Clarification: And according to Rebbi Eliezer, even if one took a lot from the Tevel during the week, it is not considered a Kevi'us ...

Proof: As is evident shortly, where he permits even something where it is fit to return the leftovers, how much more so that speaking alone does not render it fixed.

Question: But do the olives in the vat not become Tamei when he takes from them?

Answer #1: Only the place where he touches becomes Tamei, and those olives he is able to remove from the top so that he should not touch the others.

Answer #1 (cont.): Nevertheless, it is not fit to return the rest, since the Tahor ones will then be mixed with the Tamei ones (Rashi).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where he took them with a flat wooden vessel or where his friend gave them to him.

Clarification: Since he only took them verbally, and there is no greater returning than that.

Reason: Because, seeing as even where it is fit to return it does not become fixed, how much more so where he did not take it at all.

Clarification: To be sure, Rebbi Eliezer holds that Shabbos fixes even if it has not reached the stage of Nigm'rah Melachto, like T'rumah does.

Clarification (cont.): but according to the Rabbanan who permit by T'rumah, we don't know what they hold with regard to Shabbos.

Clarification: That the Rabbanan only argue because of B'reirah.

Clarification: Here it is not possible to ask that whatever remains is returned.

Clarification (cont.): Since the Rabbanan do not hold that S'vara, and really (according to them) 'whatever remains can be returned' is what renders it fixed.

Question: Why is this Din different than the case of 'Children who stored away ... ', where, on Motza'ei Shabbos, they are forbidden to eat from it?

Answer #1: Because whereas there they designated them for Shabbos, whereas here they did not designate it for Shabbos (Rashi).

Answer #2: Alternatively, there is speaks about figs that have reached the stage of 'Nigm'rah Melachtan, whereas here it speaks about a bunch of grapes that have not.

Question: What difference does it make, seeing as it only fixes something that has reached the stage of Nigm'rah Melachto?

Answer: The difference will be in that it fixes even before it enters the front of the house.

Implied Question: In reality, it ought to have said 'to preclude Rebbi Eliezer, who says that it fixes even with regard to something that has not reached the stage of Nigm'rah Melachto'.

Answer: And it did not mention him, because it would not be a Chidush, since the Halachah is anyway not like him, seeing as he is a Shamuti (from the School of Beis Shamai).

Implied Question: Shortly, it nevertheless says 'T'rumah to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ...

Answer: Since we do not find a Tana who holds that 'T'rumah fixes by Ma'aser regarding something that has not reached the stage of Nig'mrah Melachto other than Rebbi Eliezer.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Shachor' is a razor with a handle that is not permanently fixed, so that one sometimes takes them apart.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Even when they are separated, they are subject to Tum'ah, since each one is fit to be used independently.

Question: What is a handle on its own fit to be used for?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Shachor' too, is a pair of scissors, only one that is smaller than a 'Zug shel Misparayim'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In fact, both have two blades.

Conclusion: And the smaller one is called 'Shachor', because it removes the hair. It is a Lashon of taking down.

Explanation: Here it seems to be a Lashon of 'Neshirah' (falling down), as we find by 'Peiros ha'Noshrin' ...

Refuted Explanation: And not like Rashi explains in Perek Bameh Ishah (Shabbos, Daf 146: & 147.) one of Sh'riyah (soaking).

Refuted Explanation Reinstated: However, that is why the Gemara says here 'Alternatively, as we learned in the Mishnah "What is Leket? That which drops at the time of the harvest" ',

Refuted Explanation Reinstated (cont.): To teach us that it is possible to reject the first explanation, and to explain that it means to soak, as Rashi explained.