Explanation: Rashi explains that from the mountains of Amnon and inwards is referring to an area towards the south of Eretz Yisrael. The area outwards is going towards the north of Chutz la'Aretz.

Question: This is difficult to the Ri. If so, why did Rebbi Yehudah cite Kaflurya? He should have said that we look as if a string was stretched from the mountains of Amnon to the ocean, being that the Tana Kama was also describing the northern border of Eretz Yisrael..

Opinion: The Ri understands that the mountains of Amnon slant down towards both the east and the west. The peak of the mountain is the western border of Eretz Yisrael. The islands are looked at as if they have a string pulled taut from the mountains of Amnon. This means that the string is pulled taut from the peak of the mountain until Nachal Mitzrayim. When Rebbi Yehudah mentions Kaflurya, he does so in order to have a way to determine the border of the islands in the north of Eretz Yisrael (see Maharam Shif at length).

It appears that the Pasuk caused Rashi to give his explanation. This is because the Pasuk states, "And this will be for you the northern border, from the Mediterranean you should go towards Hor Ha'Har" (Bamidbar 34:7). The Targum translates "Hor Ha'Har" as the mountains of Amnon. This implies that the Torah is describing the northern border.

However, it is possible that that the mountain is in the northwest corner of Eretz Yisrael, while its slant is towards the east.

Question: Rabeinu Peter asked Rabeinu Tam that nowadays, it would seem that according to Rebbi Yehudah we should have to take off Ma'aser, as we are to the west of Eretz Yisrael!

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that we do not rule like Rebbi Yehudah.

Question: Is it possible that Rebbi Yehudah was familiar with all of the lands until the ocean, that they were all experts in writing a Get Lishmah or that they always had witnesses who could verify a Get, and (he would codify) therefore that b'Fanay Nechtav etc. did not have to be said?

Answer #1: It is therefore possible to answer that the people who went up from Bavel did not capture all of this land. (Note: Only the land they captured when they came back was considered part of Eretz Yisrael.)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it could be as Rashi explained that when Rebbi Yehudah says, "everything opposite Eretz Yisrael," he only means the ocean opposite Eretz Yisrael. He is not referring to the land opposite Eretz Yisrael, but rather the islands in the (Great) ocean. This is as the Pasuk states, "Until the Great Ocean where the sun arrives will be your boundary" (Yehoshua 1:4).

The Pasuk states, "And I will put your borders from the Sea of Reeds until the Philistine Ocean, and from the desert until the river" (Shemos 23:31). This means that the Sea of Reeds in the south, the Philistine Ocean in the west, the desert in the east, and the River Pras in the north (are your borders).

Answer #3: Alternatively, he (Rebbi Yehudah) indeed knew that everyone in this area was learned in writing Gitin. This is because they knew where Jews settled, and that from there on there were no Jews. This is as stated in Menachos (110a) that from Tzur westward and Cartigni eastward, they do not know about Jews nor about their Father in Heaven.

Implied Question: One should not say that while the Gemara knows that Syria is like Chutz la'Aretz regarding Gitin, as stated nearby, it was unsure whether it is considered like Chutz la'Aretz regarding this law concerning slaves. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: If so, this would make the logic of the questioners in our Gemara the opposite of what was obvious to Rebbi Chiya bar Abba (and we have no reason to think the educated questioners were far off in their assumption).

Implied Question: The Beraisa states "Sheloshah" - "three" in its male form, even though Surya is in a female form. (Note: Why? Usually the number discussed should match the form of what is being discussed!)

Answer: This is because the term "Eved" - "slave" and "Get" are male (and they are also being discussed).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that not all of Bnei Yisrael were there together like they were during the conquest led by Yehoshua, when it was captured for everyone's needs. However, David only captured it for his needs.

Explanation #2: However, the Sifri gives a different answer at the end of Parshas Eikev. All of Eretz Yisrael was not yet captured at this point, as it was told to David, "You have not yet captured your palace." This referred to the Yevusi who lived near Yerushalayim. "And you go and capture Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah!"

However, after they captured all of Eretz Yisrael they captured it (Aram Tzovah etc. according to this opinion that it is deemed a Kibush). This is extrapolated from the Pasuk, "Every place that your feet will step etc. (will be for you)" (Devarim 11:24). This means that every place that was captured in Chutz la'Aretz became sanctified, even if it was captured by an individual.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is as opposed to entering other places in Chutz la'Aretz. This statement is authored by Rebbi (see below).

It appears that he wants to explain going into these boxes literally (that one could successfully go to Surya and avoid the impurity if carried in such a box). This is why he cannot say this statement is authored by Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, as he would say that a person remains pure if he does this even he was brought into the rest of Chutz la'Aretz.

Implied Question: He did not need to give this explanation. It must be that the statement about going into these boxes is not literal, and this phraseology was only used because it was also used in the Beraisa. The same law would apply if one would go into Surya with a horse, as Rebbi holds that a thrown tent is not considered a tent, as Rashi explained. This is also clear from the fact that the Gemara concludes that there was no decree made on the air of Surya.

Explanation #2: If all of the above is correct, this Beraisa can also be according to Rebbi Yosi. Someone who wants to enter Surya and remain pure can do so in a wagon or riding on a horse, as opposed to doing so in the rest of Chutz la'Aretz.

This is also implied by the terminology that "even Rebbi would not rule impure etc.," implying that the Beraisa previously can be presumed to be like Rebbi Yosi (and even like Rebbi).

However, it must be that the Beraisa is only consistent with Rebbi Yosi because of the same reasoning that the Gemara concludes fits the opinion of Rebbi, that only in Chutz la'Aretz where there was a decree regarding its land and earth etc. (but there was no decree regarding Surya).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Nazir (54b) asks whether the rest of Chutz la'Aretz was decreed to cause impurity because of the land or because of the air. (Note: Why does the Gemara ask this question when our Gemara apparently gives an answer?)

Answer: This is the explanation of the Gemara there. Is it because of the land of Eretz Yisrael, meaning is it because the person is hovering over the land, and the Chachamim therefore applied to him the same law as one who is hovering over a dead person. He can therefore go in to this area in a box (as he is not hovering over the ground in any manner. Or did they decree that the air itself is impure, and he therefore cannot go in at all?

Our Gemara is discussing the earth, meaning touching the earth. When it presents the possibility that the air makes one impure, it refers to either one hovering over the earth or the air itself. (Note: Being that the "air" here could mean only when someone is hovering over the earth, the Gemara in Nazir (54b) is still unclear if even someone who is in the airspace but not hovering over the earth is still included.)

Question: Rebbi Yakov mei'Orleans asked that in Ohalos (2:3) the Mishnah states a list of things that impart impurity when they are touched and carried, but do not impart impurity through being in the same airspace. The list includes a barleycorn of bone and Chutz la'Aretz.

Answer #1: He answered that the Mishnah there is discussing earth that comes from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, and one who hovers over it. He does not become impure, because they only made this decree because of the air of the land itself, not because he is hovering over earth from this land.

Implied Question: The term "land of the nations (Chutz la'Aretz)" does not imply this case (as interpreted by Rebbi Yakov mei'Orleans).

Answer #2: It is possible to answer that the case is where there is a long board or bridge, with one side in Eretz Yisrael and the other side in Chutz la'Aretz. There are vessels under the side that is in Eretz Yisrael. The Mishnah would be saying that this does not cause the impurity to spread under the entire bridge or board and thereby impart impurity to these vessels, but rather they remain pure.

Answer #3: Alterntively, if the decree was because of someone hovering over the earth, it is possible that this is according to Rebbi Shimon who is of the opinion that graves of Nochrim do not impart Tumas Ohel. Therefore, it is understandable that the Chachamim were not more stringent on the general impurity of Chutz la'Aretz than actual graves of Nochrim.

Answer #4: Rabeinu Tam further answered that this Mishnah in Ohalos (2:3) may have been authored before they made this decree. This (the fact that the decree indeed happened in stages) is supported by the Gemara in Shabbos (15b) that says that originally the decree only involved touching ground of Chutz la'Aretz, not Tumas Ohel.

Observation: However, we would not permit telling a Nochri to perform a Melachah in order to perform a different Mitzvah.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (68a) that says that a child who had his hot water (that was prepared for him for after his Bris Milah on Shabbos) thrown out. They asked Rava what to do. He replied that they should ask the infant's mother if she needed hot water, and if she did they could prepare extra for the infant.

It seems that this incident occurred on the day of the Bris Milah. They needed to heat up the water in order to give him a Bris. It was also obviously before they did the Bris, as if it was after the Bris than the child himself would be deemed in danger, and even without his mother (needing hot water) we would allow a Nochri to perform Melachah for him, as Rashi explains there.

The Rach also gave this explanation. This is supported in Shabbos (129a), that a woman who is only seven to thirty days after birth, even if she says that she needs something we do not desecrate Shabbos for her (see below).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos later asks, "Until when is the grave open (a reference to the womb)? Abaye says three days, Rava in the name of Rav Yehudah says seven days, and some say he said thirty days. (Note: This implies that it is possible that a woman after birth should still be considered someone we desecrate Shabbos for up until thirty days.)

Answer: This Gemara was not discussing up until when do we desecrate Shabbos for her. Rather, each person was saying something else and they do not argue on each other. They all agree with the opinion of Nehardai that says that there are three different levels of a woman after birth: when she is three days (whether she says she needs or not), seven days (only if she says she needs), and thirty days after birth (only through a Nochri, see Shabbos 129a).

It is difficult to say that this seven days must be seven periods of twenty-four hours, and that this incident occurred within this period.

Implied Question: Earlier, the Gemara discussed a different child who had his hot water spilled out (on the day of his Bris), and Rabah said that water should be brought from his house. The Gemara there says that the water was brought by a Nochri. (Note: We therefore see that one can tell a Nochri to desecrate Shabbos for this mitzvah, unlike Tosfos' statement above (a). How is this permitted according to Tosfos?)

Answer: Certainly a Rabbinic prohibition is permitted when carrying from a courtyard where an Eiruv Chatzeiros was not made, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of Bris Milah. However, a Torah prohibition, such as actually heating up water on Shabbos, would be permitted (and cannot even be done by a Nochri).

Implied Question: One should not derive from here a leniency to tell a Nochri to bring a Sefer on Shabbos through a Karmelis (loosely defined as a Rabbinic "Reshus ha'Rabim" - "public domain).

Answer: This is not comparable (to the leniency stated above). They only permitted this (telling the Nochri to bring the water through the courtyard that did not have an Eiruv Chatzeiros) because of Milah, which itself pushes aside Shabbos (though it involves desecrating Shabbos it is permitted on Shabbos).

Opinion: However, the Bahag implies that even a Torah prohibition would be permitted through a Nochri for Milah. This is implied by his stating that the case was that the Nochrin would bring the water from a house through a Reshus ha'Rabim. (Note: This is unlike Tosfos' explanation above, that the carrying was only a Rabbinic prohibition of carrying even before the Nochri was involved.)

Accordingly, when the Gemara says that he should have extra water heated up for him due to his mother (who is permitted to have water heated for her), it means within seven days. This is during the time period when if she demands that we do something for her (health) that involves Chilul Shabbos, that we do so.

Observation: It appears that it is not possible to say that a Jew should warm up the water. This is because it would be forbidden for a Jew to add more water for this child, as stated in Chulin (40b). The Gemara there states that if someone cooks for a sick person on Shabbos (when permitted), it is forbidden for a healthy person to eat from the food, as we suspect that a person might purposely add more food to the amount he is cooking for the sick person. However, it is permitted for a Nochri to add more.

It is possible that specifically for Milah it is permitted, but for another purpose it would be forbidden to add even through a Nochri.

Implied Question: The Mishnah is Beitzah (21b) says that a person should not heat water for his feet unless they are worthy to be drunk. The Gemara in Beitzah (17a) also states that a woman can fill up a pot of meat even though she does not need more than one piece. Similarly, a baker can fill up a pot of water to cook, even though he only needs one pitcher of water.

Answer: Due to the fact that there is a Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov, the Chachamim allowed people to make more (than they actually needed).

Implied Question: Why did Abaye retract?

Answer: It was not because of Rava's question. Abaye does not hold that his question was difficult, as he does hold that one splits such a statement. This is why he does not answer Rava's question.

Rather, it appeared to be more logical to him that he does not acquire both, as the owner of the document has the weaker status.