Explanation #1 (Rashi's second version): The slave of a man, even though he is an adult with intelligence, you may circumcise him b'Al Korcho;

You cannot circumcise a man's son. I.e. a man who comes to convert, he cannot circumcise his adult son b'Al Korcho;

Regarding children, it says "Himol Lo Kol Zachar." It does not say Kol Ish, like it says about slaves.

Question: This is astounding! We establish the verse Himol Lo Kol Zachar to teach that circumcision of one's males prevents him from eating Korban Pesach;

This applies only to sons born in Kedushah. Circumcision of sons not born in Kedushah (before he converted) does not prevent him from eating Korban Pesach!

Explanation #2: We do not need the verse to expound "you cannot circumcise a man's son b'Al Korcho." We already know that they cannot convert him b'Al Korcho!

Further, we know from Yefas To'ar that we do not circumcise a convert b'Al Korcho, for we cannot immerse a Yefas To'ar b'Al Korchah;

Source: The Torah obligated waiting 30 days for her. If she accepted, one need not wait.

Possibility #1: [Rava] mentioned this (you cannot circumcise a man's son b'Al Korcho) only to explain R. Shimon ben Elazar, who says that initially one forces her to become a Shifchah, but not to become a convert. (Only the former works b'Al Korchah.)

Possibility #2: Alternatively, he mentioned in Rabanan's words "just like you cannot circumcise a man's son", he mentioned also in R. Shimon ben Elazar's words, to teach that even though you cannot circumcise a man's son b'Al Korcho, you can circumcise a slave b'Al Korcho.

Note: Ula said so to explain Rabanan. Since the Gemara did not give another explanation, presumably Rava agrees.

Question #1: R. Shimon ben Elazar says below that we do not delay in Eretz Yisrael, lest he ruin Taharos, a slave who does not want to be circumcised. It connotes that one must sell him [to Nochrim].

What is the reason? One can circumcise him b'Al Korcho!

Question #2: R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds in Gitin (39b) that if one said "I despaired of my slave Ploni", the only solution for Ploni is through a Get Shichrur.

Inference: He disagrees with Shmuel's Drashah below. If so, he expounds "you can circumcise a man's slave b'Al Korcho."

Summation of question: Below, he says that a slave who does not want to be circumcised, one keeps him 12 months. He should be able to circumcise him b'Al Korcho!

Answer (Ri): This is an enactment mid'Rabanan lest he cause the master to transgress Isur v'Heter, since he did not accept the yoke of Mitzvos;

Also, it is not good to obligate the slave in Mitzvos, since he does not want to fulfill them.

Question: According to Shmuel, what is the need for a Get Shichrur for an Eved Kena'ani? He can be Mafkir him, and say in front of two [witnesses] "go"!

The Gemara asked like this in Kidushin (16a), what is the need for a Get Shichrur for an Eved Ivri? He can say in front of two "go"!

The Gemara answered that an Eved Ivri is Gufo Kanuy (his master owns him himself. Therefore, he needs a Get Shichrur.)

Answer (Ri): The Gemara asked (in Kidushin), what is the need for a Get Shichrur? The same expression written in the Get, "you are a free man" or "you are to yourself", can be said verbally!

We are thinking that he needs only pardon of the debt on him. We conclude that an Eved Ivri is Gufo Kanuy, and the expression written in the Get does not help verbally;

However, Hefker, in which he removes his ownership, helps even verbally according to Shmuel.

Question: Why isn't Hefker counted among Kinyanim of a slave (ways in which he goes free - Kidushin 22b)?

Answer #1: The Gemara counted only Kinyanim in which the master is Makneh (transfers ownership of) the slave to himself. Hefker is mere removal. He removes himself from the slave.

Answer #2: We do not count Kinyanim that work for all matters, like it says there about Chalipin "our Tana did not teach matters that apply to Metaltelim."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [This means that he did not cut] his toenails.

Explanation #2 (Ri): It refers to Beis Ervah (cutting the hair there).

Source: Below (103a), we say that [if she removed his shoe] from the knee or above, the Chalitzah is Pasul, and infer that this is not called "Regel";

We ask from Lo Asah Raglav, and answer that it is a euphemism.

Suggestion: Our Gemara proves that one may shave the place of the Ervah!

Rejection: Perhaps it is forbidden mid'Rabanan.

Observation: However, in Nazir (58b), Rav explicitly permits lightening the hair on the entire body with a razor, even the underarms and Beis ha'Ervah, like it connotes there;

The Gemara challenged Rav from a Beraisa that says "one who removes the hair from the underarms and Beis ha'Ervah is lashed", and answers that Rav permits with scissors;

Even though he said "with a razor", he meant like with a razor.

Question: Afterwards, it says that Rav asked R. Chiya whether one may shave, and he answered that one may not. Rav asked that it will grow, and R. Chiya answered that it has a limit.

Opinion #1: This implies that he asked whether one may cut with scissors. If he asked about with a razor, what was the question "it will grow!"? One may "shave" it with scissors!

Answer: Perhaps Rav did not accept R. Chiya's answer.

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): Rav asked whether one may cut with a razor.

Implied question: If so, what was the question "it will grow!"?

Answer: He meant that this is not beautifying [oneself]. It does not resemble at all the way women adorn themselves. This is not for beauty. It is due to pain, for it grows too much. We should permit even with a razor!

Consequence: If so, we must say that he did not know the Beraisa above that forbids.

Bahag's text: Rav taught that one may lighten the hair on his entire body with a razor. We asked from a Beraisa that says "one who removes..." and answers that Rav permits other limbs (but not the underarms and Beis ha'Ervah);

Bahag's text (cont.): Are other limbs permitted?! A Beraisa says that removing hair is not [forbidden] mid'Oraisa, rather, mid'Rabanan.

He (the Makshan) understands that the Beraisa discusses even other limbs, even though it discusses also the underarms and Beis ha'Ervah;

Proof: Afterwards, we answer that Rav discusses with scissors, and the Beraisa discusses with a razor.

Consequence: Based on this, other limbs are permitted only with scissors. The underarms and Beis ha'Ervah are forbidden even with scissors;

This is mid'Rabanan, lest you ask a contradiction from our Sugya (which connotes that one may shave the place of the Ervah).

Version #2: In Hilchos Gedolos of Aspamya (Spain), it says "this is with a razor, and this is with scissors." This is a retraction from the first answer, that Rav discusses other limbs.

Consequence: According to this text, surely other limbs are forbidden to shave them with a razor, but it is permitted with scissors, even the underarms and Beis ha'Ervah.

The Aruch's opinion: The text of the Aruch (Erech Ginostra) is like our texts.

Distinction: Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim permits shaving underarms and Beis ha'Ervah when he shaves the entire body from head to feet;

It does not connote that he discusses a Metzora, for this would be obvious! Rather, he discusses one who shaves for a cure. Since he shaves the entire body, this is not beautification. It is repulsive!

Proof: We do not find anywhere regarding a Metzora that the Aseh [to shave his entire body] overrides the Lav for a man to adorn [like a woman]. We find only that it overrides the Lav of cutting the sideburns and [shaving] the beard.

Explanation #1: They argue about how to explain the verses. (There is no argument about the Halachah.)

Explanation #2: Their argument pertains to one whose parents died or converted. (R. Eliezer holds that one need not wait in such a case.)

Explanation #3 (Rivan): R. Akiva holds that she must deny Avodah Zarah before having Bi'ah with him.

Consequence: According to this, the Beraisa above "this is when she did not accept..." is unlike R. Akiva.

Observation: Also in Nazir (5a), it says "we should say that it is 30 days, like it says "Ad Chodesh Yamim." This implies that a Stam Chodesh is 30 days.

Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (19b) and Sanhedrin (11a), [the first Tana] says that Ibur Shanah (the amount we add to a leap year) is 30 days, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is a Chodesh (i.e. it may be 29 or 30 days)!

Answer: There is different, for it is clear [that he does not mean 30 days].

Explanation #1 (Rivan): [One may not keep a slave who does not circumcise] lest he pour wine to idolatry [which forbids it].

Question #1 (Ri): If so, it should be forbidden even if he stipulated with him!

Question #2: From R. Yishmael's response (from the verse "va'Yinafash... veha'Ger"), it seems that they argue about Torah law [and not a decree mid'Rabanan]!

Explanation #2 (Ri): R. Akiva's reason is because Hash-m commanded Avraham to circumcise his slaves. Therefore, one may not keep them those who do not circumcise.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He accepted not to serve idolatry. [He may not desecrate Shabbos, for] Chilul Shabbos is like serving idolatry.

Question #1: If so (the Isur of idolatry mandates observing Shabbos), they have more than seven Mitzvos. Avodah Zarah (64b) connotes that through [acceptance to keep] the seven Mitzvos that Bnei No'ach received, he is called a Ger Toshav!

Question #2: In Sanhedrin (58b), we say that a Nochri who desisted [from Melachah for a day] is Chayav Misah even on a weekday, and all the more so on Shabbos!

Question #3: In Kerisus (9a), R. Akiva says that a Ger Toshav is not commanded about Shabbos!

Answer: Here [we forbid him] to do Melachah for the sake of a Yisrael, just like va'Yinafash Ben Amasecha.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): This refers to R. Yehoshua's opinion. "Lo Paska" means that he constantly defers and says that he will circumcise a different day;

However, if he clearly said that he will not circumcise at all, one may not keep him.

Rejection: The Gemara connotes unlike this. "Hani Mili" refers to R. Akiva!

Explanation #2 (Ri): R. Tam's Perush is correct, but it refers to R. Akiva. If he accepted to be circumcised, and postpones it, one may not keep him, since it is a Mitzvah to circumcise him; we do not delay the Mitzvah;

However, if he clearly said that he will not circumcise, one is not commanded to circumcise him b'Al Korcho. One may not keep him for 12 months; perhaps he will agree.

Support: Also Sha'arim of Rav Hai Gaon explains similarly, in Sha'ar Shevi'i.

Contradiction: In Sotah 22b it connotes that both of these are bad, but in Sotah 31a, it connotes that both of them are praiseworthy!

Answer #1 (Ri): Serving from love of Hash-m and fear of Hash-m are both praiseworthy. Serving from love of a person or fear of a person are both derogatory.

Answer #2 (Rashi): Serving from love of reward [is derogatory], e.g. if he will not get reward [for his Mitzvos], he would regret his previous Mitzvos. He serves only in order to get reward;

Serving from fear [is derogatory], i.e. from fear of punishment.

Question: Here, it is difficult. It says that serving from love is praiseworthy, and serving from fear is derogatory!

We could have said oppositely (serving from love is derogatory, i.e. love of people or reward) and serving from fear is praiseworthy (fear of Hash-m), or that both are derogatory, or both are praiseworthy!

Explanation: You hurried [to convert].

Question: In Nazir (23b), it says that Rus was the granddaughter of Eglon, the son of Balak Melech Mo'av;

If you calculate the years of Ehud, who killed Eglon, until Avtzan, who is Boaz, you find more than 200 years. Also, Boaz married her when he was old, like it says "you did not pursue the youths"!

Note: Seemingly, this verse proves that she was not old. If she were old, what is the Chidush that she desired Boaz, and not a youth?! If the Yavam is young and the Yevamah is old we discourage Yibum, for they are prone to quarrel (44a)! Also, why would youths desire an old, foreign and poor widow?

Answer: She was not literally his granddaughter. Rather, she descended from him, just like [a Bas Kol called Nevuchadnetzar] "grandson of Nirmod ha'Rasha" (even though he was many generations later).

A verse calls Rus a Na'arah [which suggests that she was young].