Question: This is difficult. Why doesn't the Gemara say "your house" excludes a house which is owned jointly by a Nochri and a Jew, as stated earlier regarding many other laws?

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that it is a Mitzvah that is dependent on being in Eretz Yisrael. (Why, then, do we need a Pasuk to exclude Bikurim from outside of Eretz Yisrael?)

Answer: The Rashbam answers that it is needed anyway, since it is compared to Basar b'Chalav (which also applies in Chutz la'Aretz) in one Pasuk (and we therefore might think to include Bikurim in Chutz la'Aretz).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that people do not eat Reishis ha'Gez and one is only required to pay an extra fifth if he eats Terumah. (How can we think to derive Reshis ha'Gez from Terumah regarding one fifth?)

Answer: The benefit received from Reishis ha'Gez is tantamount to eating Terumah.

Question: This is difficult. How do we know that we require that the rest should be apparent? If it is from the fact that regarding Terumah the Pasuk says "the first," regarding Reishis ha'Gez it also says "the first!" Why should we have to derive this from Terumah?

Answer: It is possible to answer that the fact that we require the rest of what the Terumah has been taken from to be recognizable is because we derive Terumah from Chalah. Chalah is called Terumah, and regarding Chalah the Pasuk says "from the first," implying not all of what is first.

Explanation: The same is true regarding Matanos, as explained by Rashi. Despite the fact that all of the Amoraim mentioned in Chulin (132a) hold that it does apply in Chutz la'Aretz, which evident by the fact that they would give Matanos in Bavel (as stated by the Gemara ibid.), the Halachah still follows Rebbi Ilai.

Explanation (cont.): The same applies to Rebbi Yoshiyah regarding Kilayim. This is despite the fact that most Amoraim do not agree with Rebbi Yoshiyah, as is apparent from the Gemara in Shabbos (139a) regarding hops in the vineyard.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, the Gemara says that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding words of Torah, even though many Amoraim and Tanaim hold in Berachos (22a) that a Ba'al Keri is not allowed to say words of Torah.

Question: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that the custom is according to Rebbi Ilai, as is the custom regarding Matanos. Earlier (132b), the Gemara says that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak would take a cloak away from someone who did not want to give Matanos. (How can we reconcile this contradiction in his position?)

Answer: Perhaps before it became the custom (to be lenient) he would enforce this fine of taking away a cloak.

Opinion #1: Rav Hai Gaon says that when the Gemara says in Pesachim that a person makes a Berachah on all Mitzvos before doing them besides for immersing in a Mikvah, it means before a gentile converts by immersing in a Mikvah, as he only becomes Jewish and is able to say "And he commanded us" when he converts.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, regarding other types of immersions, even though one is previously impure he makes the blessing beforehand. This is because we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding words of Torah (for a Ba'al Keri).

Opinion #2: Some explain that this refers to all immersions. Even though the law follows Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah regarding words of Torah, many people would be stringent and make sure they immersed before saying words of Torah.

Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah say what the Beraisa quoted earlier, that if a person bought wool from a Nochri he is exempt from giving Reishis haGez? This (the Mishnah could write) would be a stringency of Matanos over Reishis ha'Gez!

Answer: This Mishnah only records cases where the law in general applies by one and not by the other. It does not state a case where one would be exempt and one would be obligated.

Question: This is difficult. It cannot pass if it is missing its legs below the knee! (It does not have to be a Treifah in order not to be able to pass. Why isn't it exempt in this case as well?)

Answer: Perhaps it too is exempt, as it indeed cannot go into the pen to have Ma'aser taken from it. However, this is a forced answer.

Question: If so, why do we require a Gezeirah Shaveh? We already know without a Gezeirah Shaveh that Reishis ha'Gez applies to a Treifah, as we have no reason to exclude it!

Answer: The teaching from "sheep" is not a Gezeirah Shaveh, but rather revealing a fact that just as the law of this sheep is like this, so too the law of another sheep is like this. "Sheep" would have to be written anyway, as we require "sheep" to teach that this is regarding sheep.

Question: This is difficult. We should learn (from Ma'aser Beheimah) that an orphaned animal should be exempt from Reishis ha'Gez!

Question (cont.): We can even derive that a Bechor is exempt from Ma'aser, as there is a Gezeirah Shaveh of "your sheep - your sheep" from Ma'aser where the Pasuk states, "And Ma'aser of cattle and sheep etc."

Text #1: Rashi changes the text to "b'Fnei," meaning in front of the Beis Hamikdash, as opposed to Ma'aser Beheimah which was cancelled.

Question: This is difficult. Even if the Rabannan nullified Ma'aser Beheimah, it should not change the fact that there is a Gezeirah Shaveh according to Torah law!

Text #2: Rather, we have the text "Lifnei" in all of our Sefarim, meaning that Ma'aser Beheimah can cause the animal before it (nine) and after it (eleven) to become holy as well, as opposed to Bechor and Reishis ha'Gez where there is no such law.