Implied Question: The reason that they did not initially decree on Medameh like they did on Metamei and Menasech - before the Gemara concludes the reason of 'a slight loss' ...

Answer: ... may well be due an incident that occurred in connection with Metamei and Menasech, at which point they decreed on them exclusively.

Clarification: This means that he is justifiably termed a 'Masor', seeing as it is certain that, having pointed him out, they will definitly take him.

Introduction to Question: The Ri asks from the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 16b & 17a; See Tosfos, DH 'Ha') - 'Rabah bar bar Chanah became ill ... when they (Rav Yehudah & Rabah) went to visit him, he declared "Either in Your shade Hash-m, or in the shade of the Romans!" ' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): ... on which the Gemara asks 'Does this mean that the Romans were preferable to the Persian?'

Question: ... from there it seems that there were still Persians in Bavel ...

Question (cont.): ... And it also seems that that incident preceded the one here?

Answer: The Ri explains that the officers and the commissioners tended to change; sometimes they were Persians and sometimes, Greeks.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Torah is that of the Babylonians.

Introduction to Question: This is difficult from the Gemara in 'Lulav va'Aravah' (Succah, Daf 44a & 44b [See Tosfos there DH 've'Ha']), in connection with the statement 'Aravah is a Y'sod (an institution of the) Nevi'im, which they subsequently forgot and reintroduced' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): ... on which the Gemara asks 'Did Rebbi Yochanan really say this, bearing in mind that he said 'Dilchon Amri, Dilhon Hu'?, and which Rashi explains 'We see from this that they did not forget it in Bavel?'

Question #1: But what is the problem? Is it because they were knowledgeable in Torah that they could not possibly forget the laws of Aravah?

Question #2: Moreover, in many places (in Shas) the Gemara comments 'They forget them and later reinstituted them?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore concurs with the Rach - that he (Rebbi Yochanan) was speaking with his Babylonian Talmidim who were before him; and what he therefore said to them was 'One of yours' - with reference to Rav Kahana - said that it is theirs, meaning that it is a Minhag (a custom of the) Nevi'im

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and the Gemara is querying what it stated earlier 'A proof that Rebbi Yochanan is the one who holds that it is a Y'sod Nevi'im'?' Did Rebbi Yochanan not say 'Dilchon Amri, Dilhon Hi'? ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... because the Gemara understood the Lashon 'Dilhon' to mean a Minhag Nevi'im and not a Y'sod Nevi'im.

Precedent: And we need to say the same thing in 'ha'Megaresh' (Gitin, Daf 84b & 85a [See Tosfos there, DH 'Rebbi Yochanan']) in connection with the case where Rebbi Yochanan said 'Dilchon Amar' - Since she acquired it (the Get), she becomes Pasul to marry a Kohen ...

Precedent (cont.): ... because he was speaking to his Talmidim from Bavel about Rav Kahana.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi there explains that he said it to Chizkiya his Rebbe, who disagreed with him there.

Refutation: It is incorrect however, to say that at the time that Rav Kahana was learning by Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yochanan was the Rosh Yeshivah, whilst his Rebbe Chizkiyah was still alive (See Tosfos, Menachos, 23b, DH 'Ki').

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara said earlier that if he took it and handed it over, he is Chayav ...

Answer: ... the Ri explains that a Shomer is different, since they deposited it by him on the understanding that he may use it to save himself should they come upon him with the silver cup in mind.

Implied Question: Even though, from the fact that the Gemara does not differentiate, as it did earlier, it implies that he was wealthy ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, since he had nothing to offer them at that moment, it was considered Pidyon Shevuyim.