Clarification: A basket ...

Precedent: Like 'Kuryah' in Perek ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a, 84a) and in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, 127a.).

Clarification: These are 'Simanim' of the sayings of Rav Menasheh in this Masechta. The current case of 'Machnis Tachas Kenafav'; that of the second Perek (31a) 'a Knife that does not have corners' (with sharp edges); and that of Perek Eilu T'reifos (51.) 'Those rams that thieves stole, we are not worried about their limbs being crushed'.

Observation: There are however, other statements that he made (in other Masechtos), like we find in the second Perek of Yevamos (25a) 'A Gazlan mi'de'Rabbanan is Kasher by the testimony of a woman', and in Perek Mi she'Hichshich (Shabbos, 156a), where Rav Menasheh said (in connection with placing measures of animal fodder in front of animals on Shabbos) that 'One in front of one, and two in front of two, is in order'.

Question: But did Chazal not decree on their bread, because they stopped the building of the Beis-Hamikdash in the time of Ezra (as we learned in Pirkei de'Rebbi Eliezer [Perek 38])?

Refuted Answer: We cannot answer that this decree was restricted to the Kutim of that time only, about whom the Pasuk writes "Their gods they continued to worship" ...

Refutation #1: ... since the Gemara says there 'From here Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates that 'Whoever eats the bread of a Kuti, it is as if he has eaten the meat of a Chazir!'

Refutation #2: And we also learned a Beraisa later (on 13a) that states that the Shechitah of a Tzedoki is for Avodas-Kochavim; his bread is therefore Pas Kuti'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore establishes our Sugya by a dough belonging to a Yisrael from which a Kuti baked bread.

Question: How can one then be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah with it? Seeing as Kutim are not particular about the La'av of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol", we ought to suspect that perhaps he did not guard the Matzah for the sake of the Mitzvah of Matzah?

Answer: It speaks where the Kuti himself did not eat any other Matzah during the entire Seider-night.

Implied Question: It is clear from the Gemara in the first Perek of Gitin (10a.) that they also argue over Mitzvos which are written but which they did not adopt, where one can rely on them according to the Tana Kama but not according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

Anwer #1: ... and the reason that the Gemara specifically Mitzvos that are not written but which they adopted is because it is citing a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to the Shechitah of a Kuti.

Answer #2: Alternatively, because it is only coming to answer the Kashya 'Im Hichziku bah Miba'i leih?'

Explanation #1: This means that it is Mutar be'Hana'ah, to sell it or to feed it to one's gentile workers or to dogs . One is not however, permitted to feed it to a Yisrael, since the Chachamim decreed on Pas Akum (Nochri bread).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is speaking (not about bread, but) about dough, as Rabeinu Tam explained, which is permitted (See Maharam).

Question: With this explanation, we can also understand how the Gemara can possibly think that the author is Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as he holds in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 28:) that the Chametz of Nochrim that was available on Pesach is Asur be'Hana'ah?

Answer (Part 1): ... Therefore it must be speaking by dough, and they exchange it with the dough of Nochrim, which the latter kneaded after Pesach.

Answer (Part 2): And 'Mutar Miyad' that the Tana says means after the time it takes to knead a dough.

Advantage #1: According to Rashi, what we gain with this explanation is that we at least, are allowed to eat it, that the Isur is not transferred. In other words, the owner (the Over Aveirah), who receives the Chametz because of Chametz of Pesach, is forbidden to eat it (but others are not).

Advantage #2: It seems however, that we also gain even with regard to the owner, according to the current theory that we are talking about an Isur mi'd'Oraysa, because once he exchanges it, the Isur turns into a de'Rabbanan ...

Source: ... like Rashi himself explains in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 54b) in connection with the Pasuk "ki Cherem Hu", from which we extrapolate "Hu", 'to exclude Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem', which if one sold and betrothed a woman with the proceeds, she is Mekudeshes'. And Rashi explains there that the Heter is restricted to Kidushei Ishah, but as far as other Chalipin is concerned, it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

Reason #1: It seems that Rashi considers Chalipin Asur mi'de'Rabbanan - for the reason that he presents here - because otherwise, it would emerge that Chametz on Pesach has a value.

Refutation: This is not a good proof however, since, even if the proceeds would be permitted once the Chametz is sold, nevertheless, seeing as Lechatchilah selling it is prohibited, it will still be considered as having no value.

Reason #2 (Part 1): It appears however, that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, from the Gemara in Perek ha'Shutfin (Nedarim 47b) where Rami bar Chama asks what the Din will be regarding the Chalipin of fruit that Reuven forbade with a Konem on Shimon.

Reason #2 (Part 2): The Gemara tries to prove from the Beraisa 'ha'Mekadesh be'Orlah ... Machran ve'Kidesh bi'Demeihen Mutarin', that Chalipei Isurei Hana'ah are permitted. But it retorts that 'Perhaps Lechatchilah they are forbidden, and it is only Bedieved that the exchange is permitted ...

Reason #2 (Part 3): However, even though other Chalipin are forbidden, by Eishes Ish it is permitted either on account of the Mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivyah or because they confined the Isur to objects like fruit and vessels, which are recognizable and visible (See Maharam).

Question (Part 1): What does the Gemara ask at the beginning of the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 62.) regarding someone who hires a laborer to work with him in Yayin Nesech, whose wages are forbidden. And the Gemara rejects the suggestion that, since Yayin Nesech is Asur, so too are the wages of Yayin Nesech Asur, by citing (the Beraisa that we just discussed) regarding Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem, which are Asur be'Hana'ah, yet the Tana rules 'Machrah ve'Kidesh bi'Demeihen, Mekudeshes'.

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya, seeing as Lechatchilah it is forbidden to benefit from the sale (as we just explained)?

Answer: S'charo Asur' implies that it is forbidden to others as well, like the Yayin Nesech itself. Which is why the Gemara asks, in that case, why is the Kidushin valid, seeing as she too, is forbidden to benefit from it?

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara rules at the beginning of 'Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim 21b) that someone who betroths a woman during the period of time when Chametz is Asur mi'de'Rabanan, with Chametz de'Rabanan, we suspect that she is Mekudeshes (so why is it not valid in the previous case too)?

Answer: She is not one hundred per cent Mekudeshes (only le'Chumra), inasmuch as if another man betroths her, she will require a Get from both of them

Clarification: The Tana must be speaking where they performed the Milah when they were already Gedolim and died.

Refuted Explanation #1: ... because if it speaks on the eighth day, perhaps they died because the blood had not yet become absorbed, as the Gemara explains in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (134a).

Refuted Explanation #2: Alternatively, they may even have performed it on the eighth day, and it speaks where they looked and ascertained that the blood had been absorbed.

Clarification: It is speaking about a Mumar le'Te'avon (for his own benefit), because by a Mumar le'Hach'is (to anger Hash-m) it would be obvious that the Shechitah is Pasul.

Question: In the last Perek of Hori'os (11a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over a Mumar le'Hach'is, as to whether he is a Tzedoki or a Mumar; but they both agree that a Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim is a Tzedoki; and later (on Daf 13.) the Gemara cites a Beraisa that the Shechitah of a Tzedoki is for Avodas-Kochavim?

Answer: The Tzedoki that the Tana there is talking about is one who constantly serves Avodah-Zarah.