Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the "Chaveirim" (as referred to in our Gemara) were Persian.

Question #1: It appears to me that the Persians were in Babylon during the times of Koresh, as explained by Rashi in Gitin (17a). The Chaveirim only came to Babylon during the times of Rebbi Yochanan, as stated in Yevamos (63b, indicating they are not Persian).

Question #2: Additionally, we say in Kidushin (72a) that when Rebbi asked Levi to explain what Persians look like, he said they look like the soldiers of the house of Dovid. When he asked Levi to explain what Chaveirim look like, he said they look like destructive angels. This implies that Chaveirim are not Persians.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Gitin (17a) says that a Chaver came and took away the candle from before them. Rabah bar bar Chanah said (as a prayer to Hash-m), "Rachmana (a name of Hash-m)! Either put us under Your shade, or under the shade of the descendants of Eisav!"

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara continues to ask, this implies that the Edomites are better than the Persians. Doesn't the Beraisa say, "Elokim understands its way etc." means that Hash-m knew that Bnei Yisrael could not tolerate being under the many decress of the wicked (descendants of) Eisav, and he therefore had Bnei Yisrael exiled to Babylon? (This implies that the Chaveirim were Persians!)

Answer: This was not because the Chaverim were Persians. Rather, the Persians were the main people in Babylon, and the Chaveirim amongst them were under them (and therefore the Jews did not have to worry about the Chaveirim in Babylon).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara there continues by answering that before the Chaveirim came to Bavel the Persians were better than the Romans.

Answer (cont.): When Rabah bar bar Chanah said, "Either put us under Your shade, or under the shade of the descendants of Eisav!" it was after the Chaveirim had already come to Babylon during the times of Rebbi Yochanan, as is apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (63b) that says the Chaveirim caused the Persians to become wicked, as the Romans were better than the Persians.

Explanation #2: Rashi (ibid.) explains that the Chaveirim, who were Persians, came to Babylon during the times of Koresh. However, I maintain my explanation, as the Chaveirim came to Babylon during the time of Rebbi Yochanan while the Persians came during the times of Koresh. This is as it is apparent in Kidushin that they (Persians and Chaveirim) are not the same nation.

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Yaakov from Korvil (Bach's text: from Paris) explains that the Chaveirim were Persian priests (see Bach) who looked like angels of destruction because they wore wide black clothes. The priest took the candle away (Gitin 17a) in order to bring it to his idol (as they served their fire god, see Ya'avetz). (According to Rabeinu Yaakov, it is possible that this cult only arrived in Persia and started having Persian members in the times of Rebbi Yochanan.)

Implied Question: Rebbi Zeira said to Rebbi Yirmiyah, "One who removes his ear from hearing words of Torah etc." (Why would he say this if Rebbi Yirmiyah was following this Halachah?)

Answer #1: Rebbi Yirmiyah's "profession" was learning Torah (and therefore our Gemara would agree he should not stop to pray).

Answer #2: Alternatively, he still had plenty of time to pray.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (33b) says that when it was time to pray, he would get dressed, cover himself, and pray. (This shows Rebbi Shimon did Daven!)

Answer: This only refers to Kriyas Shema (not Davening).

Explanation: This was in order that the time of the Moadim (festivals) should not be ruined.

Explanation: According to Rabah who says that we do not make a decree due to another decree, we cannot explain that we are worried he will forget the needle.

Proof: Even if he will forget it (is there and he carries it) he will not transgress a Torah prohibition, as it is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Kama (26b) that if he recognized it and then forgot about it he will be exempt from transgressing a Torah prohibition on Shabbos, as the Torah only forbade a Meleches Machasheves.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, the suspicion is that he might forget to put down the needle before Shabbos, and when he remembers that he has the needle he will forget that it is Shabbos, and carry it in a forbidden fashion.

Observation: In Eiruvin (99a), the Gemara understands that it is referring to when the person needs what is in the other domain, and therefore everyone agrees we should decree it is forbidden. This means that even the Rabbanan who say that a person can stand in the public domain and carry in the private domain will agree here that since this person needs to drink, we should suspect that he will bring the drink into his domain.

Question: Why, then, should it make a difference if he puts his head and most of his body into the other domain? He is still taking from the private domain to the public domain, as the water he is taking from the private domain is coming to rest in his stomach which is in the public domain! The Gemara (ibid) clearly states that if one urinates or spits (from domain to domain) he is liable to bring a Chatas.

Answer #1: When he swallows it, it is now considered put down (by his throat, which in the private domain). We do not have to worry about the fact that the water goes into his stomach.

Proof #1: This is as the Gemara says later (80a) that if he took out an amount of ink that was enough to write two letters and he wrote them while walking, he is liable. This is because the act of writing is considered putting down (even though he did not stop walking).

Proof #2: Accordingly, the Mishnah in Kerisus (13b) is now understandable. The Gemara says that it is possible for a person to eat something and be liable to bring four Korbanos Chatas and one Asham. Rebbi Meir says that if it was Shabbos and he carried this food with his mouth, he is liable for Shabbos as well. How can Rebbi Meir list this as an added prohibition of carrying on Shabbos if the person is not liable (when he swallows, but rather) until it rests in his stomach, unlike the other prohibitions where he is liable when he swallows?

Proof #2 (cont.): Rather, he must be liable for carrying when he swallows, as I have explained.

Answer #2: Rashi gives a different answer to this question in Eiruvin (99b). I explained this more in Eiruvin (20a).

Opinion: It appears that even though the law follows Rebbi Meir's decrees, regarding this decree that a person cannot stand in the public domain and carry in the private domain or visa versa we do not rule like his decree. Rather we rule like the Rabbanan who say this is permitted.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (98b) that says that when Rebbi Chanina bar Shalmaya said this decree of Rebbi Meir before Chiya bar Rav in front of Rav, he was told, "You leave the words of the Rabbanan and do like Rebbi Meir?!"

Explanation: Abaye only holds that we make a decree due to another decree regarding carrying. This is why all of these proofs are from carrying. However, Abaye generally does not hold that we make a decree due to another decree.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Beitzah (3a) where Abaye asks on the opinion that decrees that an egg born on Yom Tov is forbidden due to fruit that falls off a tree on Yom Tov, "This itself is a decree, and are we going to make a decree due to another decree?!"

Explanation: Even though a vessel is not a Karmelis, since this press is attached to the ground it is not considered a vessel.

Implied Question: The Mishnah later (62a) says that if a woman goes out with a (sewing) needle that has a hole she is liable to bring a Chatas. (Why is the tailor exempt from a Chatas?)

Answer: It is perfectly normal for a woman to carry the needle in this fashion (stuck into her clothing, as opposed to it being abnormal for a tailor to carry his needle in this fashion).

Proof: Similarly, regarding Rebbi Meir's statement (Kerisus 13a) that if he forgot and carried the food in his mouth he is liable, it is clearly normal to take food out in one's mouth (or at least it was back then).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that this is the normal way to carry it. (If so, why isn't he liable according to Torah law?)

Answer: Since the reason it is normal is only because he wants to make sure his clothes don't get dirty, it is not considered a normal way of carrying.

Explanation: The Gemara says that this is apparent from a person who turns over a vessel in order to protect a wall from being stricken. The resulting water that goes onto fruit is not considered "Ki Yutan" (i.e. wanted by the owner, and therefore causing the fruit it lands on to be able to become impure), even though he wants the water to fall far away from the wall as is apparent from his placement of the vessel. However, because this was only done in order to prevent the wall becoming dirty (i.e. ruined), it is not considered his convenience regarding enabling the fruit to become impure. Similarly, this is not considered normal carrying.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara continues to ask that in the case of the wall, he does not want the water at all. In this situation, he wants the bag in order for it to accept the flow. If one wants something to accept the water in order to save something else from damage it would be called wanting the water, as is apparent from the second part of the Mishnah (Machshirin 4:3).

Explanation (cont.): Just as these are called liquids that are accepted (and wanted), even though the bucket is just preventing damage, because he wants the bucket to accept them, so too the bag that accepts the flow in order to save him from being soiled should be considered a normal process of carrying.