from "ha'Zachar" alone.

Question: This is difficult. Why does the Mishnah have to say this? It already stated that flesh that covers most of the Atarah causes the Milah to be invalid, and when one does not do Pri'ah this is the case!

Text #1: Rabeinu Shmuel's text first has "the father of the son" and then "the one who performs the Bris says." He already started the custom that the father of the son should say the Berachos before the Bris because the Berachah "l'Hachniso" implies that one is going to do the Bris in the future.

Proof #1: This is as we say in Pesachim (7a) that everyone agrees that "l'Va'er" implies in the future.

Proof #2: Additionally, the rule is that the blessing on all Mitzvos is made before doing them.

Text #2: Rabeinu Tam changed the custom back to the original custom (to make the Berachos after the Bris). His text is that it first states, "the one who performs the Milah" and then "the father of the son" as is the text in all of the Sefarim.

Proof #1: This is implied by the Gemara's statement, "the ones who are standing there say, just as he entered him into the Bris etc." implying that the Bris has already been done.

Proof #2: Additionally, regarding a convert the text of the Gemara later reads, "the one who performs the Bris" and then "the one reciting the blessing says, that he has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to circumcise the converts."

Proof #2 (cont.): It appears that this blessing is in place of the blessing normally stated by the father of the child. We cannot change the text of this blessing, "to take out from them the blood of the Bris...Blessed in the One Who made the covenant." This implies it is after the Bris Milah.

Proof #3: Additionally, the one who makes the blessing always does so after the Milah, just as is done by the Milah of a minor.

Explanation: The Gemara in Pesachim (7a) means that everyone agrees that "l'Va'er" implies in the future more than in the past. However, it also implies the past. The argument is regarding "Al Biur." One holds that the implication is past more than future, while the other holds that both are implied equally.

Explanation: When the Gemara says that one makes a Berachah on all Mitzvos before doing them, it only means this regarding Mitzvos where the one doing the Mitzvah is also making the Berachah.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam says that "Yedid mi'Beten" refers to Avraham Avinu who is called a Yedid (friend) of Hash-m.

Proof: This is as the Pasuk says in Yirmiyah (11:15), "What is My friend doing in My house?" and as derived in Menachos (53b) that it is said regarding Avraham Avinu.

Explanation (cont.): All three Avos are mentioned. "Chok b'Shearo Sam" refers to Yitzchak Avinu and "v'Tzetza'av Chasam b'Os Bris Kodesh" refers to Yaakov Avinu and his sons (and their descendants). This is as Yonasan translated, "ha'Tzetzaim v'ha'Tzefios" (Yeshaya 22:24) as meaning sons and grandsons, implying descendants in general.

Explanation: This is as the Torah states, "born in the house and bought by money" (Bereishis 17:12).

Explanation: One must explain that if he would make this the previous day it would not be very good and strong.

Implied Question: The Beraisa earlier (134a) says that one cannot filter mustard in a filter on Yom Tov. (Why isn't this allowed?)

Answer: It must be that if he would make it the previous day it would not become ruined.

Question: This is difficult. We should ask on Rebbi Eliezer that the Gemara in Megilah (7b) understands that Rebbi Yehudah derives from the Pesukim, "Hu" and "Lachem" that there is no contradiction as one is referring to preparations that can be done before Yom Tov etc.

Question (cont.): If you will say that Rebbi Eliezer understood these Pesukim are meant for other derivations, how does the Gemara there know that Rebbi Yehudah indeed makes this distinction (can/can't be done before Yom Tov)? Why doesn't it say that Rebbi Yehudah also derives other derivations from these verses, as does Rebbi Eliezer?

Answer: It appears that on a Torah level, Rebbi Eliezer agrees that preparations that can be done before Yom Tov are prohibited from being done on Yom Tov. We only permit them here regarding a temporary tent that is only prohibited according to Rabbinic law due to the possibility that one may make a permanent tent, as stated in Beitzah (32b).

Question: However, this is difficult. (If this answer is correct) How do we know Rebbi Eliezer is more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah? Perhaps regarding this case even Rebbi Yehudah will admit!