Clarification: It seems to Abaye that 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach' is Davka, and that the same applies to the first one (the Ganav).

Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi in the Perek 'ha'Zero'a (Chulin, Daf 134a); but here is not the place to elaborate.

Clarification: Tosfos explains that this applies exclusively to the cases over which the Amora'im argue ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but not to the ruling of Rava regarding a well-known Ganav, with which no Amora disagrees.

Question: Even if they are not breaking, he ought not to be able to say ... , since it is forbidden to take T'rumah from what is not Mukaf (next to the crops that one is coming to rectify)?

Answer #1: The Tana mentions that they are breaking on account of the Seifa - 'And even if he did say it, he has said nothing'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking on Shabbasos and Yamim-Tovim, when it is permitted to take T'rumah even if it is not Mukaf, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Ishah Rabah' (Yevamos, Daf 93b).

Text: We need to erase this from the text, as Rashi explains ...

Reason: ... because the Beraisa which the Gemara cites too, forbids it Lechatchilah, where it incurs a loss for the Kohen ...

Source: ... as it states 'And in the case of oil he should not do so ...

Reason (cont.): In which case above too, where there is a loss for the Kohen, it is justifiably Asur Lechatchilah.

Conclusion: The Gemara must therefore be asking on what it stated earlier that 'even Bedi'eved, he has said nothing'.

Clarification: The Gemara does not ask from oil, when it says that 'with oil he should not do that', though the T'rumah takes effect - 'And if it becomes uncovered, for what is it fit?'

Reason: ... since one can answer that it is fit for lighting.

Clarification: ... though the Kohen still bears a loss, seeing as, once it has been uncovered, it can only be used with difficulty ...

Reason: ... because one must be careful not to touch the oil at all, or even the receptacle in the location of the oil.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he might Shecht it and this will entail life-danger.

Question #1: This is not correct however, seeing as he cannot water even Tamei animals due to 'Bal Tashchis' (waste), as is implied in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 30b & 31a) ...

Source: ... because the Gemara , establishes the Beraisa there, which permits watering one's animal (with it) by a cat, which is not endangered by it ...

Source (cont.): And in answer to the Kashya 'If so, his friend's also (ought to be permitted)?', it answers 'It makes it weak. But his too, becomes weak? It regains its strength'.

Source (concl.): ... and since the Gemara asks 'His too becomes weak?' it implies that it is forbidden due to 'Bal Tashchis'?

Question #2: Moreover, since it does not establish the case by non-Kasher animals, where the suspicion that one might Shecht them is not applicable, it implies that by other non-Kasher animals (besides cats), to which the poison is dangerous, it is Asur on account of 'Bal Tashchis'?

Answer: One could answer however, that the Gemara does not want to establish it by other non-Kasher animals, because 'Is the Tana talking about fools, who water their animals with something that will kill them?'

Question: In that case, it is obvious that they are subject to Giluy, just like any other revealed liquid?

Answer: The Gemara thinks that the snake is scared of the noise that it hears as the wine falls from the strainer to the bottom, as the Gemara explains in the second Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 39b) - 'If one drop follows the other, it is not subject to Giluy'.

Answer (cont.): ... and it teaches us that, in this case, where it sees the wine being poured in one go into the bottom vessel, it is not scared into thinking that the noise is made by humans, but it thinks that this is the way that one makes wine.

Clarification: The Gemara concludes that whether or not, we are concerned about Takalah is a Machlokes Tana'im.

Implied Question: And as for the Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 17b & 18a, in connection with the eighteen things - that ' "A re-plant of T'rumah is T'rumah" they decreed on that day' ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... and which the Gemara explains is 'because of T'rumah Teme'ah in the hands of the Kohen - perhaps he will hold on to it and this will result in a Takalah' ...

Implied Question (concl.): ... and nobody there disagrees with that, since 'the eighteen Things' were unanimously accepted? ...

Answer: ... the Ri explains that there is different, since sometimes one holds on to it for a long period of time, not planting it that year - because something happens to prevent planting in season, so one waits until the following year ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here it is always possible to make Ziluf once it has lost its freshness.