Answer #3: One can also answer that there (in the case of 'Gidulei T'rumah') it is different, inasmuch as it does not involve a loss to the Kohen ...

Answer #3 (cont.): ... because, just as it was T'rumah to begin with, so too, is it T'rumah after he plants it. Consequently, everyone agrees that we are concerned about Takalah ...

Answer #3 (concl.): ... whereas here, where pouring it out completely involves a total loss, there is an opinion that is not concerned about Takalah.

Introduction to Question: There is a problem with this explanation however, from the Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 33b & 34a) ...

Introduction to Question (cont): Where Abaye, in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak bar Marsa Amar Rav Huna confines the Tana's concession to kindle with bread and oil of T'rumah that became Tamei, to bread only, but not to wheat, in case it leads to Takalah.

Introduction to Question (concl): ... whereas Rebbi Yochanan establishes it even by bread - which we establish specifically by where it has been boiled and dirtied, implying that Rav Huna declines to permit even where it has been boiled and dirtied ...

Question (cont.): ... So we see that Takalah applies even where it will cause the Kohen a total loss?

Answer: They are not actually arguing, because Rav Huna is not talking about where it is has been boiled ... , and he too, would permit it in such a case.

Answer (cont.): That being the case, the Kohen does not incur a total loss, seeing as he is able to cook it and make it dirty, and then he may retain it.

Explanation #1: The Ri accepts Rashi's explanation - that it is a third opinion, since the previous Tana'im did not reveal any difference between a house and a field.

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... whereas the case of 'Kulei Matlaniyos' (in Bameh Madlikin, Shabbos, Daf 29a [See Tosfos there, DH 'Bein']), is considered a Hachra'ah, since Rebbi Eliezer holds whether it is prepared or not, it is Tamei; Rebbi Yehoshua holds whether it is prepared or not, it is Tahor ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and Rebbi Akiva maintains that if it is prepared, it is Tamei, otherwise it is not.

Proof: ... and in Perek Kirah' (Ibid, Daf 39b) the Gemara explicitly considers it a Hachra'ah.

Proof (cont.): Furthermore, Rebbi Akiva retracted in favor of Rebbi Yehoshua.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the case there which forbids rinsing one's body with hot or cold water' too, is considered a Hachra'ah, since the earlier Tana'aim there revealed that it is possible to distinguish between hot and cold water.

Explanation #1 (cont.): But the case in our Sugya, where they did not reveal their opinions, it is considered a Hachra'ah Shelishis.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And similarly in Nazir, Perek Kohen Gadol (Daf 53a [See Tosfos there, DH 'Beis-Din']) where Rebbi Eliezer states that the early elders, some of whom said 'Half a Kav of bones ... ' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): There too, it calls the Gemara calls it a Hachra'ah Shelishis, seeing as the earlier Tana'im there did not reveal that there is a distinction between T'rumah and Kodshim on the one hand, and Nazir and someone who brings his Korban Pesach, on the other.

Sugya in Reishis ha'Gez: The Gemara in 'Reishis ha'Gez' (Chulin, Daf 135a) states, in connection with 'Reishis ha'Gez Ein Noheg Ela bi'Merubeh', in answer to the question 'How much is Merubeh', the Gemara cites Beis Shamai, who says 'two, Beis Hillel, 'five and Rebbi Yishmael, 'four'.

Sugya in Reishis ha'Gez: There too, the Gemara refers to Rebbi Yishmael as 'Hachra'ah Shelishis'; but that Hachra'ah is not even as significant as the Hachra'ah here and as that of Nazir ...

Sugya in Reishis ha'Gez: Since they at least, are considered a Hachra'ah, inasmuch as it (the third opinion) is half like one, and half like the other, whereas there it is like neither of them.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks in all those cases that 'Hachra'ah Shelishis' is not a Hachra'ah?' it could just as well have asked that 'he is a Talmid, and the Halachah is not like the Hachra'ah of a Talmid.

Answer: ... only it asks better, that it is not a Hachra'ah at all.

Beraisa: Regarding the Beraisa in 'Keitzad Mevarchin' (B'rachos, Daf 43b) 'Beis Shamai Omrim Mevarech al ha'Shemen ve'Achar-Kach Mevarech al ha'Hadas; u'Beis Hillel Omrim 'Mevarech al ha'Hadas Techilah' ...

Beraisa: (cont.): ... and where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'I will be Machri'a (decide) - Whereas oil we benefit both from its smell and by anointing oneself, a Hadas we benefit only from its smell; therefore oil takes precedence'. And Rebbi Yochanan in the Gemara rules 'like the words of the Machri'a' ...

A Different Hachra'ah: ... the Ri explains that that Hachra'ah is not comparable to the other Hachra'os that Tosfos discussed earlier - since he (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) does not hold partially like one and partially like the other, but rather entirely like one of the opinions

A Different Hachra'ah (cont.): And so it is wherever one Tana concurs with another Tana, he is not considered a Machri'a.

Proof: And proof of this lies in the fact that Rebbi Yochanan finds it necessary to state 'Halachah ke'Divrei ha'Machri'a' in spite of the fact that, in Perek Kirah (Shabbos, Daf 39b) he himself already stated that Wherever one finds two Chachamim arguing and a third Chacham who is Machri'a, the Halachah is like the Machri'a ...

Proof (cont.): So we see that tha Hachra'ah is not equivalent to the Hachra'ah here and in Shabbos ...

Proof (concl.): ... and it only refers to it as 'Hachra'ah' because he 'tipped the scales' in favor of Beis Shamai against Beis Hillel.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, explains 'Hachra'ah Shelishis' to mean - the third generation - meaning 'You are a Talmid, and this is not considered a Hachra'ah', as the Gemara states 'Rebbi Akiva is a Talmid'.

Implied Question: It could just as well have said 'the second generation', as that too, is a Talmid ...

Answer: ... only that happened to be the case.

Implied Question: And in Nazir (Daf 53a), where the Gemara calls the 'Beis-Din of Achareihem' 'Hachra'ah Shelishis' ...

Answer: ... it is merely borrowing the term used in the current Beraisa.

Introduction to Question: In the first Perek of Pesachim in connection with Rebbi Meir, who says that one may eat (Chametz) the entire fifth hour ... ', Rebbi Yehudah says that one may eat the entire fourth hour ... ' and Raban Gamliel 'Chulin in the fourth hour and T'rumah, in the fifth' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): The Gemara, which states (on Daf 13a) that Raban Gamliel is not a Machri'a, since he is merely stating his own opinion, goes well with Rashi's explanation ...

Question: ... but according to the Rach, why is he not a Machri'a, seeing as he is not a Talmid?

Answer: Nevertheless he is not a Machri'a, since he is not referring to them, bearing in mind that he lived before them.

Tosfos Sides with Rashi: The Ri considers Rashi's explanation the correct one.

An Alternative interpretation of 'Yishafech': Some commentaries explain that it (the Tamei wine) must be poured out because 'Reicha Milsa hi' (A smell is significant)', and they ascribe the prohibition of performing 'Ziluf' to the fact that it is like drinking and not because of Takalah.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if so, Rebbi Yishmael ii not Machri'a; he is simply stating his own opinion, seeing as the previous Tana'im are not arguing over the concern of Takalah.

Refuted Question: Nevertheless according to that explanation, one cannot query Abaye who holds in Avodah Zarah (Daf 66b) in the case of 'Bas Tihah' - that 'Reicha Milsa hi' , and the Gemara asks 'Does this mean that he holds like Rabbi Meir?' ...

Refuted Question (cont.): ... Why does it not also cite there, in connection with the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava, the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel mentioned here?

Refutation: ... because it may well be that Abaye goes even like Beis Hillel, who agree that 'Reicha Milsa hi' to be considered Hana'ah, since the Gemara there is speaking about the Isur Hana'ah that pertains to Yayin Nesech.

Refutation (cont.): ... and it is only with regard to T'rumah Teme'ah which is Mutar be'Hana'ah that 'Reicha La'av Milsa' - to be considered like drinking.

Implied Question: ... And even though the Gemara there cites the case of an oven that they heated with cumin of T'rumah' and that of someone who removes hot bread (from the oven) and places it on a barrel of wine of T'rumah ...

Answer: ... there to be sure, assuming that 'Reicha Milsa' to be Asur be'Hana'ah, we will forbid the bread to be eaten by Zarim, since it will have absorbed the strong smell of cumin or of the wine of T'umah ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas just a smell - such as that of 'bas Tihah' and that of Ziluf is not considered like drinking, and is permitted by T'rumah (See also Tosfos, Avodah Zarah, Daf 67b, DH 'Amar Rava').

Implied Question: It cannot be compared to the ruling in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 24a) 'If someone saves (an animal) from a lion or from a bear, he may keep it, because the owner was Meya'esh from it ' ...

Answer: ... because it speaks there when the lion came to kill it, and this is borne out by the Lashon 'Someone who saves from a lion', implying that the owner has given up completely ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here, the lion, which was with them, was accompanying them, to guard their animals from wild beasts and robbers, only they would throw it a donkey every night. It was therefore possible that sometimes it would not be hungry and would not eat it ...

Conclusion: ... Consequently, they were only Mafkir their animals on condition that the lion would eat them, and in our case, it did not eat Rav Safra's donkey.

Clarification #1: They hired him on behalf of the sick person for more than the price that he would normally have asked, as the Lashon 'He pays his remuneration in full' implies.

Clarification #2: It must also be speaking where he could not claim that he was only pulling his leg, since he stood to lose that amount of money elsewhere.

Clarification: This means - that they are permitted to obligate them all to pay if they stipulated it beforehand ...

Precedent: ... like 'The residents of the town are permitted to fine (to deviate from the Din Torah) whoever transgresses some of their Takanos.

Explanation #1: Rashi translates it as 'locusts', as in 'It (the latter rain) brings the "Saka'in" ' (Ta'anis, Daf 6a), which is a species of locust.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, disagrees, since the Lashon of 'Yerushah' and 'Achasanta' (the concept of inheritance) implies that it is referring to people.

Refutation (cont.): ... and 'The Masikin took it' is also referring to people.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it calls the enemy 'Saka'ah', since they come up and cover the land

Proof: ... as the Torah writes in Sh'mos (10) "Behold they (the locusts) will cover the surface of the earth" ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And by the same token, they are called "Tzelatzal", because they cover the entire land like a shadow, as in the Pasuk in Yeshayah (18) "Hoi Eretz Tzelatzal K'nafayim" (Ahoy the land whose wings will cover it [Rabeinu Tam]).

Reinstatement of Explanation #2: It seems however, that the concept of inheritance is applicable to birds and wild animals too ...

Proof: ... as in the Pasuk there (34) "Owls and bitterns will take possession of it".

Question: We often find that the Tana repeats himself (in this way)?

Answer: The Gemara's query is based on the fact that he should have said 'And if not, he is Chayav' ...

Answer (con.): ... and since it says 'And if it is on account of the Gazlan, he is Chayav to provide him with another field', it implies that it is an independent statement.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'He heard from the royal palace that they were intending to steal land, and he showed them land belonging to P'loni'.

Concurrence: His explanation is correct ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... inasmuch as even in such a case we render him Chayav, even though it is not at all certain that they would take it ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): ... since they did not initially ask him to show them P'loni's land, and he showed it of his own accord ...

Proof: ... because that is what the Gemara will say later on (Daf 117a) 'And if he showed it to them of his own accord, it is as if he had picked it up and handed it to them'.

Explanation #2: Some Sefarim however, have the text 'It speaks where the Nochrim coerced him, until he divulged his own land and also that of the other person as well'.

Refuted Question: And one cannot query this text from the Gemara later 'Ne'enas Patur' ...

Refutation: ... because that speaks where they forced him to show them P'loni's land, whereas here, where they forced him to show them his own land, he is Chayav ...

Reason: ... since he should not have pointed out the field that he stole, which did not belong to him.

Clarification: And he is Chayav because of 'Diyna de'Garmi'

Source: ... as is implied later in the Sugya (Daf 117b) where it states 'Go to Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rebbi Elazar ben P'das who judge Diyna de'Garmi ...

Source (cont.): ... and they declared him Chayav based on our Mishnah 've'Im Machmas ha'Gazlan, Chayav Leha'amid lo Sadeh Acher'.

Introduction to Question: The Rashba queries this from the Gemara in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Daf 100a & 100b) where the only source that we have that Rebbi judges 'Diyna de'Garmi' is the Beraisa of 'Mechitzas ha'Kerem she'Nifr'tzah' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Which we only know goes like Rebbi Meir from the Mishnah of 'ha'Mesachech'.

Question: Why does it not cite there the Mishnah here, which renders Chayav due to 'Diyna de'Garmi'?

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara declined to cite the Mishnah here, since it does not specifically state that 'he showed him', a fact that we only learn from the extra words in the Mishnah.