Implied question: Why do we challenge the Beraisa more than the Mishnah?

Answer: The Beraisa concludes "this is R. Meir's opinion." (A Stam Mishnah is assumed to be R. Meir, but sometimes it is not.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Even though he is a Mumar to be Mechalel Shabbos, he can be Mevatel. R. Yehudah says, if he was Mezid, he cannot be Mevatel;

[R. Yehudah] holds that a Mumar to be Mechalel Shabbos cannot be Mevatel [and there is no solution] without renting.

Inference: Since Rashi attributed the reason to being a Mumar, we must say that he discusses in public, like we conclude according to R. Yehudah that only [if he is Mechalel Shabbos] in public he cannot be Mevatel Reshus, and even so according to R. Meir he can be Mevatel Reshus.

Also below, when it says "a Mumar b'Giluy Panim (he openly transgresses) cannot be Mevatel Reshus. Like whom is this? It is like R. Yehudah", Rashi explained that according to R. Meir, a Mumar to be Mechalel Shabbos in public can be Mevatel.

Question #1: This is astounding! Our Mishnah teaches that a Tzeduki is like a Nochri, like we conclude above, and it is connotes above (62a) that the Reisha of our Mishnah (61b) is R. Meir!

Answer: Surely, R. Meir taught the entire Mishnah until R. Yehudah, like the Beraisa concludes "these are R. Meir's words", for R. Meir teaches the words of his Rebbeyim, the words of Chachamim and the words of R. Gamliel. It is possible that he holds like R. Gamliel, who says that a Tzeduki is not like a Nochri.

Support: Since R. Meir and R. Yehudah argue according to R. Gamliel, it connotes that [R. Meir] holds like R. Gamliel.

Question #2: However, it does not connote at all that the reason for the Beraisa is due to Mumar!

Firstly, why does [the Beraisa] say "he took out"? It should have said that he was Mechalel Shabbos through any Melachah!

Also, it connotes that it is because he was Motzi on this Shabbos, for it teaches "if he was Motzi before he gave Reshus"!

Also, it connotes that he was Motzi Stam, in any way, whether in private or in public, just like "one who gave his Reshus and was Motzi" in the Seifa! (There, it is because he retracted from his Bitul. It is irrelevant whether or not this was in public.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): Here, it is not due to Mumar. Mumar applies only to one who regularly is Mechalel Shabbosos, and he is not careful at all [to observe Shabbos];

However, here, we do not discuss one accustomed [to be Mechalel Shabbos]. It was a mere occurrence that he took out, because he was pressed at the time;

If he did so on the previous Shabbos, even b'Mezid, it would not hurt at all [the Heter to carry this Shabbos], even according to R. Yehudah, for he is not a Mumar, like I explained;

Rather, it is only on this Shabbos. Since he was Machazik in his Reshus, he cannot be Mevatel, just like one who was Machazik after Bitul, that he cannot be Mevatel after this;

R. Meir holds that he can be Mevatel, for he is not considered to be Machazik, since he was not Machazik after he gave [Reshus].

Explanation: According to Rashi, that above he is considered a Mumar because he was Motzi b'Mezid, this is even for mid'Rabanan matters.

Support: The Gemara connotes like this, for it did not answer "both of these were in public - here [he did an Isur] Torah, and here [he did an Isur] mid'Rabanan."

Question: A Stam Tzeduki is not careful about mid'Rabanan laws at all, even in public!

Also Kusim used to be Mevatel and give Reshus before R. Ami and R. Asi decreed about them, in Chulin (6b), and Stam Kusim do not believe in Divrei Chachamim, and they are not careful even in public!

Answer: They are used to being careful, for they fear Chachamim, like we find in Nidah (33b) "even though we are Tzedukim, we fear the Perushim (very pious people)."

Question: R. Yehudah Nesi'ah himself went out with Chumresa di'Medusha (a ring with a stamp), like it says in Mo'ed Katan (12b)!

Answer #1 (R. Chananel): The person here went out in Reshus ha'Rabim, and R. Yehudah Nesi'ah went out in a Chatzer.

Question: Even in a Chatzer it connotes that it is forbidden, for it says about R. Ami who was upset "why was he upset? If it is due to Chumresa di'Medusha, a Beraisa teaches that bracelets, nose-rings and rings are like all Kelim that may be taken in the Chatzer!"

It says about that Beraisa in Shabbos (46b), that Ula said "what is the reason? It is because they have Toras (the status of a) Kli."

Inference: Since he mentioned Toras Kli, this connotes that one may not adorn himself with them in a Chatzer, for they are not proper for Shabbos, but even so it is permitted l'Tzorech Gufo ul'Tzorech Mekomo (if needed for its use or place), like anything with Toras Kli, even though it is Melachto l'Isur.

Source: It says so in Shabbos (64b). Wherever Chachamim forbade to go in Reshus ha'Rabim [with something], one may not go out with it in a Chatzer, except for Kavul (a wool cap under the headdress, or a signet of slavery) or a wig!

Answer (Ri): Surely, one may not adorn himself with bracelets, nose-rings and rings in the Chatzer, lest he go out with them to Reshus ha'Rabim, and in Reshus ha'Rabim it is forbidden lest he take them off. It is not considered a decree for a decree;

However, Chumresa di'Medusha is not an ornament at all. Even if he took it out on his finger to the Chatzer, there is no Isur due to an ornament, for it is not an ornament. There is a mere Isur to move it;

This is like the first Perush in Rashi, that [Chumresa di'Medusha] is a wooden ring with a stamp of a different substance, and unlike his second Perush, that it is a band of fragrances. Also in Mo'ed Katan (12b), it compares [Chumresa di'Medusha] to bracelets, nose-rings and rings.

R. Yehudah Nesi'ah took it out l'Tzorech Gufo or l'Tzorech Mekomo, e.g. to pacify a child or other matters. This is why it asks "why was [R. Ami] upset?", since there is no Isur to move it, since it has Toras Kli.

This is like a Beraisa teaches, that bracelets and nose-rings are like other Kelim that Melachtam l'Isur. One may take them l'Tzorech Gufan;

Since there is no Isur to move them, obviously there is no Isur of an ornament, since it is not made for an ornament, rather, like a mere piece of wood made to stamp seals.

Answer #2 (to Question (a) - R. Tam): Both of them [R. Yehudah Nesi'ah and the man who covered it up] went out to Reshus ha'Rabim. R. Yehudah Nesi'ah took it on his fingers, and the man in his fist. If it were permitted to move it, one could adorn himself with it in Reshus ha'Rabim, for it is an ornament, and it is not applicable to decree regarding a man lest he take it off to show it (men do not normally do so);

Therefore, [Ula] needed to bring a proof only about moving it, that it is not considered like a mere piece of metal or wood.

Question #1 (Ri): He could have deduced this from the Mishnah in Shabbos (57a), which teaches that a ring without a stamp, [a woman] may not go out with. If she went out with it, she is not Chayeves Chatas. This shows that it is considered proper for an ornament.

Question #2: The words "he went out [with]" do not connote in his fist.

Reference: A Beraisa in Bechoros (30a) explicitly teaches like this. One who is suspected about one matter is suspected about the entire Torah. R. Meir says so.

Question: In Sanhedrin (27a), regarding the argument of Abaye and Rava of one who eats Neveilos to anger [Hash-m], and Rava said that he is Kosher, [the Gemara] wanted to establish Rava like R. Yosi, who says that one who was Huzam (it was found that he testified about something he was not present to see) in a monetary case is Kosher for capital cases;

It answers that Rava is even like R. Meir, who says that an Ed Zomem is Pasul for [testimony about] anything in Torah. R. Meir said so only there, regarding a monetary Ed Zomem, for he is evil to Hash-m and to people. However, here (one who eats Neveilos to anger Hash-m), he is evil to Hash-m, but not to people.

Inference: R. Meir does not hold that one who is suspected about one Isur is suspected about the entire Torah, according to Rava, who does not say from light to severe (one who is suspected about a light matter is suspected about a severe matter). He says so only about a monetary Ed Zomem, who is evil to Hash-m and to people.

However, according to Abaye there it is fine, and we hold like him.

Answer: Even according to Rava, one who is suspected about one matter, that he is evil to Hash-m but not to people, is suspected about the entire Torah for such matters, that he is evil to Hash-m but not to people, even from light to severe;

And one who is suspected about one matter, that he is evil to Hash-m and evil to people, he is suspected about the entire Torah, even what is evil to Hash-m and evil to people.

Source: He is a guest by them. R. Chananel explained that the Yerushalmi says that a guest never forbids.

Rebuttal (Ri): There does not resemble here at all. There, it discusses one who comes to live in the Mavuy to be a guest, and not to fix himself there;

Citation (Yerushalmi): Some teach that a [Nochri] officer forbids immediately, and a [Nochri] guest forbids after 30 [days], and some teach that an officer forbids after 30, and a guest never forbids;

The one who says that an officer forbids immediately, this is when he is regular [in the Chatzer]. A guest forbids after 30 when he is not regular;

The one who says that an officer forbids after 30, this is when he enters with permission. A guest never forbids, when he enters without permission.