1)

(a)Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa declares Patur someone who carries out a live animal or bird into the Reshus ha'Rabim. The Rabbanan rule - that he is Chayav.

(b)Rava reconciles the Rabbanan with our Mishnah (which exempts a person who carries out a live person on a stretcher from a Chatas) - by differentiating between an animal (which does not carry itself) and a human being, which does).

2)

(a)Rav Ada bar Ahavah cites a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah, where ben Beseira permits the sale of a horse to a gentile (even though selling him a cow is forbidden) - because whereas with a cow one performs Melachah d'Oraysa, with a horse (which is used mainly to transport people), one performs a Melachah de'Rabbanan (since people carry much of their own weight).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan equates ben Beseira with Rebbi Nasan. The problem then is why he does not also incorporate the Rabbanan, who, we just explained, also agree that carrying a person is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c)And we resolve it - by establishing Rebbi Yochanan by a horse that is designated to carry birds (but not people), whereas Rebbi Nasan and ben Beseira are talking about a horse which is designated for riding.

(d)There is indeed such a thing as a horse that is designated to carry birds - by people who go bird-hunting and who take with them hawks and such-like to catch them.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Nasan concedes to the Rabbanan, that a live person or bird does not carry its own weight - if it is bound.

(b)Rav Ada bar Masna asks on this from the Persians - who were extremely spoilt (elsewhere they are described as being extremely corpulent), and were virtually unable to walk.

(c)Yet ben Beseira permits the sale of a horse to any gentile, even to a Persian, who, it seems, are unable to carry his own weight - a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(d)And we reply that they may well have been extremely spoilt. However, the impression that they were too fat to walk (in which case, they would certainly not have been able to bear their own weight) - was merely an illusion. When it came to the crunch, they were perfectly capable of moving swiftly, and the impression of being too cumbersome to walk, was the result of pride, and not of weight, as we see from the officer who incurred the king's wrath, and who subsequently ran three Parsah (twelve Mil [a Mil = a Kilometer]) to escape.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are both quoted as saying that Rebbi Shimon exempts even someone who carries out a corpse in order to bury it - even though, unlike someone who carries it out in order to remove the Tum'ah, he is transporting it for the sake of the corpse. And the reason that he is Patur is because he personally derives no benefit from the Melachah. Nor does the fact that he has performed a Mitzvah render it a 'Melachah she'Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

(b)If not for Rava - who informs us that Rebbi Shimon concedes that someone who carries out a spade to dig or a Sefer-Torah to read from falls under the category of 'Melachah she'Tzerichah le'Gufah' - we would have thought that this too, is considered a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', and it is only considered a 'Melachah she Tzerichah le'Gufah' if one carries it out both for his own needs and for the needs of the article (i.e. a spade to dig and to repair, or a Sefer-Torah to correct and to read from).

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan, brother of Mar Brei de'Ravana objected to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's removal of a corpse to a Karmelis - on the grounds that, even Rebbi Shimon, who holds that a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah is not Chayav, concedes that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan?

(b)But Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak responded - that, on the contrary, he permitted it even according to Rebbi Yehudah, since carrying in a Karmelis is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan did not decree in face of Kavod ha'Beri'os ...

(c)which it was because it speaks when the corpse had been lying in the path of an approaching fire or in the sun).

(d)He did not cite Muktzah (which is also mi'de'Rabbanan) as the Isur which is waved in face of Kavod ha'Beri'os - since by placing a loaf of bread or a child on the corpse, it would have been permitted to carry it out of the house anyway.

(e)The only Torah La'av that Kavod ha'Beri'os overrides is - that of "Lo Sasur" (Shoftim), which is basically a La'av that reinforces all Mitzvos de'Rabbanan.

6)

(a)The La'av of "Hishamer be'Nega ha'Tzara'as" incorporates - removing any of the signs of Tzara'as, or burning the healthy flesh that appears in the middle of a mark of Tzara'as - (which is also a sign of Tum'ah).

(b)According to Rav Nachman, one is Chayav for removing one of three hairs of Tzara'as (despite the fact that two hairs remain) - because of the possibility of one of the other two hairs falling out, in which case he would still have been Tamei, but now, as a result of what he did, he will be Tahor.

(c)Rav Sheshes holds - that, as long as two hairs remain, he is Patur for removing any excess hairs.

(d)To reconcile our Mishnah, which obligates only someone who carries out a full k'Zayis (but not half) into the street, with the Beraisa, which obligates him even if he carries out half a k'Zayis ...

1. ... Rav Sheshes will establish the former in a case - where there are one and a half k'Zeisim, and he will be Patur because one full k'Zayis remains; and the latter, where there is only one k'Zayis, in which case carrying out the half k'Zayis is effective in breaking the Shi'ur Tum'ah.

2. ... Rav Nachman will establish the Beraisa even when there are one and a half k'Zeisim; whereas our Mishnah speaks when there is an entire corpse there, besides the half k'Zayis, in which case, carrying out the half k'Zayis will not achieve anything at all.

7)

(a)According to the Chachamim in our Mishnah, one is Patur for cutting one's nails using one's hands or teeth, and similarly, for pulling out one's hair in this manner - and they draw the same distinction regarding a woman plaiting her hair or painting her eyes.

(b)Some translate 'Pokeses' as combing one's hair (see Tosfos DH 'Pokeses'). According to others, it means - making a face-pack of twined strands of dough.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer holds - that all the above cases are Chayav.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das) states that even the Rabbanan will concede that someone who cuts his nails or his hair in a conventional manner - is Chayav.

(b)He needed to tell us this because we would otherwise have thought - that the Mishnah only says 'with the hands or with the teeth', to teach us the extent of Rebbi Eliezer's opinion - that even there, he holds that one is Chayav (but the Rabbanan will perhaps, not differentiate, and absolve him from Chiyuv in all cases).

(c)Likewise, we might have thought that the Mishnah only uses the expression 'Tzipornav' - to demonstrate how far the Rabbanan go - that even there, they hold Patur (but Rebbi Eliezer perhaps, will not differentiate, and declare him Chayav in all cases). Therefore, Rebbi Elazar needed to inform us that Rebbi Eliezer will concedes here, that he is Patur.

9)

(a)The Beraisa gives the Shi'ur of cutting hair on Shabbos as two hairs, which Rav Yehudah gives - as two hairs.

(b)To reconcile this with the words 'u'le'Korchah Shetayim' mentioned in the very same Beraisa (implying that the Shiur for Shabbos is even one hair) - we amends the latter to read 've'Chein le'Korchah, Shetayim', thereby concurring, rather than clashing, with the Shiur of two hairs given by the first Beraisa.

(c)'u'le'Korchah Shetayim' means - that someone who cuts two hairs as a sign of mourning for a dead person, has transgressed the La'av (in Re'ei) of "ve'Lo Sasimu Korchah Bein Einechem le'Meis".

(d)The Shi'ur for cutting hair on Shabbos according to Rebbi Eliezer, is - even one hair.

(e)We learn from ...

1. ... "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah", that it is forbidden for a man to cut even one white hair that is growing among the black hairs (since this is something that women tend to do).

2. ... this that since there is an Isur of cutting even one white hair because of "Lo Yilbash", the same Shi'ur will apply to Shabbos, too (based on the principle of 'Migu').

10)

(a)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa states that one is Chayav for cutting off a nail or a strand of flesh that is mostly detached, with scissors, but that one is permitted to do so using one's hands. We object to his latter ruling - because we have a principle that whatever is Chayav Kares for using an implement, is at least Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, if performed with the hands.

(b)To resolve this difficulty, we therefore amend the Beraisa to read 'Parshu Ruban, be'Yad Mutar, bi'Cheli, Patur Aval Asur'.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabah bar bar Chanah in his name - confines Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's statement (regarding the strand of flesh) to when the mostly detached skin is on the top of the finger towards the nail (see Tosfos DH 've'Hu'), because there it is more painful (which is why the Chachamim permitted it le'Chatchilah using one's hands).

11)

(a)Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina initially gives the Chiyuv of 'Godeles (according to R. Eliezer in our Mishnah) as Oreg (weaving), and Kocheles as Kosev. He considers the Chiyuv of Pokeses to be - Toveh (spinning).

(b)Rebbi Avahu rejects this however - on the grounds that this is not the way that one normally weaves, writes and spins, in this they might be Patur Aval Asur, but not Chayav.

(c)So, quoting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, he gives the Chiyuv of ...

1. ... Kocheles as - Tzovei'a (dyeing).

2. ... Godeles and Pokeses as - Binyan.