Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask that he should have sent an answer saying that it is permitted based on the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah who says that he is only liable if he plants wheat, barley, and grapes by throwing them into a hole he digs in the ground by hand (even without plowing). (Why doesn't the Gemara ask this question?)

Answer #1: Perhaps they only asked the law regarding hops in a vineyard when the person acted similar to the prohibition of Kilayim (according to Rebbi Yoshiyah) by planting three species together.

Answer #2: Additionally, perhaps he does not agree with the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that we rule like Rebbi Yoshiyah in Kidushin (39a), as is apparent from the fact that he said to him, "The laws are not clear to you. Don't we hold like Rebbi Yoshiyah?!"

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara also says in Berachos (22a) that the custom is to follow three (minority) opinions: Rebbi Ilai concerning the first shearings from sheep, Rebbi Yoshiyah regarding Kilayim, and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding words of Torah. (Accordingly, why wouldn't he agree with the Rebbi Yoshiyah? The law has been established according to his opinion!)

Answer: However, it is possible that they did not hold this way.

Proof #1: This is evident from the fact that the Gemara in Berachos (22a) says the custom is to follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding words of Torah, and even so we find that many Amoraim argue on his opinion in that very Gemara.

Proof #2: Similarly, the Gemara (ibid.) says that we follow Rebbi Ilai's opinion that the law regarding the first shearings from sheep only applies in Eretz Yisrael, and even so we say in Chulin (132a) that Rav Chisda says that a butcher who does not separate Matnos Kehunah should be in excommunication from Hash-m the G-d of Israel. The Gemara in Chulin (132b) even says that Rava fined him by taking away a thigh. Even Rav Nachman himself who says that the custom follows these three minority opinions used to fine someone by taking away his cloak (132b).

Question: Even if he does not agree with Rebbi Yoshiyah, he should have still replied to them by stating the opinion of Rebbi Yoshiyah, as the law outside of Eretz Yisrael always follows the opinion that is lenient regarding the laws of Eretz Yisrael (even though we do not rule like this opinion regarding this law in Eretz Yisrael).

Answer: It is not possible to say this rule unless there is an argument whether a certain combination is forbidden or not, as we rule outside of Eretz Yisrael like the one who says it is not a forbidden combination in Eretz Yisrael. However, this rule does not apply regarding a case where one must specifically plant wheat, barley, and grape in a hole that is dug out to be considered Kilayim.

Question: This is difficult? Why did Rav Amram Chasida object? We said earlier that the law follows Rebbi Tarfon who is lenient since this place is outside Eretz Yisrael!

Answer: One must say that in their place they were not Bnei Torah (and it would cause them to transgress normal Halachah if they were told this leniency).

Opinion: Rebbi says that we have a tradition that the questioner is Rav Acha bar Yaakov.

Proof #1: This is as the Gemara in Eiruvin (40b) states regarding the suggestion that the Berachah of Shehecheyahu on Yom Kippur should be recited while one is holding a cup of wine. The Gemara explains there that this is impossible, as how could it be done etc. The Gemara continues that if you say we should give it to a minor this is incorrect, as the law does not follow Rav Acha bar Yaakov and we suspect that the minor will end up eating on Yom Kippur when he is an adult. Our Gemara is the only place where we find that Rav Acha bar Yaakov says we should give it to a child (to plant, and therefore the questioner must be Rav Acha).

Proof #2: Some explain that Rav Acha's opinion regarding not worrying about a minor sinning when they are older is from the Gemara in Nidah (67b). The Gemara there states that he decreed that when it is necessary they can go to the Mikvah on the eighth day due to thieves, and we do not worry that her daughter will learn from this and end up going to the Mikvah at the wrong time.

Question: This does not seem correct, as why would this be the opinion of Rav Acha bar Yaakov over the opinion of all of the other Amoraim mentioned in the Gemara in Nidah (ibid.)?

Observation: Regarding the discussion in Eiruvin (ibid.), Rabeinu Tam says that it is permitted to give a child to drink from the cup on which the blessings of the Bris are said if it is supposed to be done on Yom Kippur, and we do not suspect that the child will end up desecrating Yom Kippur when he is older since this is not a permanent custom (to have a Bris on Yom Kippur).

Observation (cont.): This is unlike a cup being used to say a Shehecheyanu on the day of Yom Kippur, as if one would give this to a child he will desecrate Yom Kippur when he is older since this would be a permanent custom for him to drink every year (when he is a minor, he will get used to it and do it when he is older).

Observation: The Gemara in Beitzah (6a) concludes after discussing this that Ravina says that now that there are Chavri, we suspect. This means that Jews should not deal with the dead person lest the Chavri will command that they perform Melachah in general on Yom Tov, since they will observe Jews doing Melachah for the dead person.

Opinion: There was an incident where people took a dead person to be buried outside of the Techum on Yom Tov, and some people followed on horseback to deal with the dead person. Rabeinu Tam was upset at everyone, even those who went by foot.

Opinion (cont.): Rebbi understood that his reason is because Ravina concludes that today that there are Chavri etc. Even though we do not have this problem today we should still conclude it is forbidden, since this is the conclusion of the Gemara. We should also fear that officers will ask us to do their work on Yom Tov, and write whatever they want us to write. Rabeinu Tam sent to them, "If the people of Baskar were not considered Bnei Torah, the people of Leon are considered Bnei Torah?!"

Explanation: The Tzitzis are not considered a part of the Talis (when they are not put on properly) because they are important in his eyes, as his intention is to put four corners worth of Tzitzis on the Talis. This is the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel.

Opinion: They are not important and are considered part of the clothing. Rebbi relied on this to put straps that hung on his belt. Some people use them to attach their long boots to them, as they are considered part of the clothing and are not very significant.

Explanation: This means that he holds like the opinion of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah quoted earlier (117b) who says that one can use trickery.

Explanation #1: Rashi's explanation that this refers to salted meat that is hung to dry out is incorrect.

Question #1: This should have been said in the chapter of Mafnin (ch. 18), as it does not have to do with our topic.

Question #2: Additionally, why would he mention that it was hung?

Question #3: Additionally, it is apparent from the Gemara earlier (128a) that a salted fish is also fit to eat raw.

Question #4: Additionally, here we are discussing Muktzah, and we say earlier that Rav holds like Rebbi Shimon regarding Muktzah.

Explanation #2: It appears that the explanation of the Aruch is correct that it is referring to the wooden hook that the meat hangs on, whether the meat is currently on it or not. A meat hook does not become disgusting, and it is permitted to carry it. A fish hook does become disgusting and it is Muktzah due to the fact that it is disgusting. It is now understandable how this is comparable to the case of the item used to hold together a bundle of vegetables (stated before it on 140b).

Explanation #3: Rebbi explained to us that it was common that a meat hook was a vessel (and therefore not Muktzah), while the hook used for fish was not. The reasoning is not (as stated by the Aruch) regarding whether it is Muktzah because it is disgusting, as the Gemara is not discussing this type of Muktzah.