Daf 2

1) You need to search for Chametz the night of the fourteenth. [Rashi explains: so that they shouldn't come to transgress the prohibition of Baal Yirah U'baal Yimatzei (that Chametz shouldn't be found by you). Tosfos asks: since by just expressing Bitul (that you don't consider the Chametz to be anything) will make it not possible to transgress Baal Yirah U'baal Yimatzei, why do you need to search the premiss along with a Bitul? Therefore, The Ri explains the reason that you must search and destroy: so that you shouldn't find it during Pesach and eat it. The reason why they needed to enact to destroy Chametz more than any other item that's forbidden to have pleasure from, since we have a bigger reason to worry by Chametz that he'll partake from it, since it's permitted the rest of the year. (See Mahrsha) The reason we don't have the same worry by items you make an oath not to partake pleasure from and obligate its destruction: since others can have pleasure from it.

Alternatively, Tosfos answers: we're more worried by Chametz since it's a stringent prohibition that you transgress Baal Yirah U'baal Yimatze by having it, they obligate to search and destroy it. The Rashba says: however, we're even more stringent by hard Chametz (Chametz Nuksha), and also a mixture of Chametz, that you don't transgress Baal Yirah U'baal Yimatzei, as the Mishna says in the beginning of the third Perek. This is also despite the fact that it's even permitted after Yom Tov even according to R' Yehuda who says that regular Chametz that was owned by a Jew over Pesach is forbidden after Pesach from the Torah.]

2) Always, someone should come into a city, and leave a city, by day (i.e., only travel by day, but shouldn't be traveling by night).[Tosfos explains: even when leaving you're own city (where you know where all the holes are in the ground and you know how to avoid them); still, you need to worry about Sheidim. Therefore, this only applies when traveling alone, but with a group, you don't need to worry about Sheidim. However, even so, you shouldn't leave an unfamiliar city at night with many people, since you don't know where the holes in the ground are.]

3) We Paskin that it's not night until Tzeis Hakochavim. [Tosfos says: that, which we are stringent during Bein Hashmashes, since we don't know exactly when Tzeis Hakochavim starts. After all, we need a certain size of star, as the Gemara says, not the large ones that can be seen by day, and not the small ones that can't be seen until later in the night, but just middle size ones, and we don't know what that is exactly.]

4) If someone makes an oath not to receive pleasure from 'light,' the starlight is included, as the Pasuk says "light from stars." [Tosfos explains; although we usually don't pay attention to the terminologies of P'sukim regarding oaths; that's only when people's speech contradict the way the Torah refers to it. However, when we don't have examples from people's speech to contradict the Torah's terminology, we follow the Torah's definition of words.]

5) [Tosfos explains; If a father is digging a tunnel into his son's house (to rob him)] you can't kill him (since he's not a threat to life) unless the son is sure that he hates him enough to kill him. [ this is because we assume a father has mercy on his son. However, this is not true by a son on his father, and of course, not with strangers. Therefore, you have a right to kill him as long as you're not sure that he has mercy on you.]

6) From when is it forbidden you do Melacha on the morning Erev Pesach [Rashi: those who are accustomed to do so. However, Tosfos says that it's only according to those who hold that you can't Halachicially do Melacha at that time, and not only those who do it as a custom, as the Gemara says later that, if it's only for a custom, just see how they're accustomed. Also, it doesn't fit the term 'forbidden' for a custom.]; R' Elazar b. Yaakov says from the time of light (i.e., either from the beginning of the night, or by dawn). R' Yehuda says: from sunrise. Even though, according to him, it starts in middle of the day, but we see other enactments that start in middle of the day, like that you can't eat Chametz after a few hours of that day. However, R' Elazar b. Yaakov held, since that's only because we're giving some buffer area for the Torah Issur (and thus, we only need a few hours in middle of the day for that buffer). However, we don't find that there is a free standing enactment that starts in middle of a day. [Tosfos explains; unless there is an obvious reason, like we say not to eat from Mincha until night on Erev Pesach so that you'll enter Pesach with an appetite.]

Daf 3

7) You should not allow inappropriate language to leave your lips. After all, there was a Kohain who said that he received a portion of the Lechem Hapanim the size of a lizard's tail; so they inspected him and found him to have an invalidity [Rashi; that he was a Chalal and invalid to Kehuna. Tosfos quoting R' Chananel: he served idols, which invalidates him to ever serve in the Mikdash.] Although we usually have the rule that we never inspect someone who was already working on the Mizbeach (since we assume that everything was cleared that he has the proper Yichus); we must say that they didn't inspect for Yichus, but they found him invalid because he was haughty while treating Kodshim and disgraced it, and wasn't worthy to serve in the Mikdash. Alternatively, although usually you don't inspect, however, it calls for it in this case since he caused some suspicion on himself by saying something inappropriate.

8) You need to harvest grapes while your Tahor (despite not having anything obvious that made it Muchsher to be susceptible to Tumah), but not olives. [Tosfos explains: since you might harvest in watertight baskets (that are treated with pitch) and when the grapes' juice leaks a little, it won't go to waste, so it Machshurs. Alternatively, you might break open a grape in the vineyard earlier to see if they're ready to harvest, and when you eventually harvest, it might be still moist with the above juice that sprinkled on it, and will Machshur it. However, those reasons are not applicable to olives, since the original leaked liquid from olives don't have the status of oil, and it doesn't Machsher. Also, it's not regular to break an olive to see if they're ready to harvest, since the liquid that comes out won't be like oil.]

9) [Tosfos says: someone who we don't know to be a non-Jew is believed when he comes and says that he's a Jew. Even if he claims to be a convert, he's believed. After all, he has a MIgo that he could have claimed to be a Jew from birth and he would have been believed.]

10) [Tosfos says: R' Yehuda b. Besiera didn't go to Yerushalayim for the Regel or to bring his Korban Pesach, since you're only obligated if you own land, and he didn't. Alternatively, since he couldn't walk up the temple mount. Just like he's exempt from Olah Regel, he's exempt from a Korban Pesach. Alternatively, since he lived in Chutz L'aretz, he's exempt from going to Yerushalayim to bring his Korban Pesach.]

Daf 4

11) An Avel is forbidden to wear sandals, and if he hears about the death after thirty days, he only has one day of Aveilos, and the smallest part of the day is like the whole day.

12) Even though Chametz is not forbidden until the sixth hour on the fourteenth, you still need to search the night before. It can't be because that we want people to be zealous to do Mitzvos, since that wouldn't obligate to do it earlier than the morning. Rather the reason is: since it's a time where people are found in their house, and light from a candle is beneficial. Therefore, rabbis shouldn't start learning that night until after the searching, or else the learning might stretch out for a long time and they won't come to do the searching.

13) If a house is rented; the obligation of searching is on the person who has the keys at the beginning of the night. Therefore, if the owner still has the keys, he needs to search. If he already gave over the keys to the renter, the renter needs to search. [Rashi explains: the renter acquires the apartment by being handed over the keys. Tosfos disagrees. After all, the Gemara says in Bava Kama that you only acquire through renting with money, a document, or with a Chazaka. Also, the Gemara says that handing over the keys is just giving permission to make the acquisition, but it's not the acquisition itself. Rather, Tosfos says; it's logical that the obligation to search is placed on the one who has the keys and can enter the house to search. Therefore, if the renter received the keys before the fourteenth, he needs to search for Chametz even though he didn't move in yet. However, this is only if the person wants to rent, but we definitely don't put the obligation on someone who's just holding the keys for the owner for safeguarding.]

14) This is not similar to the obligation of Mezuzos that it's always upon the renter, since the obligation of Mezuza is on the one who lives there. [Tosfos explains; even if the owner doesn't rent it out, he's exempt from a Mezuza as long as he doesn't live there.]

15) There's an unresolved inquiry if you rent a house on the night of the fourteenth and you don't know if it was already searched, and the renter is not anymore in town to ask if it was searched; could we assume it was searched, or not.

16) We can't bring a proof from the Braisa that says that women, slaves and minors are believed to say that a house was already searched, implying that without their words, we would assume that the house wasn't searched. After all, we can say that the case refers to one that, according to the circumstance, we know that it wasn't originally searched, that these people are believed to say that it was eventually searched. However, by a regular case, you can assume that it was searched.

17) The reason why we believe women, slaves and minors is because the searching of Chametz is only rabbinically obligated, since the Torah says it's enough to do Bitul. [Rashi explains: by Bitul Chametz, you're Yoitza doing Hashbatsa Chametz. After all, the Torah doesn't say you need to do Biur, but Hashbasa, implying that you do Hashbasa in your heart. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, the definition of Hashbasa is destroying the Chametz, and not just being Mevatel them. As R' Akiva says later: "the Pasuk says Hashbasa, and burning is an Av Melacha." Also, you're only obligated to do Hashbasa after the time that Chametz is forbidden, and, at that time, you're not allowed to Mevatel it. Rather, by Bitul, you're making it Hefker, which makes it no longer yours. Although we need to make something Hefker in front of three people; that's only a rabbinical requirement, but you don't need it from the Torah] Therefore, since it's only rabinically obligated, the rabbis say that you may believe women, slaves and minors. [Tosfos says: although we see in many places that women, slaves and minors are believed in what was in their hands to do, even if it's Torah obligated; searching for Chametz is different since it takes a lot of effort to do and women are lazy regarding these things, we don't consider it as if it's in her hands unless it's a rabbinical obligation.]

18) [Tosfos says: we only believe a minor by searching for Chametz, since it's in his hands. However, he's not believed to say where the T'chum ends since it's not in his hands. We only see that we believe him when he grows into an adult, although he only knew that fact when he was a minor.]

19) If you rent a house that was assumed that it was already searched, but it came out not to be true and it wasn't searched, [Tosfos quotes Rashba; this refers to renting on the thirteenth, because if it was rented on the fourteenth, then the owner will be the one who would be obligated to search for the Chametz]; Abaya says; not only can't you claim that it's a mistaken renting if it's a town that people search themselves, since people are happy to do a Mitzva with their own body; but also if it's in a town that they hire people to search, people are happy to spend money for a Mitzva.

Daf 5

20) Chametz is forbidden from the Torah by noon on the fourteenth, and there are many Drashos for this.

21) R' Akiva Darshens: since you need Hashbasa on the first day, and he explains that it can only be destroyed by burning which is a Melacha and can't be done on Yom Tov since it's an Av Melacha, so the "first day" must refer to the fourteenth, and not on the fifteenth. [Tosfos says; even though it should be permitted to do on Yom Tov, since after you burn it, the coals should be permitted to use (since you did the Mitzva to destroy it through burning) and you're burning fuel to cook on; since the Pasuk implies that you need to do it under all circumstances, even if you don't need the coals afterwards to cook on. Alternatively, since you can't have pleasure when you first light the Chametz, so it's not classified as being a Melacha to prepare food. It's similar to the fact that bringing voluntary Shlomim on Yom Tov is forbidden, although, eventually, people will eat the meat, since the original Melacha is only done for Hekdesh, and the eating just comes afterwards.]

22) We see that R' Akiva held that Biur Chametz is only burning, and he must hold that the Melacha of burning was written by its own Lav just to say that you must bring separate Chatos for doing many Melachos in one forgetting. [Rashi explains: for, if he held like the opinion that it's in order to say that it's only a Lav, and not stoning like all other Melachos, he wouldn't call it an Av Melacha. Tosfos adds another explanation: it wouldn't be forbidden on Yom Tov, since it's not included in regular Melachos (and there's not a special prohibition for Yom Tov like there is by Shabbos).] He must also not hold of the logic: once the Torah permits it for the need of food preparation, it's permitted for other needs (so it would be permitted to burn it to destroy the Chametz). [Tosfos explains: although you need to have some use for Yom Tov to permit, we would consider the need for doing a Mitzvah as a need for the day.]

23) If it only says Baal Yirah, I would say that it would be permitted to hide your Chametz, or to accept Chametz from a non-Jew to watch after it; so the Pasuk tells us Baal Yimatze in your house, that even those are forbidden. If it only said "Baal Yimatze in your house," I would say it's only forbidden in your house, but it's permitted if stored in a well; so the Pasuk says Baal Yirah in all your boundarys. We also learn that "Bal Yirah Licha," your Chametz is forbidden, but you can see the Chametz of non-Jews. We have a Gezeira Shava between Chametz and sourdough to say that the same rules that are by one is by the other.

24) You can't accept Chametz of non-Jews to watch even if they're not under your rule, but you can see their Chametz (without responsibilities to watch them), even if they're under your rule.

25) Although you may see non-Jew's Chametz, you may not watch over it and accept responsibility that you'll pay if it gets lost from the Pasuk Baal Yimatze. Not only do you need the Drasha for those who hold that things that cause you to pay money is not your money. Therefore, although the accepting responsibility makes the Chametz an item that can cause you to pay money, and regularly, it's not considered yours; but from the Gezeiras Hakasuv by Chametz, you'll transgress having Chametz. However, we need this Drasha even according to those who hold that it's his money. After all, I might think that you don't transgress it because, as long as the item is around, you return it as is, and it never caused money; so we have the Gezeiras Hakasuv to tell us otherwise.

Daf 6

26) Rava says, and this is also found in a Braisa: a Jew's animal that is designated by the king to give to his army; if it gives birth to a firstborn male, the child is a B'chor as long as the owner could pay off the army to keep the mother. However, if he doesn't have the power to pay off the army, the child isn't a B'chor. [Tosfos asks: we find the opposite Halacha by a case where a non-Jew gives his animal to a Jew to do business with. If the animal has a firstborn, it's not a B'chor even if the Jew has the right to keep the mother when he pays off the non-Jew, but since if he doesn't, the non-Jew will collect the animals for his share, we consider the animal as the non-Jew having a stake in it and is exempt from being a B'chor. Tosfos answers: there it originally belong to the non-Jew, so, it doesn't leave his possession since it's his to collect. However, here, the animal belongs to the Jew, so it doesn't leave his possession just because the non-Jewish army can claim it.]

27) A second version [according to Rashi's text]: that animal is exempt from B'chor even if the Jew can pay off the army for it. However, the dough that he needs to give the army is obligated in Challah even he can't pay off the army not to take it. That's because people don't talk about the dough having to be given over to the army, like they do regarding animals. Therefore, people will think it belongs to him completely and they'll think he's eating it without removing the Challah. [Rashi says: according to this, the Braisa that says that he's obligated when it's claimed by the army only refers to dough. However, Tosfos says: this can't be, since the Tosefta says that you're obligated in B'chor by an animal. Rather, the real text is: animals are only exempt if you can't buy it off the army, but if you can, the firstborn is a B'chor.]

28) If a non-Jew comes with his dough in his hands into a Jew's courtyard the Jew doesn't need to get rid of it. However, if he accepted to watch it, he needs to get rid of it. However, if he set aside a special place in his house for it, he doesn't need to get rid of it. [Rashi explains: it refers to when he never accepted responsibility for it, but just says "my house is before you (and deposit it there at your own risk)." Tosfos asks; if he didn't accept responsibility, then, even if he didn't set aside a special place in his house, he doesn't need to destroy it. Rather, R' Tam says: you're allowed to accept responsibility on the Chametz of a non-Jew if it's in the non-Jew's property (and by setting aside a place, you're lending this place to him).] Even though, regularly we don't say that the renting is considered owning, and that's why you shouldn't rent a residential house to a non-Jew, since he'll bring in an idol, and since it's still considered as you own it, the idol will be in your house; it's different by Chametz since the Pasuk says it shouldn't be found by you, and when you rent it out, the Chametz is not found by you since you don't have access to it.

29) If you found a piece of Chametz in your house on Yom Tov, you should cover it with a utensil. [Tosfos says: this is even according to R' Yitzchok who holds you can only move a utensil on Shabbos to facilitate a non-Muktza item, and Chametz is Muktza; we must say that here he originally moved the utensil since you need the place it was resting on, and once he's moving it, he may place it down over the Chometz. Alternatively, we give a special Heter here so he won't come to eat the Chametz.] If you have Chametz in your house from a non-Jew that you didn't accept responsibility to pay if it gets lost; you need to surround it with a ten Tefachim Mechitza. [Rashi says: therefore, on Yom Tov, where you can't make a Mechitza, and it's only for one day, you rely on overturning a utensil over it. However, on Erev Yom Tov, when you could make a Mechitza, we don't rely on just overturning a utensil over it, since people remove utensils constantly, so you can't rely on it for seven days.] However, if you have Chametz of Hekdesh in your house, you don't need to cover it since you don't need to worry that you'll come to eat it, since you're used to refraining from eating Hekdesh the whole year.

30) Rav says: if someone goes on a trip thirty days before Pesach, he doesn't need to search for Chametz, but within thirty days, he needs to search before he leaves. Abaya says that it refers to when he'll return during Pesach, but if he won't return before Pesach, he doesn't need to search even within thirty days. Rava says; if he's returning during Pesach, he would need to search for Chametz even if he leaves by Rosh Hashana time. Rather, we refer to a case where he won't return on Pesach, and he still needs to search if it's within thirty days.

31) Rava is consistent to his opinion that, if you fill a house with grain before thirty days before Pesach, you don't need to remove it in order to search for Chametz unless you plan on removing the wheat by Pesach. However if you filled it within thirty days, you would need to remove it to search the premises for Chametz.

32) This thirty day period is the time, according to the Rabanan, that's needed to Darshen before Pesach in Hilchos Pesach (and, therefore, you need to worry about removing all Chametz then). However, R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that it's only for two weeks.

33) Someone who searches for Chametz also needs to Mevatel the Chametz. It's not needed for perhaps you didn't find crumbs, since crumbs are Batul automatically. Although it's guarded by being in the house, but it's not considered as if you're trying to retain it. This is similar to end-growths of an earlier crop in a field (that never ripened properly) that are watched within the fence along with the regular crop, still, if the owners don't care about it, people may take it and it's exempt from Maasar (like all other Hefker produce). Rather, it's needed since you might find a nice piece of bread which you want. [Rashi explains: you might not have the heart to Mevatel it. However, Tosfos asks: if so, how can the Gemara ask: why doesn't he just Mevatel it when he finds it? After all, we're afraid that he won't want to Mevatel it. Rather, the nice piece is not automatically Mevutal just like crumbs are.]

34) You can't Mevatel it as soon as you find it, since you can't Mevatel it after it becomes forbidden since it's not really in your possession anymore, but just the Torah considers it as if it's in your possession to have you transgress the prohibition, just like the Torah puts a pit that you dug in a street into your possession regarding obligating you to pay for the damage this pit damaged.

35) The reason they enacted for you to Mevatel it at night, and not wait until the morning; since you might forget during the fourth and fifth hour, since it's before the time you got to get rid of it. (However, at night you'll remember since you're dealing with searching for Chametz). If you wait until the sixth hour when you need to get rid of it, it's no longer in your possession to Mevatel it. Although it's only rabbinically prohibited; still we consider it as it's not yours just like those that are forbidden from the Torah. After all, if you Mekadesh a woman with Mount Arrarat's wheat (which is hard Chametz), the Kiddushin doesn't take effect. [Rashi explains that this is from the beginning of the sixth hour when Chametz is rabbinically forbidden. Tosfos argues that the implications of this term is at the end of the sixth hour when Chametz is forbidden from the Torah. However, since it's only a rabbinically forbidden Chametz, the Gemara compares it to true Chametz during a rabbinically prohibited time.]

Daf 7

36) Although we find that there is a time when you can Mevatel Chametz during Pesach; that refers to dough that didn't become Chametz yet, so, you can Mevatel it before it becomes Chametz.

37) If you find moldy bread after many days of Pesach passed, you can assume it's Matza and not Chametz (although we can't say it follows the status of the last ones that were placed there, since the moldiness shows that they were way before that). Although it's very moldy, we don't have to assume that it's a proof that it happened a long tim ago and it's Chametz. Rather, we can say it's Matza and the cause of the extreme moldiness is that you have put freshly baked Matza on it for many days, and the constant heat made them very moldy.

38) However, regularly, when you don't have the moldiness to prove it was there from way earlier, you assume it's from what was last left there. As we were taught; if you found money in Yerushalayim, if it's in front of an animal dealer's stable, we can always assume that it's Maasar money (that people dropped when they come to buy a Korban with their Maasar money). [Rashi says: although it might have fell from the seller, and his money had already been redeemed with the sale of an animal; still, we need to be strict because of the Safeik. Tosfos disagrees. After all, we can assume that we can combine the minority of the buyer's money that's on him that's not Maasar, with the fifty percent chance that it fell from the seller to say that most money here is not Maasar. Rather, we need to be strict since there are many buyers to one seller on each animal sold, so we can assume it fell from the majority of people there, which are the customers.]

If it was found on the temple mount, it's always Chulin (even during the Regel when most people are carrying Maasar money), since we assume it fell during most of the year when it's not the Regel. After all, it wasn't swept (since it was slanted, and the dirt rolled down the mountain. Also, people don't walk on it with their dirty shoes.) [Tosfos says: we assume it fell from people going to the Mikdash. Although people shouldn't go there with their money wrapped up and carrying it in the open, that's because it looks as if they're only going to the Mikdash to do business. However, it's permitted to come up to the Mikdash with money if you hide it.]

If it's found in the rest of Yerushalayim, then it's Chulin during the rest of the year, and Maasar during the Regel. You can't assume it's from the majority of the money brought there year-round, since the streets were swept every day. [Tosfos says: although we don't say that the streets are swept that much to assume that there was no rodents there after sweeping (to say that any rodent found is fresh and didn't make Tamai what was there earlier); that's only because it can be Tamai if it's a piece the size of a lentil, so we don't assume that the broom would have swept it away. However, we assume that he'll find the coin, which is bigger.] So, it follows the status of the last thing that was there.

39) Although we see that, if you have a box that you use for both Chulin and Maasar money, and you found money inside it, it's status is according to the majority of money that was used there; the reason we don't follow the status of the last coins used there is because it refers to a case where we're not sure which coins were used last. Alternatively, they were use simultaneously, side by side in two piles. Alternatively, you found it in a hole in the box's floor, so you might have not found it when removing the coins from the box, so it could have came there any time.

40) The Bracha on Bedikas Chametz; R' Pappi quotes Rava; L'vaar Chametz. R' Pappa quotes Rava; Al Biur Chametz.

41) Everyone agrees that L'vaar would be the proper tense for a Bracha, since it's referring to the future. They argue about Al Biur. R' Pappi holds it implies past tense. [Tosfos explains: it mostly means the past tense, but you must say that it can also mean future tense, or else the Gemara later can't say that you use 'Al' in a Bracha when you can't say 'L' if it will be a lie if it's only meaning is that you did it already.] R' Pappa holds that it implies the future.

42) R' Pappi explains why the Mohel says "Al Hamila;" since the father should be doing the Mila, not the doctor, it's not applicable to say that he was commanded to do this Mila. However, if the father does the Mila, he does say "L'mol' [Tosfos says: however, by the Milah of a Ger, it's applicable to say "L'mol" since he's obligated to do Milah on a convert like a father is obligated on his son.]

43) That, which we say "Al Hashchita," is only because we don't have any obligation to Shecht. It's only a means to get meat if we so want. However, if he Shechts Kodshim which is an obligation, he would say "L'shchot."

44) That, which he says "Al Netilas Lulav," since you're Yoitza right away when you pick it up, it's not applicable to say "Litol." [Tosfos says; but you could make a Bracha afterwards and it's still considered making a Bracha "before you do the Mitzvah" since you still need to shake it, at least by Hallel, or that you intended not to be Yoitza until after the Bracha. However, he doesn't need to turn over the Luluv to make sure he's not Yoitza before he takes it.]

45) The Halacha is to make "Al Biur Chametz." [Rashi says: therefore, you should never say 'L'mol' even when doing Milah to your son, or say L'shchot, even when Shecting a Korban. Tosfos explains: either that you're allowed to say 'Al,' and it's optional; or that you're obligated to say only 'Al' for some reason, but Ri couldn't find a reason that would fit into all the Brachos.]

46) [Rashbam says that the father of the baby who's getting a MIlah should say the Bracha of "L'hacniso L'Bris Shel Avraham Avinu" before the Mila since we say here that 'L' always refers to the future. Also, it should be no worse than all other Brachos on Mitzvos that need to be said right before you perform the Mitzvah. However, R' Tam says that the simple wording of the Gemara in Shabbos implies it was said after the MIlah. Therefore, we must say that the Bracha is not specifically made on the present Bris, but it's a praise on the concept of Hashem commanding us to do a Bris. This shows that he's not doing this circumcision for medicinal or other reasons, but just for the Mitzvah. Also, it doesn't need to be said right before the Mitzvah, since that rule was only said for those who actually perform the Mitzvah, and not the father who doesn't perform the Mitzvah. After all, rabbis make Birchas Eirusin after the groom gave the Kiddushin. See Yavetz that this is not our custom, but for them to make the Bracha before.]

47) You must make all Brachos right before you do the Mitzvah (even if there is a worry that something might go wrong and you might not end up doing the Mitzvah, but that's not enough of a concern that we should refrain to make the Bracha before the Mitzvah.) The exception is by Teveila. [Tosfos quotes R' Chananel that only Teveilas Gerim can be made afterwards since it's not applicable for him to make it before when he's still a non-Jew. However, Jews, who can make it before, must make it before the Teveila even if he's a Baal Keri. Since we Paskin that he makes Brachos, he must make the Bracha before Teveila. The Ri says that they have what to rely on to make it afterwards, since they might have enacted to always make the Bracha afterwards so that we don't need to differentiate between different Tevilos. This is similar to what we say that all Netilas Yadayim are made after washing since sometimes it's not applicable to make it before since he could have just left the bathroom and can't make a Bracha until he washes his hands. Alternatively, the reason why they say to make a Bracha after washing hands is because it's before you finished the Mitzvah, since you're required to dry it. As the Gemara says in Sotah: anyone who eats bread with wet hands it's as if he eats Tamai bread. Others explain the exception of Teveila: you can't make a Bracha before since you might refrain from Teveila because you're afraid of the water. You can't make it at the time of Teveila since your heart is "seeing your Ervah." Therefore, there is no choice but to make it after the Teveila.]

Daf 8

48) You can't search by the moonlight, or by sunlight by day, unless it's in an open porch or right under a skylight (but not to the sides). You also can't search by the light of a torch, even though its light is bigger than the candle. R' Nachman b. Yitzchok gives the reason; because you're afraid to bring the torch near cracks. R' Zeira says since the light of a torch is behind it, not like candles that shine before it. R' Pappa says: since you're afraid that the torch will burn down your house, it will distract you from searching. Raveina explains: since the flames of the torch jump around.

49) Holes in the walls that are too high, or low, for people to use (to place things in) don't need to be searched. You only need to search the middle ones.

50) The roof of a closet or porch doesn't need searching, since they're slanty, it's not optimal to place food on them.

51) You don't need to search a courtyard since ravens would have already eaten the Chametz.

52) You don't need to search a barn or a chicken coop since the animals and chickens would have eaten any Chametz left there.

53) If a bed separates a house (blocking up the back) [according to Rashi] if the bed is high enough, people will use the space underneath it and you need to search it, unless there's wood and stones piled underneath the bed. However, if it's not that high, it's not usual to use the area underneath and you don't need to check there. [Tosfos disagrees. If so, why does the case needs to be when it separates the house? Rather, Tosfos explains; the bed goes from wall to wall and blocks off the back. Therefore, if the bed is too high, it's easy to walk under it to get to the blocked part of the room without bending down too much and it needs searching, unless there is wood and stones blocking the bottom. Alternatively, if it's too small, it's easy to climb over the bed and get to the other side.]

54) You don't need to search in storehouses of wine that you don't take from it for your table, but if it supplies your table, it needs searching, since you might come down to get more wine in middle of the meal when you were holding your bread. However, storehouses of oil never needs searching even if it supplies your table since there is a definitive amount needed for a meal, we're not afraid that you'll come down in middle of your meal with bread to get more. We're only worried by wine since there is no set amount for drinking wine.

55) A storehouse of large fish doesn't need to be searched, since there is a limited amount needed for a meal, but a storehouse of small fish needs searching since there's not a set amount needed, and you may need more during the meal.

56) If a wall falls down [Tosfos qualifies; and you know there was Chametz there]; if the pile of rubble is three Tefachim high that even a dog won't be able to dig it out, then it's considered as if it was destroyed and you don't need to dig out the Chametz to destroy it. However, if it's not three Tefachim high [Tosfos explains: you need to search for the Chametz. Although there is a danger from scorpions, you would need to hire professionals who will remove the rubble with spades and shovels to remove the Chametz. However, if there is no definite Chametz there] you don't need to search for Chametz since there is a danger of scorpions. Granted that people don't get harm for doing a MItzva (and the Mitzva of searching for Chametz should protect you from the scorpions) and even if you have a dual purpose for searching, like you're also looking for a lost needle; it's still considered as you're doing a MItzvah and you should be protected. As we say; if someone gives Tzedaka on the condition in order for his son to get well, he's a complete Tzadik. [Tosfos says: although we say that you shouldn't serve Hashem for the reward; he's considered as not doing it for the reward since he wouldn't have regret giving the Tzedaka if he doesn't get his request.] So, we must say that the danger is that, after he finished searching for Chametz, he'll stay there longer looking for a needle.

57) R' Nachman b. Yitzchok says: even if the wall didn't fall down, if it separates the Jew from a non-Jew, he shouldn't search there. After all, if he comes there at night with a candle, the non-Jew will think that he's trying to put some magical hex on him, and it will lead to danger. Although we said that those who do Mitzvos don't get harm, but that's only when the danger is not so prevalent like it is here. However, if the wall separates the properties of two Jews, each one needs to search inside the cracks of the walls as far as their hand reaches, and Mevatel any Chametz in the rest of the wall.

58) A wine cellar that people are taking wine presently from; Beis Shammai says that you need to check two full rows of barrels. R' Yehuda explained that it refers to the first two rows from the entrance; from the ground until the ceiling. R' Yochanan says that you check the first row from the floor until the ceiling, and then you check the upper row from the front until the back. Therefore, the two rows are perpendicular. We have two Braisos, each one supports one of the opinions.

59) Beis Hillel holds that only the top and outer two rows need to be checked. Rav explains that it's the top outer row and the row below it. The reason they're called the top rows is to exclude the lower rows below them. Shmuel holds it's the top outer row and the row just inside it. The reason why they're called the outer ones is to exclude the rows that are deeper in than those two. The Halacha is like Shmuel.

Daf 9

60) You don't need to worry that a weasel dragged some Chametz into the place that you already searched. However, if you actually see a weasel dragging Chametz into a house, you need to search the house again, and you can't assume that the weasel ate it. The Gemara asks; we see that someone needs to worry that a non-Jew's house is Tamai if he lives there forty days (enough time to form a fetus that will be Tamai), since they bury their miscarriages there. [Tosfos explains: this is only for Taharos, but not to forbid a Kohein from entering the house since the Tosefta says that it's not applicable in Chutz L'aretz.] This is even true if he's single, since they're suspected to have mistresses. However, if it's a place where weasels and pigs are common, we can assume that they dug it up and ate it (and it's no longer Tamai) [Tosfos explains: this is only because miscarried fetuses are soft, so we can assume pigs ate them. However, we say in Bava Kama that it's not normal for a pig to eat meat.] So, we see that we can assume that the weasel ate it.

R' Zeira answers: it's normal for a weasel to eat up all the meat at once, but he usually leaves over when he eats bread.

61) Rava answers: over here, the weasel definitely brought in Chametz, so, we can't assume that the Safeik of the weasel eating it removes the problem of having definite Chametz in your house. However, by the non-Jew's house, since it's only a Safeik fetus there, the Safeik of the weasel eating it removes the concern of the Safeik fetus. [Tosfos says; even though it's a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid that we should be stringent no matter how many S'feikos you pile onto it; however, here there is a question whether there's any Tumah at all, so we can be lenient. This is similar to a question whether someone entered a field where you don't know where the grave is that he's Tahor since he might have never have entered an area of Safeik. Also, we can say a Safeik that the animals ate it is a much stronger probability than a regular Safeik since it's common to happen and it's close to being a certainty.]

62) Although we're allowed to eat from a collection of fruit that belonged to a Talmid Chachum, even if it was only harvested the day before, and he died, and we don't say that the Safeik that he separated Trumah and Maasar doesn't take away from the problem that it was once definite Tevel; since there we have a Chazaka that a Chaver won't leave something that's not fixed for Trumah and Maasar. Therefore, we consider it as a definite that the Chaver took off the Maasar. Alternatively, it's not definite Tevel, since the produce might have been brought in with its chaff, which doesn't make it established for Maasar, and he's allowed to feed it to his animals without taking off Maasar. [Tosfos adds: and people can also eat it in a temporary fashion. Although there is a rabbinical prohibition to eat an established meal from it, and we're comparing it to searching for Chametz which is also rabbinical where we don't assume that it was eaten; we must say that it refers to a case where the searching for Chametz is from the Torah, when the owners didn't do Bitul. Alternatively, we refer to produce that's fit mainly for fodder, therefore, there will never be a rabbinical prohibition to feed it to the animals. However, if it would be Tevel, you wouldn't be able to feed it to the animals although Tevel is not a prohibition that it's forbidden to partake pleasure from; still, it's forbidden to partake in it a pleasure that destroys the Tevel.]

63) There was a story that a non-Jewish slave threw a miscarried fetus in a pit. In order to know how long the Tumah is for giving birth, [Tosfos points out even though there is no proof here that a non-Jewish maid is Tamai when she gives birth, since she might have thrown her mistress's fetus there, however, we have proof that it's true from other places]; a Kohain went to peak into the pit to see if it was a male or female [Tosfos: he must have been an ignoramus Kohein, since, even if it was the mistress's and it was related to him, a Kohein can't become Tamai to a fetus. Also, this wasn't for the need of the dead relative, and a Kohein may only become Tamai to a dead relative for its sake.] He didn't see the fetus, and the rabbis said that he was Tahor since weasels were found there and they could have pulled the fetus out of the pit into one of the holes. [Tosfos says; even though the pit was a Reshus Hayachid; still, since it's a good probability that the weasels got to it, we don't say Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid is Tamai. We must say that weasel holes don't have a Tefach airspace, or else, even if they dragged the fetus there, the Tumah will travel into the pit.] So, this is true even though it's a definite fetus there and only a Safeik if the weasels dragged it out.

The Gemara answers: it was not a definite fetus, but something that may be a fetus. The Kohein was checking if it was a fetus, and if it was a fetus, was it male or female. Alternatively, we assume that the weasel definitely dragged it at that time. (However, by searching for Chametz, even though the weasel definitely dragged it, but, perhaps, it didn't eat the bread yet.) [Tosfos says: we don't say that perhaps it was dragged underneath the Kohein and it will make him Tamai from a Safeik, since we refer to him standing in a Reshus Harabim, and we're lenient by all Sfeikos. Alternatively, even if he's standing in a Reshus Hayachid, since we say that it's not only close to definite that the weasels dragged it, but it's also close to definite that they ate it too.]

64) This, that we obligate to hide the Chametz (after the search) that you're saving for breakfast the next morning for perhaps a weasel will drag it, although we're not regularly worried that a weasel will drag it; we must say that the worry that the weasel will drag it while we're looking. Alternatively, we refer to a case where you left ten pieces and you come back to only find nine of them (and we must assume that a weasel took the tenth one).

65) If there is nine piles of Matzah and one pile of Chametz, and a mouse took from one of the piles and we didn't pay attention from which one he took, it has the same Halacha as buying meat from a store (where most stores sell Kosher) and you don't remember from which one you bought it from, that you need to be concerned that it's not Kosher since a Safeik that happens in the place that the piles are established in one place, we view it as if it's a fifty/fifty chance. [Tosfos explains; since we saw the mouse take it, the Safeik started in the "place of establishment." This is not similar to what we want to permit when an animal that needs to be killed mixes with other animals that are Korbanos, that you leave them alone and let them spread out and they will be considered them separated from the "place of establishment" and permit it (since we follow the majority when it separates). After all, that's not a "place of establishment" from the Torah, since the prohibition is not recognizable in its place (since they were all mixed).] However, if one of the pieces separated onto the floor in front of the piles, and the mouse takes that piece, we should assume it to be Matza since it's like the majority just like if you found meat in the street (in the city that most stores sell Kosher) since we say that whatever gets separated from the "place of establishment," we assume it was separated from the majority.

66) [Rashi explains the above case where the mouse takes from the piles; that you now need to search the house agin for Chametz. However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, even if you consider it as a fifty/fifty chance, it's only a Safeik of a rabbinical enactment and we should be lenient. Even if you want to say that it's a case where he didn't Mevatel yet and it's a Safeik Torah; still it's not similar to the meat that was bought since the meat doesn't have a Chazaka for it being Kosher, but this house had a Chazaka that it was already checked. Rather, Tosfos explains: we refer to a case where you found this piece of food on Pesach, and the question is if you could eat it.]

67) If you have two piles, one of Matza and one of Chametz. Two mice came and each one took one piece, each one from a different pile. One of them went into a house that was checked already for Chametz, and the other entered a house that wasn't checked for Chametz, but you don't know which one had the Chametz. [Tosfos adds: we must say that the pieces were big enough that the weasel couldn't eat it all up, or else you can permit by assuming that it was eaten.] This is compared to the case where you have two baskets, one was Trumah and the other Chulin. A piece of Trumah fell into one, and a piece of Chulin fell in the other one, we can assume that the Trumah fell into the Trumah and the Chulin fell into the Chulin. So too here, you can assume that the Chametz was brought into the house that wasn't searched yet. [Tosfos adds: this comparison is only according to R' Yochanan who doesn't need that the fruit in the basket outnumber the fruit that fell in, but according to Reish Lakish who requires it so that the fruit would be Batul, Chametz is not comparable to it.] Although we only allow there by rabbinical Trumah, we say that searching for Chametz is only rabbinically required, since the Torah only requires you to Mevatel your Chametz.

Daf 10

68) If a mouse takes Chametz into one of two checked houses; it has the same Halacha like a hidden grave that's under one out of two paths, and two people passed, each one on a separate path, and they both worked with Taharos. [Tosfos explains that the whole question is on the food they worked with, but not on themselves. After all, we tell them that they need to become Tahor, for perhaps they'll both touch the same Trumah and it will be definitely Tamai, or they'll touch the same person and he'll be definitely Tamai and he'll walk into the Mikdash.] If they ask they're Shaila together, we need to make both Tamai [Tosfos: Midarabanan, but from the Torah, both are Tahor because of Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim.] If they ask one after the other, they're both Tahor. If one asks for himself and explains that his friend has the same Shaila for the opposite path; R' Yehuda compares it to asking one after the other, and R' Yossi compares it to asking together.

69) If it's a Safeik whether the mouse entered a checked house or not, it would depend on the argument if someone is in Safeik if he entered a Reshus Hayachid that has a Safeik Tumah in it. R' Eliezer says he's Tahor (since it's a Sfeik Sfeika, maybe he didn't go in, and even if he did, maybe he didn't come in contact with the Tumah). The Chachumim say that he's Tamai. [Tosfos explains: R' Eliezer holds that, which we learn Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim is Tamai from a Safeik Sotah, that's only one Safeik like the Sotah whether she was unfaithful or not, but not by a Sfeik Sfeika. However, the Rabanan hold: once the Torah was stringent on the Sotah when they should have been lenient and keep her on her Chazaka of being permitted to her husband; we should be stringent in all cases where we regularly permit, like by a Sfeik Sfeika.]

70) [Tosfos asks: it's difficult to understand why the Gemara compares Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid to searching for Chametz, since we should keep the house on its Chazaka of being checked even with one Safeik. Also, it's difficult, since before we compared it to Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim and now we're comparing it to a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Hayachid.]

71) If the mouse carries Chametz into a house, and someone checked the house again and didn't find it, it depends on the following argument: If you know there was Tumah once in the house, and you dig it up and can't find it; R' Meir says that it's always Tamai and the Chachumim say that it's Tahor as long as you hit bedrock or virgin soil (that was never dug up). [Tosfos explains: R' Meir wouldn't require you to search the house again, since we don't expect you to find anything more than the first time. Rashi explains that R' Meir would admit that you don't need to search for Chametz since it's only a rabbinical requirement. Tosfos disagrees since the Gemara says that it's dependant on their argument, implying that R' Meir is more stringent even by Chametz. Rather, Tosfos explains: he would need you to make a Bitul to remove it from a Safeik Torah. After all, R' Meir is only worried for a Tumah that's from the Torah and not by a rabbinical Tumah.]

72) If you started checking the house and you found a piece of bread, could you assume that it was the bread the mouse brought in and you can stop searching, or could this be a second piece, and you need to finish the search in order to find the first piece; is dependant on the following argument: if you lost a grave in a field, and you searched an found a grave, Rebbi holds you can assume that it's the same grave and you don't need to search the rest of the field. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that you need to search until you finish the whole field since that could have been a second grave.

73) If you left nine pieces of Chametz, and you found ten; it depends on the following argument: if you left a bag of Maasar Sheini money, and you came back to find two bags,; Rebbi says that the original bag is there, and you have a mix of Maasar Sheini money and regular money. The Chachumim say that they're both regular money since we assume that the first bag was taken and someone deposited these two bags here. (Therefore, Rebbi holds that you don't need to check for the Chametz, and the Chachmim need him to check for the original nine pieces.) [Tosfos explains Rebbi: he's consistent to his opinion that we can assume that the grave was the one he lost, so the bag you found was the one you left. However, the Gemara in Beitza establishes the case when they're tied together, but if the bags weren't tied, everyone agrees that you have a mixture of Maasar Sheini and regular money.]

74) If you left ten and found nine, it's comparable to the case where you left two bags of Maasar Sheini money and you came back to find only one there. Rebbi says that you assume that the person took one bag and left the second one, and the Chachumim say that we assume that both were taken, and this is a new bag of regular money. [Tosfos says: although you can't say that the tenth piece was tied by a mouse, but you can say that it was tied by a child.]

75) If you left bread in one corner and came back to find bread in a different corner, it's dependent on the following argument: if you left an axe in one corner, and find it in another corner; R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that you can assume that you took it and placed it in the second corner and forgot about it, or you forgot you lent it to a friend and he returned it, and you don't need to worry that someone Tamai came in and moved it. The Rabanan says that you need to worry that a Tamai person walked in and placed it in a second corner, and everything in the house is Tamai since we need to worry that the Tamai person touched it. [Tosfos says; even though we say in Niddah that if a loaf of bread is on a board, and a Tamai cloth underneath it, you can assume that a Tahor person came an placed it on the floor and it didn't land on the Tamai cloth; that's because we only decreed Tumah on a Safeik Tumah for a utensil, and not for food, as it says in Mesechta Shabbos. Alternatively, it's common for a Tahor person to remove it in order to protect it from falling onto the Tamai cloth.]

76) [Tosfos explains: this is only according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel, but according to Rebbi, we always assume that the pieces of bread you found are the ones you lost. Alternatively, even according to Rebbi, we can refer to a case where you didn't know exactly how many pieces you left in one corner to know that they're all in this second corner.]

77) If a mouse entered a house with a piece of bread, and you come in and find crumbs [Tosfos: that's the size of the piece that the mouse brought in], you still need to search the house since it's not normal for a mouse to crumble a piece of bread. However, if a child brought it in, you don't need to search the rest of the house since it's normal for a child to crumble his piece of bread. [Tosfos says: this is even according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel who holds that, when you find bread the amount that was lost in the house, you can't assume it's the lost bread and you need to search the rest of the house. After all, here there is reason to believe that it's the same bread since you followed the child into the house.]

78) We have some inquiries: if a mouse entered with a piece of bread in its mouth, and then a mouse exited with a piece of bread; do we assume it's the same mouse [Tosfos: even according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel since we have a strong reason to believe it's the same mouse since he just came in with a piece of bread, and he's exiting with it], or do we need to be concerned that it's a different mouse [Tosfos: even according to Rebbi who usually assumes that the piece found is the piece lost, but here there's reason to believe that the mouse that entered stayed, and this is another mouse.]

79) Even if we would say that, in the above case, it's the same mouse; what would be the case if a white mouse entered with a piece of bread in its mouth and a black mouse exited with a piece of bread in its mouth; do we say that this is definitely a different mouse, or do we say that he knocked out the piece from the first one and took it. Even if you say that a mouse won't take from another mouse, what would be the Halacha if a mouse entered with a piece of bread in its mouth, and then a weasel exited with a piece of bread in its mouth. Do we assume that the weasel took it from the mouse, or do we say, if it would have gotten from the mouse, you would see the mouse in its mouth too. Even if you say that we can't assume it was taken from the mouse in that case, what would be in a case where the weasel walks out with a mouse and a piece of bread in its mouth. Do we say that, if it would be the same mouse, the bread would be in the mouse's mouth. Or do we say, it's the same mouse, and because of fear, he dropped the bread (and the weasel had to scoop it up by itself). These inquiries remain unresolved.

80) There's an inquiry: if there is Chametz on the top of a beam, do you say that you don't need to climb up a ladder to get it since you won't be going up there on Pesach, or do you say that you need to get rid of it since it might fall off. Even if you say that you need to worry that it will fall, what would be the Halacha if it's in a pit? Obviously, we don't have a concern that it may fall, but do we need to worry that something might happen and you will have to descend there on Pesach to do some work, and you'll come to eat it. Even if you need to worry that perhaps you'll need to descend into the pit, what would be if there's a snake in your house with a piece of bread? Do you need to hire a professional to get it out of the snake's mouth, or do we just bother you personally to get rid of Chametz in these instances, but not to pay money. [Tosfos points out: this is only because there is a chance that the snake might eat it or take it out of the house. However if there is definite Chametz there, we said earlier that a person is happy to spend money to do a Mitzvah.]

81) R' Yehuda says: if you forgot to search for Chametz on the night of the fourteenth, you search in the morning. If you forget then, you do it at the time that you need to destroy the Chametz, but not afterwards when the Chametz is forbidden, since, if you find Chametz, you'll come to eat it. The Rabanan say: if you didn't search then, you search during the Moed [Rashi: Moed meaning time, i.e., the time of destroying, which is after six hours]. If you forget then, you search after the Moed [Rashi: which is until nightfall. Tosfos explains what forced Rashi to explain it this way: since he holds that you only search to make sure that you don't to transgress "Baal Yirah U'baal Yimatze," so, it's not applicable after that time. (See Mahrsha on Rashi: the reason he says to only inspect until nightfall, since you don't transgress Baal Yirah until nightfall, you search for it to prevent transgressing Baal Yirah. However, you shouldn't search for it during Pesach, for, if you find it, you'll transgress Baal Yirah.) However, Tosfos held this to be pushed since R' Yehuda calls the time of burning the Chametz as "the time of destruction' and the Rabanan refer to it "during the Moed." Rather, Tosfos explains: "during the Moed" means during Pesach, and "after the Moed means" after Pesach, that you need to find the Chametz that are now rabbinically forbidden since they're Chametz that he had on Pesach, so they don't mix with the Chametz he'll get afterwards.]

Daf 11

82) R' Yehuda says that you may sell flour and roasted grains from the new grains after the Omer, and we're not afraid that they'll eat them when they prepared it before the Omer. This seems contradictory to R' Yehuda by Chametz that R' Yehuda's afraid that he'll eat it. We can't say since the flour and roasted grain is not edible as is, that he won't come t eat it. After all, they had to harvest it and deal with it while it was still whole an edible. You can't say that they were lenient because they need to harvest it in a strange way by pulling off the grain (since the Omer needs to be the first grain that was harvested normally). After all, that's only needed by places that you may bring the Omer from L'chatchila, however, you can harvest normally from non--irrigated fields and from deep valleys [Tosfos explains: don't say that everything that's permitted B'dieved is only a rabbinical invention, and from the Torah, it's either Kosher or not. After all, we have the concept that the Torah needs to repeat a Halacha to say that it prevents someone to be Yoitza the Mitzvah. However without repeating it, you would only need that Halacha L'chatchila.] (However, we say that you can't make a pile of grain from it [Tosfos: since there is no loss if you push it off, we're afraid you'll come to eat it. We only allow harvesting to prevent loss. We also only permit selling it so that those who came up for the Regel should have what to eat. The reason the Gemara doesn't answer that the reason R' Yehuda doesn't allow it by Chametz is because we don't have a good excuse to do it; since the need of the Mitzvah of searching for Chametz could be compared to preventing a loss as a good excuse.])

83) However, we can answer: R' Yehuda only enacted to allow by new grains since you're used to refraining from it, but you're not used to refraining from Chametz the whole year and you have a bigger concern that you'll eat from it. Although the Rabanan who forbade selling flour before the Omer since you might come to eat it, they weren't concerned by Chametz since it's logical to say: if he's trying to find it to get rid of the Chametz, he won't come to eat it.

84) Although R' Yehuda did not enact to forbid making a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil so that it will drip into the lamp (as it loses oil when the light is lit) and he's not worried that he'll eat from the oil (and remove some of the oil reserved for lighting, which is extinguishing) even though he's not used to refraining from oil the whole year round; we must say that he allows it by Shabbos since people are more careful to keep since it's such a stringent prohibition. Although R' Yehuda holds that you can't make a slipknot to tie a rope to a pail, assuming he's enacting this because he's afraid that they'll confuse it with a regular knot even though it's Shabbos; that's because his reason is not because we're worried that, if we allow a slipknot, he'll come to tie a regular knot. Rather, R' Yehuda's opinion is that a slipknot in itself is a Melacha like a regular knot.

85) That, which the Rabanan allow to make a slipknot to tie the rope, (but you can't tie a rope regularly, even if it's a weaver's rope that you definitely won't leave there indefinitely); that's because he won't mistake a slipknot with a regular knot (but he would confuse the ropes, so they forbade a weaver's rope so he doesn't come to use a regular rope). They forbade placing oil in the eggshell, since they would confuse this oil with other oil [Rashi; i.e., regular oil that's not placed by a lamp]

86) Even though R' Yehuda forbade bloodletting a B'chor animal in a place that doesn't blemish it despite that people are used to refrain from it; that's for a different concern. After all, since people become panic when it comes to them losing money, if we allow him to bloodlet where it doesn't make a blemish, he'll come to do it when it makes a blemish too. However, the Rabanan who permit held the opposite. Since he's panicky, if we don't allow him to bloodlet in a place that doesn't make a blemish, he'll do it in a place that will cause a blemish.

87) Although R' Yehuda is worried about his animal getting ruined, he allowed scratching the back of his horse with a comb with thick teeth (that won't wound it), and he doesn't forbid since you might come to scratch with thin teeth (that wound); that's because the horse won't die if it doesn't get scratch, but it will just be in pain, so it won't panic him. However, the Rabanan forbid scratching with big teeth since people will confuse it with thinner teeth. However, R' Yehuda says that you won't confuse the size of the teeth. This is not like how he forbids searching for Chametz since you'll confuse the bread you find now with the bread that you eat the whole year round.