Explanation #1 (Rashi): If they came to judgment after Terumah was taken, they swear to the Gizbarim, for the Mishnah says that they take Terumah [with intent] for what was lost.

Inference: He explains "they take Terumah [with intent] for what was lost" to mean that the Shali'ach lost it before Terumah was taken, but they came to judgment only after Terumah was taken.

Question #1: [If so,] the Mishnah teaches this (what was lost), and there is no need to teach this (the Seifa)! All the more so, they take Terumah for what was collected and not lost!

Question #2: The simple meaning [of the Mishnah] does not discuss that they came to judgment!

Explanation #2: "They take Terumah for what was lost", i.e. it came to the Gizbar's hand and it was lost it before they took Terumah. [They intend for it], since it reached the Gizbar's hand;

They take Terumah for what was collected and is still in the Shali'ach's hand on the way, even though it was lost after they took Terumah;

[They take Terumah] also for what will be collected later and sent to the Gizbar, even though at the time they took Terumah it was not yet given to a Shali'ach.

Citation: In Kesuvos 108a, regarding a Mudar Hana'ah (a vow forbids Reuven to benefit from Shimon), it says "granted, Shimon may give the [half-]Shekel for Reuven, for a Mishnah teaches that they take Terumah for what was lost..."

Explanation #1: This refers to what was lost from the Shali'ach after they took Terumah. This is not Hana'ah, since [Reuven] is exempt [from giving another Shekel].

Explanation #2 (Rashi there): From "what will be collected later", we prove that they take Terumah even for what will never be collected.

Rebuttal: Our Sugya connotes unlike this.

Observation: The text says "d'Tanya", for this is not a Mishnah in Shekalim.

Question: Why isn't it proven from this itself, that [the sender] is not liable in Achrayus, since it says that they swear to the Gizbarin, and not to the people of the city? (If the sender has Achrayus, the people of the city are entitled to hear the Shevu'ah!)

Question: Below (94a), a Beraisa says that a Shomer Chinam can stipulate to be like a borrower to be liable for Ones;

We ask "how does he stipulate - through words?!" Shmuel answered that they acquired from him (Kinyan Sudar);

R. Yochanan said, you can even say that they did not acquire from him. Through the Hana'ah that he trusts him, he resolves to obligate himself.

If so, [according to R. Yochanan] what requires a Kinyan?

Answer #1: Here that he is exempt even without a Shevu'ah, he does not obligate himself without a Kinyan.

Answer #2: There, since he becomes obligated like a borrower, you can even say that they did not acquire from him. Through the Hana'ah that he trusts him, he resolves to obligate himself.

Question: How is this permitted for the Omer, since he guards it? It says "mi'Mashke Yisrael" - [Korbanos must come from] what is permitted to Yisrael!

We expound "v'Es Invei Nezirecha Lo Sivtzor" - [in Shemitah] you may not be Botzer (harvest grapes) from what was guarded, but you may be Botzer from what was Hefker.

Inference: If he took from what was guarded, it is forbidden!

Suggestion: Perhaps it is forbidden only to be Botzer, but if he transgressed and was Botzer, one may eat it.

Rejection: Even from Hefker one may not be Botzer, for Betzirah is a Toldah (derivative) of Ketzirah (harvesting), like it says in Mo'ed Katan (3a)!

Answer: [The Shomer] never protested [against one who wanted to take], just he informed people that they were designated for the Omer, and people refrained by themselves from taking.

Explanation: When it is possible to expound [new laws], we do not establish [a verse] to teach about extra Lavim.

Explanation: The latter clause is a bigger Chidush. One may not mention even his father's actions.

Explanation: [Kislasecha] is an expression of Bitachon, like "Samti Zahav Kisli", and "ka'Asher Yakot Kislo...", i.e. you should have feared Hash-m. This would be your reliance, and purity of your deeds would be your hope.

"Zechor Na Mi Hu Naki v'Avad" - if you were clean [of sin], you would not perish.

Support: In Sanhedrin (89b) we can similarly explain [Kislasecha] to be an expression of reliance, and not an expression of folly;

[The Satan] said to Avraham "Yirascha Kislasecha", i.e. your fear of Hash-m should have been your reliance, and you lose through this, for you will slaughter your son!

Implied question: It says in Bava Kama (119a) one who steals Shaveh Perutah from his friend, it is as if he steals his Neshamah!

Answer: This is because sometimes hunger is severe, and he has nothing with to buy [food]. However, there are many people who are not lacking so much.

Explanation: He becomes red initially because the blood gathers to go away.

Suggestion: They never come up [from Gehinom].

Rejection: It says below that one who has Bi'ah with a married woman has a share in the world to come!

Explanation #1: Rather, it means that all who descend come up immediately, and the fire of Gehinom does not rule over them, like it says in Eruvin (19a). We learn from a Kal v'Chomer from the gold Mizbe'ach. In Chagigah (27a), we make a Kal v'Chomer from Salamandra (a creature that comes from fire. One who anoints with its blood, fire does not rule over him.)

There are only three exceptions who do not come up immediately. However, some of them are judged forever, e.g. one who publicly shames another. It says below that he has no share in the world to come!

Some come up after 12 months, e.g. one who has Bi'ah with a married woman, for the judgment of Resha'im in Gehinom is 12 months;

Explanation #2: Alternatively, one who publicly shames another, granted, he has no share in the world to come, but he is not judged for more than 12 months;

Rather, after 12 months they do not live, and they are not judged. They are suspended without good and without evil.

Support: Now it is fine that [R. Chanina] does not list Apikorsim (heretics), for they are judged for all generations, like it says in Rosh ha'Shanah (17a) that Gehinom finishes, and they do not finish.

Question: Why doesn't he list Yisraelim who sinned with their bodies, e.g. a head that did not wear Tefilin?

We say in Rosh ha'Shanah (17a) that they descend and are judged for 12 months, and afterwards their bodies and Neshamos are burned and become ashes under the feet of Tzadikim!

Answer: He did not want to list those listed in the Beraisa, for this is not a Chidush.

Question: He listed one who publicly shames another, which was taught in Avos (3:12)!

Answer: He listed it Agav (along with) one who makes a nickname [for someone else]. He needed to teach about one who makes a nickname [that he has no share in the world to come] even if [the one he calls by the name] is used to the name.

Question: Why doesn't he list one who has Bi'ah with a Nochris?

It says in Eruvin (19a) that Avraham does not remove him from Gehinom, for his foreskin stretches, and Avraham does not recognize him!

Answer: He lists only those who do not come up due to this Aveirah alone, like the Beraisa says "even though he has Torah and good deeds";

However, one who has Bi'ah with a Nochris, for this Aveirah itself he is not punished unless he has other Aveiros worthy to descend to Gehinom for them;

However, this Aveirah causes that Avraham does not raise him out immediately. Rather, he is there for 12 months.

Limitation: All of these are when he did not do Teshuvah. Teshuvah helps for everything.

There is an opinion (Brachos 34b) that Ba'alei Teshuvah are greater than those who were always Tzadikim.