Question: [How can Rashi] explain what was taught "it does not descend for this" to be the intent itself, i.e. we do not find a Tum'ah Chamurah that requires intent in any place?

Note: Our text of Tosfos asks why the Gemara did not ask this. Aruch l'Ner asks that this is Rava's answer, according to Rashi! He suggests that perhaps words are missing from Tosfos, and Tosfos challenges Rashi. We explain like this.)

Implied question: We say that Neveilah of Behemah and Ohf Tahor require intent [even though they have Tum'ah Chamurah]!

Answer: This refers to Tum'as Ochlim, to join with less than a k'Zayis or less than a k'Beitzah of food;

However, a k'Zayis of them is Metamei people and Kelim without intent, like Rashi explained (50b DH Nivlas).

However, light Tum'ah requires intent in general.

Question: However, also Neveilah must be proper for a convert, according to Bar Pada! (Aruch l'Ner - in Bechoros 23a, Bar Padas says that it still has light Tum'ah as long as a dog would eat it. This answer is like Tosfos there, who explains that "light Tum'ah" is Tum'as Ochlim. However, Rashi there explains that it is Tum'as Maga! Rashi can say that we find severe Tum'ah that requires intent, i.e. some Kelim need intent to receive Tum'ah, and they can become an Av ha'Tum'ah.)

Implied question: Why did it discuss in a Chatzer?

Answer #1: According to the conclusion, that they grew by themselves, this is fine, for it is not normal to seed in a Chatzer, rather, in a garden.

Also, in a Chatzer, Stam they are for man, since he sees and knows when to pick them before they harden.

Answer #2: According to the current Hava Amina, we can explain that it discusses in a Chatzer because the Tana's style is to discuss a Chatzer. Also regarding other matters he taught a Chatzer;

He taught there "a fig tree standing in the Chatzer, he eats one at a time and he is exempt [from Ma'aser]. If he gathered [figs together], he is obligated;

If a vine was planted in a Chatzer, like savory in a Chatzer, the Chatzer is Kove'a (forbids eating before tithing) something whose Melachah was finished if he gathered, or even without gathering, e.g. for matters from which one does not make a granary.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Shevi'is 8:1) teaches that anything that is not special for human consumption, and not for animal consumption, if one intended for it for human and animal consumption, we give it the stringencies of [food for] man and animals, e.g. hyssop and savory. (Here, we say that Stam savory is for human consumption!)

Answer: This does not oppose what we say in our Sugya that Stam, it is for people, for this is only in a Chatzer, like I explained above.

Question: In Bava Kama (94a), Abaye said that according to R. Yishmael, Shinuy (changing a stolen object) does not acquire it;

Rabanan say that if one did not separate Pe'ah from the standing crop, he separates from the piles or stack, but not from the dough (for he already acquired through Shinuy). According to R. Yishmael, [one separates] even from a dough.

Rava rejects this. Normally, Shinuy acquires. Here, [it does not] due to an extra "Ta'azov";

Abaye explains that the extra "Ta'azov" teaches about one who was Mafkir his vineyard;

Consequence: If so, Rava holds that one who is Mafkir his vineyard, it is exempt from Pe'ah according to R. Yishmael.

Summation of question: If so, how is it proven from here that we taught species [that are liable or exempt from Ma'aser and Pe'ah]? Perhaps our Mishnah, which says that anything obligated in Pe'ah is obligated regarding Ma'aser, is R. Yishmael!

Answer: Also according to Rava, the extra "Ta'azov" teaches about one who was Mafkir his vineyard. It teaches two laws;

Source: Also Abaye, who expounds this in Bava Kama (94a) for one who was Mafkir his vineyard according to everyone, expounds this in Temurah (6a) for a different matter!

Citation (Temurah 6a - Abaye): Anything that the Torah commanded not to do it, Iy Avid Mehani (if one did it, it took effect);

Citation (cont.) Question (Rava): Regarding Pe'ah, the Torah said "do not finish [harvesting the corner of your field]", and we say that if one did not separate Pe'ah from the standing crop, he separates from the piles or stack according to Rabanan, and even from the dough according to R. Yishmael. This shows that Iy Avid Lo Mehani] (it did not help)!

Abaye answers that this is due to the extra "Ta'azov";

Rava says that the extra "Ta'azov" teaches about one who was Mafkir his vineyard;

Observation: Both Abaye and Rava expound Ta'azov to teach about one who is Mafkir his vineyard;

Abaye, who holds in general that Iy Avid Mehani, expounds also from Ta'azov to obligate separating from the piles or stack, or from the dough according to R. Yishmael, that we should not say Iy Avid Mehani;

However, if in general Shinuy acquires according to R. Yishmael, like regarding theft, there is no reason to establish Ta'azov to obligate separating from a dough; [he must separate] only from the piles or stack.

Rava holds that "Ta'azov" teaches about one who was Mafkir his vineyard, and according to R. Yishmael, that he separates from a dough, even though normally Shinuy acquires;

However, to separate from the piles or stack does not require a verse, for also normally, whenever the Torah said not to do something, Iy Avid Lo Mehani according to Rava. (Shinuy does not acquire).

Implied question: He could have brought what was taught in Ma'aseros (4:5), and it is brought in Avodah Zarah (7b), that the seed and Yerek (leaves) of Sheves (dill) are tithed;

It is explicitly taught in a Mishnah, and we bring it below, that once dill gives taste in a pot, it has no Tum'as Ochlim. We infer that before it gives taste, it is Metamei [Tum'as Ochlim]!

Answer: He prefers to ask a contradiction in R. Akiva.

Explanation (Rashi): This is Si'ah (safflower).

Question: Above, we said that Stam [Si'ah] is for people, and it must be tithed. If so, it has Tum'as Ochlim, and here we say that Tei'ah does not have Tum'as Ochlim!

Answer #1: Only in a Chatzer we say that Stam it is for people.

Answer #2: These (Ti'ah and Si'ah) are two different species [unlike Rashi].

Question: We say in Eruvin (28b) that Kor (shoots of a date tree) may be bought with Kesef Ma'aser, and it does not have Tum'as Ochlim!

Answer: Also Kor, if one overcooks it and fries it, has Tum'as Ochlim. Therefore, even before cooking it one may buy it with Kesef Ma'aser;

This is like a [live] Behemah and Chayah. One may buy them with Kesef Ma'aser, for it is proper to slaughter them, but they do not have Tum'as Ochlim while alive.

Answer (cont.): Here we ask properly. If one may buy it with Kesef Ma'aser because it is proper to eat after it is fixed, it should have Tum'as Ochlim immediately, for one can fix it easily, and from now it is considered a food;

This is unlike Kor, which still needs overcooking and frying.

And if it does not have Tum'as Ochlim, because after fixing it is not proper to eat by itself, if so, also they should not be bought with Kesef Ma'aser.

Question: How did they know what is Kaskeses before the verse of Galyus was written?

Answer: They knew through a tradition.

Similarly, we knew that Negichah is with a horn only from the verse "va'Ya'as Lo Tzidkiyahu ben Kena'anah Karnei Barzel..." (Bava Kama 2b).

Question: What is the source that we require both of them? Perhaps [a fish] is Tahor if it has either of them, until the Torah says "together" [to teach that both are required]!

Answer: This is like Simanim of animals. We require chewing the cud and split hooves, since the Torah forbade a pig (which has split hooves) and camel (which chews the cud).

Implied question: It says in Pesachim (7b) that one blesses after immersing!

Note: Some say that this refers only to a convert. Others say that it refers to any Tamei who immerses.

Answer: There, he should bless, just he is not proper to bless beforehand.

Explanation (R. Tam): Only on [removing] Tefilin they blessed Lishmor Chukav, for Bnei Ma'arava hold that the verse "v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah ha'Zos l'Mo'adah" is written regarding Tefilin, like it says in the Yerushalmi;

When one removes Tzitzis, there is no opinion that he blesses.

Also Tefilin, [he blesses] only when he removes them close to Shki'ah, when he is obligated to remove them;

It says in Menachos (36b) that if one put on Tefilah after Shki'ah, he transgressed an Aseh "v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah." [When a form of the word] Hishamer is written regarding a Mitzvas Aseh, this is an Aseh.

Distinction: However, even though one is exempt from Tzitzis at night, there is no Isur [to wear them at night], and one need not remove them.

Implied question: In our Sugya, why didn't we say that this includes Tzitzis? (One blesses before them, but not after.)

Answer: He prefers to mention fragrances, for it is uniformly true. On all fragrances, we do not bless afterwards.

Pesak: We do not hold like Bnei Ma'arava hold. We do not bless after Tefilin Lishmor Chukav, for in Menachos (36b) it is proven that [mid'Oraisa] the Mitzvah of Tefilin applies [even] at night.

Rav Ashi holds like this there. Mid'Rabanan it is forbidden to wear Tefilin at night, lest he sleep in them [and pass gas];

We establish the verse "v'Shamarta" to discuss Chukas ha'Pesach.

Implied question: There is no Mitzvah of Tefilin on Shabbos. We should bless when removing them Erev Shabbos, close to dark!

Answer: He is not obligated to remove them. We learn from "l'Os Al Yadecha" - this excludes Shabbos and Yom Tov, which themselves are Osos (signs that Hash-m chose us, and we are His nation. One is exempt from Tefilin, but there is no Isur to wear them (Maharam).)