Halachah: Some people are (therefore) careful not to cook initially in a new pot.

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

Reason: Since here the dish is empty, in which case 'heating tiles' applies, seeing as on places it on the oven before adding water.

Reason: Which is not the case if one cooks food in the pot, where 'heating tiles' is not applicable.

Clarification: To do this with the entire body of the kid-goat is forbidden.

Conclusion: Since one can do it better by the easy method of skinning it.

Question: But did we not say earlier that it is forbidden to strengthen them, even though he did it in order to roast on them?

Answer: There is a difference between tiles and an oven, because an oven, which he heats with liquid, is not sure to strengthen them.

Question: Did we not just say that 'If it is in order to bake, it is permitted?

Answer: Here, where it speaks about an oven which is large, it is different, since it is more likely to break.

Inference: The Ri explains that since the Gemara does not draw a distinction between commercial bellows and private ones ...

Precedent: In the way that it distinguishes between commercial bellows and a commercial tube.

Conclusion: It implies that all bellows are forbidden, even private ones.

Inferred Halachah: One should take case not to use bellows at all.

Query: The Minhag however, is to use them by turning them upside-down.

Refutation of Precedent: Quoting his Rebbe R. Peretz (Nishmaso Eiden) however, Tosfos refutes what he explained earlier 'since the Gemara does not draw a distinction ... '.

Refutation of Precedent (cont.): Since perhaps the Gemara prefers to establish all the cases by commercial bellows.

Text #1: Rashi explains that it is because Rebbi Eliezer spoke earlier in the Sugya of 'Noteil Adam Kisam', that it says here that there is another case ('ve'Od') le'Kula.

Question: He queries this however, from the fact that the Gemara interrupts with a number of other cases (from) 'Ein Motzi'in ha'Or', cases where Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan do not speak.

Question (cont.): So how can the Tana say 've'Od'?

Precedent: As is evident in Eruvin (Daf 23. & 23:) - that wherever the Mishnah interrupts with a topic that the Tana'im do not speak, it is not applicable to say 've'Od'.

Text #2: Consequently, Rashi explains that the text ('v'Od') that appears in the Sefarim is erroneous. And in fact the Mishnah 'Omeid Adam' belongs before that of 'Ein Motzi'in'.

Question: In that case, the order (of the Sugyos in the Gemara) is also not correct?

Reinstate Text #1: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that there where both cases are le'Kula, the word 've'Od' is appropriate, even if the Mishnah interrupts with other cases.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Eruvin says that 've'Od' is not applicable ...

Answer: That is where one of the cases is le'Chumra and the other, le'Kula.

Implied Question: And why does the Tana interrupt?

Answer: Because he wants to learn all the cases of fire together.

Question: The Yerushalmi asks that Beis Shamai seems to have switched their opinion, seeing as earlier, they said 'Lo Yitol Ela-im-Kein nia'na, whilst here he (Rebbi Eliezer) says that a statement alone will suffice ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that Rebbi Eliezer is from Beis Shamai?

Answer: This is not a Kashya. They did not switch their opinion, since Muktzah concerning animals is stronger, and they are more strict in connection with it.

Question: Beis Hillel however, seem to have switched their opinion, since earlier they said that it will suffice to declare the one is taking 'from here tomorrow', whereas here they require that one marks them'?

Answer: It is different here, since he pushed it away with his hands.

Implied Question: Even though one is permitted to eat Arai (casually) until it enters the house or the Chatzer ...

Answer: Nevertheless, eating on Shabbos is Chashuv, an even eating Arai fixes it. Consequently, since they put it away on Shabbos to eat, it remains fixed even after Shabbos has departed.

Implied Question: And he mentions 'children' ...

Answer: To teach us that, even though they are not subject to Machshavah alone, they are subject to what they do.

Clarification: The Yerushalmi explains that - specifically his sons, but he himself made them fixed, when he revealed his intentions to leave them there in that state.

Clarification: Since Shabbos made them fixed.

Overview: The rule in the Sugya is that wherever it wants to say that it fixes, it fixes even without entering the front of the house ...

Conclusion: For example, where he brought them in via the roofs or the enclosures.

Explanation #1: If that is so' - that the reason is because he made it fixed with his speech, then even on a weekday too?

Suggested Answer: And if you say that it mentions Shabbos to teach us both Hachanah and 'I am taking from here' ...

Suggested Answer (cont.): And the Mishnah is coming to teach us two things; that his speech makes it fixe and the in of Hachanah.

Refutation: Then let it teach us here that speech fixes, which is the bigger Chidush, and the Machlokes regarding Hachanah elsewhere regarding fruit that has been Ma'asered - that if one then took it into the storehouse, according to one opinion one needs to mark it, and according to the other opinion, it will suffice to declare 'I am taking from here!'

Explanation #1 (concl): Only, since it mentions Shabbos with regard to Tevel, it implies that Shabbos fixes Tevel even for the ensuing days of the week.

Alternative Explanation #2: Alternatively, what the Gemara means is - Let it teach us that, on a weekday one's speech makes it fixed, and regarding Hachanah, let them quote the Machlokes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai with regard to the birds, as we learned above.

Refutation: But this is not correct ...

Reason: As Tosfos explained earlier, in that their Machlokes does not pertain to animals.

Implied Question: The reason that it mentions it with regard to Shabbos ...

Answer: Is to teach us another Chidush by the way, via the Din of Hachanas Shabbos - namely, that where one designated it for Shabbos, it is only Asur on account of the Ma'aser that is mixed in it ...

Consequently: And that if someone came and rectified it, it is rectified.

Answer (cont.): And we on't say tha since it was Muktzah on account of the Ma'aser that it contained, it is Muktzah the entire day ...

Reason: Because taking T'rumos and Ma'asros (on Shabbos) is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

Source: And the Gemara extrapolates this from the fact that the Tana says 'Omeid Adam al ha'Muktzah ... ba'Shevi'is', implying that in the other years of the Sh'mitah cycle, he is not allowed to stand there Lechatchilah, but that if one rectified it (by taking Ma'aser), it is rectified.

Refuted Explanation: But if the Tana were to hold that, on account of the Isur Muktzah, it is not rectified, even if he took Ma'aser ...

Refuted Explanation: Then what the Tana ought to have said is 'ha'Omeid al ha'Muktzah Erev Shabbos ba'Shevi'is, ve'Omer "mi'Ka'n Ani Noteil le'Machar", Harei hu min ha'Muchan'.

Refuted Explanation: In which case we would have extrapolated that, in the other years of the Sh'mitah cycle, it is not Muchan.