Shabbas 120a - saving multiple items in one tallis

The Gemara, based on Rava’s statement that Rav Shizbi misled Rav Chisda, concludes that putting everything into one tallis and taking out is considered hatazala and thus mutar according to everyone.

If we turn back to 19b, we see that there were two talmidim who disagreed  -- one saved with one kli and one saved with many. The Gemara says this is the machlokes in our sugya of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna. The simple interpretation would seem to be as Tosfos explains there that the talmid that saved many keilim was saving to the same chatzer (Rabba bar Zavda) and the one saving only one, was following Rav Huna that even to same chatzer you can only save one.

Based on this, Tosfos on 19b challenges Rashi’s interpretation of the sugya there as Rashi says that the talmid who carried many keilim did it by folding them up together and carrying out all in one shot. But as we said above, this is what our gemara said everyone calls matzil! The Ramban (and Maggid Mishne says Rambam learned this way as well in 23:23), explains that according to Rashi there is a difference between a real mixture where everything is poured together and mixed, as opposed to where all the keilim are put in one tallis and carried out but not really mixed. This latter case is not considered Matzil and only allowed according to Rabba Bar Zavda.

shabbas 111a -- female sirus

The Gemara states that if we hold that women have a mitzva of פריה ורביה, then this would mean that sirus is assur for them. What is the connection -- animals don't have such a mitzva and it is still assur?
The Minchas Chinuch explains that really the issur of sirus is not dependent on פריה ורביה, based on what we stated above -- that animals are included. Rather, the point of the gemara is that even though women are NOT included in the issur of sirus based on גזירת הכתוב (the source is from the toras kohanim), the gemara suggests a second reason that is independent that would forbid them to drink the כוס של עיקרין, which is פריה ורביה.
Another interesting peshat point in the Minchas Chinuch is that based on the reading of the peshat of our gemara he takes issue with the pesak of the Rambam who paskens that there is a different level of issur if you do direct or indirect sirus. For a man, direct sirus is chayav malkus, while כוס של עיקרין is only assur and for women it goes down one level, where direct is assur and כוס של עיקרין is mutar. He says that the answer of direct vs indirect in the sugya was rejected, thus the pesak should be that one is chayav malkus for a male either way and for a female it should be mutar either way, including a woman due to not being commanded in פריה ורביה.

Shabbas 49a - The Mesirus nefesh of Elisha Baal Kenafayim

The Rishonim all ask – this seems like it is a shaas hashemad, so shouldn’t one have to be moser nefesh for anything even not the big three – as the gemara states in Sanhedrin, even arakta demasana – the tying of the shoelace? Tosfos limits the ruling of arakta demasana to be something that is making you dress not like a Jew, while not wearing tefilin is different, since many Jews don’t wear tefilin all day so you won’t look like a goy. The Ramban and others formulate the difference as follows – tefillin is an aseh, so for bittul aseh we do not have to be moser nefesh, since שב ואל תעשה שאני. This leads to a different question, if he did not have to be moser nefesh, why did he take a chance in the first place and wear them? (Similar to the famous question on Mordechai why he risked his and Am Yisrael’s life not bowing to Haman).

This question leads to the BIG machlokes if one is allowed to give up their life optionally (not the big three and not shaas hashemad). The Rambam (יסודי התורה ה:ד) rules that one cannot do so as he writes: כל מי שנאמר בו יעבור ואל יהרג ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו. The Lechem Mishneh asks from our case to this halacha and therefore rejects the ideas suggested above (aseh is different or based on how you look), However, he says that Elisha was able to take off his tefillin once he did the mitzva of wearing tefillin that day.

Other Rishonim use this case among others as proof that one may decide to give their lives. The Ran (based on the Ramban)  writes (on the Rif in our sugya) “שאע”פ שאינו מחויב ליהרג על קיומיה אפ”ה רשאי למסור נפשו עליה ומקבל שכר שכל מצוה שמסרו ישראל נפשם עליה בשעת הגזירה מוחזקת בידם ומקבלין עליה שכר הרבה ….”

For an interesting listen on this (related to Holocaust responsa: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728723/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/2008-11-02_Responsa_06, about halfway through the shiur

The definition of yad soledes bo

As Rav Meir mentioned, there is a large gap of what the definition of yad soledes bo. One of the significant sources for this is a teshuva of Rav SZ Auerbach in Minchas Shlomo, you can read here, continuing to here, where he uses a halacha from shechita to come up with minimum shiur for yad soledes bo lechumra. The basic idea there is that it is well documented that the body temperature of a duck is 45 degrees celsius and we also know that according to all opinions, the beis hashechita is not considered to be boiling until the end of the schechita, meaning that a knife that touches the beis hashechita for sure is not treif. Thus, at this temperature we know that we have not reached yad soledes bo

shabbas 36b: Shehiya on raw food

The Rashba raises an interesting peshat question that has great ramifications in Hilchos Shehiya.
Obviously, in the first explanation of the Mishna, based on Chananya's shita, the Mishna speaks about chazara, and shehiya is allowed according to Chananya even when not garuf and katum when the food is maachal ben derusai. What about according to the other reading -- according to Chachamim, who say that the mishna speaks about shehiya, i.e. that one can only do shehiya when the oven is garuf vekatum. So in this case, can it even cooked less than מאכל בן דרוסאי?
The Rashba suggests that one problem with this suggestion is our sugya on 18b that discusses the case of the יורה cooking the dye and the gemara's אוקימתא is to remove it from the fire (עקורה וטוחה) rather than leave it on the fire and make it garuf vekatum. Thus, the Rashba suggest that ink is like food prior to מאכל בן דרוסאי. Ultimately, the Rashba decides (as do most rishonim) that according to Chachamim one may do shehiya on an item that is not even maachal ben derusai and the Shulchan Aruch seems to say this as well, though Beur Halacha quotes Rabbi Akiva Eiger to be machmir.
Based on the Gemara we previously learned at the end of the first perek, Beis Hillel allow melacha to be done on shabbas, so what would be the problem? After all, the melacha is happening by itself and by making the item garuf and katum you have removed the possibility of stoking the fire? More specifically why is the raw meat allowed while shehiya is not. For an exhaustive discussion of this, see here. But just to address this one question, in this article, Rav Gigi suggests that when the item is in mid process of cooking (even prior to מאכל בן דרוסאי) then this active accompaniment is called מיחזי כמבשל. The heter of קדירה חייתא is based on the fact after adding this raw meat, you are not watching or accompanying the cooking anymore.

Shabbas 34a – Rav Ashi knew מסברא that he should speak softly

What is the chiddush that Rav Ashi tells us that he did not hear the teaching of Rabba Bar Rav Huna yet he intuitively also knew that he should say the three reminders בניחותא?

Maharsha (in the parallel sugya in Gittin 7a) explains that there are potentially two reasons one would speak softly. One is that he has a better chance of convincing others to listen to him than by screaming, and the second is that there is an inherent value to speak this way. Rabba Bar Rav Huna instructed us to talk to this way to prevent kilkul in these three items (i.e. to convince others to listen) but Rav Ashi was saying that even when your purpose is not convincing, one should be talking this way, and that is what he meant when said that מסברא he would speak this way.

Cute Vort on this idea is said by the Ben Yehoyada, on the pasuk דברי חכמים בנחת נשמעים that נחת stands for נר and חלה (the question of עשרתם) and תחומין.

Shabbas 33b- Rashbi decides to be מתקן מילתא

What is the connection between being saved and doing something for the nearby city as Yaakov and subsequently Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai decided to do?

The Ben Yehoyada answers as follows. (you can see it here continued on the next page here). He says that when HKBH performs a miracle for someone, their merit gets reduced (as we learned on daf 32a). However, this is not always true as we see that with some tzadikim HKBH performs miracles for them as a tzedaka. The ability to have the miracles performed for you as a tzedaka is based on the person doing a חסד חינם for others. i.e. some chesed that he gets no benefit from., then מדה כנגד מדה HKBH will do the same for you. This was Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai’s intent in doing something for the the city. And since he is not a kohen and does not even live there, this purifying of the area from being tamei was purely for their benefit and not his. The Ben Yehoyada shows this is the reason for the derasha about Yaakov being shalem in all these ways that therefore his various takkanos have no benefit for him.

One interesting thing he relates is about the opinion that מטבע תיקן להם. Ben Yehoyada says in the name of the Noda Biyehuda that the people of Shechem had a coin but he convinced them to make it round instead of square. The reason for this was that they should learn that money is a גלגל חוזר בעולם and therefore people should not get too caught up in their money. He says that this is why one of our coins are זוזים since they are זז from person to person.