Observation: Rav Ashi is not commenting on Rav Chisda's statement, as he made that statement according to Rebbi Yehudah. According to the Gemara later that says that Rebbi Yehudah holds that the fat of the Gid is even permitted by Rabinic law, Rav Ashi must only be saying his statement according to Rebbi Meir.

Implied Question: Rav Ashi did not say that his law is according to the position of Rebbi Meir. (Why didn't he clarify this as did Rav Chisda?)

Answer: This is because the Beraisa that Rav Ashi quotes does not mention Rebbi Meir.

Observation: Similarly, Ravina who establishes that this is referring to the outer Gid which is prohibited mid'Rabanan does not seem to be stating this in accordance with the position of Rebbi Yehudah.

Proof: Later, he derives from "the thigh" that it is the Gid that is in the entire thigh, as opposed to outside the thigh. Rebbi Yehudah derives "the thigh" means the right thigh. (It would seem that Ravina's teaching is only possible because he does not understand "the thigh" as does Rebbi Yehudah.)

Implied Question: If we say that Ravina holds one can derive both Rebbi Yehudah's lesson and his lesson from "the thigh," this is not a proof. This seems correct, as later (96b) the Gemara derives something else from "the thigh." It is therefore possible that multiple teachings are derived from this Pasuk.

Explanation: The Gemara does not want to say that the case is where he ate them at the same time which would therefore not be a doubtful warning (as he is clearly transgressing a prohibition with one of them). (Why not?)

Answer: This is in order that we should not try to answer the question posed earlier (82b) regarding a person who eats two Kzeisim of Cheilev at once (see Tiferes Yaakov regarding how Tosfos thinks this could be proven).

Question: Perhaps it was not forbidden to Bnei Noach, but they still kept it? This would be similar to slaughtering, as he told him that he should open the slaughter area (of the animal) for them (even they were clearly not commanded to slaughter properly).

Answer #1: Since the Pasuk says, "and prepare" the implication is that it would not be permitted without this.

Answer #2: Alternatively, "open the slaughter area" could mean to rip the animal open, as they were commanded to only eat after cutting the animal open (and not to eat Aiver Min ha'Chai).

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that this is specifically referring to a Talmid Chacham because demons are jealous of them. This is as we say that three require watching: A king, a Talmid Chacham, and a groom.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (2a) says that one should always enter with "Ki Tov" referring to sunlight, indicating that everybody should only travel during the day. This is apparent from the fact that it does not only mention a Talmid Chacham.

Answer: This is referring to traveling far away from the city due to the possible pitfalls and bandits.

Text #1: In most texts it states, "va'Yachavosh Es Chamoro."

Question #1: This is difficult, as this is the Pasuk of the Akeidah. In this Pasuk he was not alone, and in fact had two of his "boys" (Yishmael and Eliezer) with him in addition to Yitzchak.

Question #2: Additionally, even if he was by himself there would be no reason for him to worry about demons, as people sent to do a Mitzvah are not damaged.

Question #3: Additionally, the Pasuk about the Akeidah is quoted in Pesachim (4a) regarding Bedikas Chametz in order to prove that we do not say "Zerizim Makdimin l'Mitzvos" before morning. This is evident from the fact that Avraham did not wake up earlier than morning in order to do this Mitzvah.

Question #3 (cont.): How is that considered a proof? Perhaps the case there was different, being that he did not want to go out alone at night? Perhaps this is why he did not leave earlier (and not because there is no Zerizim at night)?

Text #2: It therefore appears that the text here should read, "va'Yashkem Avraham ba'Boker El ha'Makom etc." (Bereishis 19:27). We do not have the text, "va'Yachavosh Es Chamoro."

Text #2 (cont.): This is a Pasuk regarding Sedom, that Avraham went to Daven regarding the upcoming turning over of Sedom. His Davening took place in the morning, while he seemingly should have Davened the night before. It must be that he did not want to go out alone at night. He went alone to Daven for them, as he did not want anyone should be with him when he was Davening.

Text #2 (cont.): Alternatively, nobody was able to look at the turning over of Sedom.

Observation: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) indeed quotes the Pasuk regarding the Akeidah where he was not alone, and the point is that he did not have to wake up earlier than the morning (to fulfill "Zerizim etc.").

Explanation: The simple explanation is that he took one stone from amongst the various stones in that place.

Explanation: This implies that the ones who were going up were going down.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara earlier implies that these were not the same angels, as it said "going up - two, going down - two, when they meet they are four."

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to a kidnapper.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bechoros (5a) says that Kontrikus Hegmon said to Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, "Moshe, your Rebbe, was either a thief, a Kubyustus, or he did not know math. He gave half and he took half, and he did not return an entire half." How does Kubyustus fit in this context?

Answer: Some say that he said this remark regarding his first question. He pointed out that when the Torah counts how many people (i.e. males from one month old) descended from each son of Levi, the total adds up to twenty two thousand three hundred. However, when it gives the number in general of how many people there were in the tribe of Levi, it says twenty two thousand. Where did the other three hundred go? Regarding this he said that Moshe was possibly a Kubyustus, meaning a kidnapper of Levites.

Answer (cont.): He did not say (i.e. present the possibility that Moshe was a) Kubyustus until he ended his second question because he was waiting until he finished all of his questions (to ask about the character of Moshe Rabeinu).

Question: However, there is another question. The Gemara says in Bava Basra (92b) and Kidushin (11a) that there is no claim that one did not realize the nature of the slave that he bought (in order to invalidate the sale). If the servant was found to be a thief or a Kubyustus, he deserves it (i.e. the sale is still valid). This means that most slaves are presumed to have these traits. Are most slaves kidnappers?

Answer: It therefore appears like Rabeinu Chananel explains that a Kubyustus is someone who plays with dice (i.e. gambles).

Implied Question: Yaakov here said to the angel, "Are you a Kubyustus that you are scared of dawn?" (How does this fit the profile of a gambler?)

Answer: It is normal for a gambler to owe many people money. He therefore hides (during the day) from his creditors.

Explanation #1: This means the fact that he said the angels says Shirah (songs of praise) supports Rav Chananel.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the fact that the angel said that it had not yet been his time to say Shirah until now supports Rav Chananel's statement that the angels are not allowed to sing a lot of Shirah. This is as Rav Chananel says that one says the word "Kadosh" and that is it. It also implies that they only said Shirah once.