Proof (concl.): And then the Beraisa states that - 'Someone whose fruit is piled up and far away from him, must call them by name' - and it cites 'The incident with Raban Gamliel and the elders who were coming in a ship ... '.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The declaration mentioned there is the name of the (new) owners, to clarify to whom he was giving what - and that is the 'Biy'ur'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... But he did not bother to fix a location or to mention the amount, since he knew with certainty that his family would not eat from it, since he having warned them not to, since it had not been rectified.

Question: Why, in the episode with Raban Gamliel, does the Tana not menion T'rumah Gedolah?

Refuted Answer #1: There are some who explain that this is because min ha'Torah, one grain of wheat exempts the entire stock, and presumably he had separated it before he left his house - in order to be Yotzei the Isur d'Oraysa - and given it to the Kohen.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because why would he not be concerned about the Isur de'Rabbanan?

Refuted Answer #2: Others explain that it doesn't mention T'rumah Gedolah because it is not subject to Biy'ur, as the Mishnah says in Maseches Bikurim (2:2), and it cites it in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 73a) ...

Refuted Answer #2 (cont.): ... 'Some things apply to Ma'aser Sheini and Bikurim, but not to T'rumah ... ', and it goes on to mention Biy'ur, implying that T'rumah is not subject to Biy'ur.

Refutation: We are forced to say however, that T'rumah Gedolah is subject to Biy'ur, as we learned in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini that Tosfos quoted earlier - 'How does one perform the Mitzvah of Biy'ur? One gives T'rumah to the Kohen'.

Refutation (cont.): So we see that it is subject to Biy'ur, at least mi'de'Rabbanan?

Proof: And also in the Mishnayos (of Ma'aser Sheini, 5:10), the Tana learns it from the Pasuk (Devarim, 36:13) "And I also gave it to the Levi", 'to include T'rumah and T'rumas Ma'aser'.

Implied Question: And one cannot query this from the above-mentioned ruling 'Some things apply to Ma'aser Sheini and to Bikurim but not to T'rumah', implying that T'rumah is not subject to Biy'ur ...

Answer: ... since that is speaking about clearing them from the world when the time of Biy'ur arrives - such as Ma'aser Sheini and Bikurim which one may not eat outside Yerushalayim ...

Answer (cont.): Therefore, unless one takes them to Yerushalayim, one needs to destroy them completely ...

Answer (concl.): ... whereas one does not need to destroy T'rumah, which can be eaten anywhere, but must give it to a Kohen - and that is its Biy'ur.

Original Question (concl.): In any event, the initial Kashya remains - why did R. Gamliel not clear out the T'rumah?

Answer: Because T'rumah he certainly separated whilst it was still in the field, as they were accustomed to separate it in the granary, and one can therefore assume that he separated it whilst the produce was still in the granary, immediately following the Miru'ach (flattening the pile) ...

Source: ... as the Gemara says there (Yerushalmi, Ma'asros, Perek 3) 'There is a Chazakah that one does not close the granary before separating T'rumah Gedolah from it'.

Proof: And so the Yerushalmi says in Maseches Ma'asros (at the end of Halachah 1.) 'If one finds fruit piled up, it is forbidden with regard to theft, but Chayav T'rumah; scattered, it is permitted with regard to theft, and Patur from T'rumah Gedolah ...

Proof (cont.): Because it is impossible to close the granary without T'rumah Gedolah having been taken'.

Clarification: Since he was a Levi, as Rashi explains.

Question: How could he give it to him, bearing in mind the fact that Ezra fined them (the Levi'im [Yevamos, Daf 86b]).

Answer: Because he holds that the K'nas went to the poor, and Rebbi Yehoshua was a poor man ...

Source: As the Gemara states in B'rachos (Daf 28a) 'From the walls of your house one can discern that you are a blacksmith'.

Question: Why did he not then give him Ma'aser Ani as well?

Answer #1: Because he wanted to give to a lot of Aniyim ...

Source: ... as the Gemara says in Eruvin (Daf 63a) 'Someone who gives all his Matanos to one Kohen brings hunger upon the world'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yehoshua declined to take Ma'aser Ani because he had two hundred Zuz (Pe'ah, 8:8).

Implied Question: Nevertheless, he was permitted to take Ma'aser Rishon based on his poverty ...

Answer: Since he was not wealthy and he sustained himself with difficulty.

Answer #3 (to original Question): ... and according to the opinion in Yevamos (Daf 86b) that the K'nas went to the Kohanim, one can answer that he gave it to him, like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, who says that before the K'nas it went to the Levi and not the Kohen, whilst after the K'nas, it went to the Kohen as well.

Clarification: The Seifa states that they paid each other rental.

Question: Why was he not Makneh the locations to them with Chalipin?

Answer: Perhaps S'chirus cannot be acquired with Chalipin ...

Proof: ... as the Gemara says there (Bava Kama, Daf 79b) 'Just as Karka can be acquired with Kesef, Sh'tar and Chazakah, so too S'chirus' - and it does not mention Chalipin (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: What will one gain by retracting from the Sh'tar, seeing as he cannot retract from the field?

Answer: He does not want to have a Sh'tar against him (See Kesuvos, 79a), since a Sh'tar has a stronger 'Kol' (word spreads quicker) than witnesses, and people will therefore say that he must be a poor man who is selling all his property ...

Answer (cont.): ... with the result that he will not be able to find creditors who will lend him money.

Question: Without Chazakah, why does he not acquire it on account of Kesef?

Answer #1: Because it is speaking about a place where money does not acquire.

Question: What does the Tana mean by 'The power of Chazakah is stronger than that of Kesef', seeing as without Kesef, Chazakah does not acquire?

Answer #1: The Rach says that by Matanah at least, he acquires them all when he makes a Chazakah on one of them without Kesef.

Answer #2: Rebbi Shmuel from Aibra explains that 'He paid for all of them' - speaks where the seller owed the purchaser money from before (and which the latter was now Mochel) ...

Answer #2 (to both Questions): It therefore transpires that he could not have acquired with that money...

Reason: ... because just as one cannot betroth a woman with it, since it is a loan, so too, can one not acquire Karka with it ...

Answer #2 (to both Questions): ... and by the same token, we have a case where Chazakah is stronger than Kesef - since it acquires without money.

Clarification: It speaks where they are all tied to one another with one rein, and where he took hold of the hoofs or the hair of one of the animals, and it is on that that the Gemara states 'Does he not acquire the others?' ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and likewise by fields - with a Chazakah on one he acquires them all, since that is how they are similar ...

Proof: Because if he were to take hold of the actual reins, what proof does the Gemara bring from here, where it may well be different, seeing as he actually held all of them?

Clarification: And it would also seem that it speaks specifically where he paid for all the animals, in the same way as he paid for all the fields.

Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that it speaks there where the 'bundle' is in his hand' - meaning that it is fitting to be in his hand, because, should he wish to take hold of the entire 'bundle', by which they are all tied together, and he will acquire them all, now too, it is as if they are all joined together ...

Conclusion (cont.): ... which is not the case by fields, where he is not able to take hold of all them simultaneously.

Question: How can he learn all these things, bearing in mind that the Torah writes only two times "Amen"?

Answer: From one "Amen" we can learn 'Alah & Shevu'ah', 'Ish Zeh & Ish Acher', seeing as it refers to whatever is written in the Parshah ...

Answer (cont.): ... and "Alah" & "Shevu'ah" are written specifically in the Parshah, as is "Tachas Ishech", implying 'both from this man and from another one' ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas the other "Amen" refers to an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam, which are not written in the Parshah (See Masores ha'Shas).

Clarification: And "Tachas Ishech" which the Torah mentions implies the man under whose jurisdiction you currently are.

Question: How do we know to Darshen the Pasuk in this way", seeing as "Tum'ah Tachas Ishech" implies that the S'tirah (the seclusion) took place during their marriage?

Answer: Just as the Gemara at the beginning of Perek Arisah (Sotah, Daf 24a) learns from "Ish Ish" to include the Kinuy (the warning) during Erusin, so too, will we include the S'tirah of Nisu'in.

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish it where he had relations with her (even after the S'tirah) be'Shogeg, in that he did not know until afterwards that she had secluded herself, since in such a case, he is considered 'clean from sin' ...

Proof: Because when the Gemara establishes the case via Gilgul Shevu'ah, he would not be clean from sin there where she committed adultery during the betrothal ...

Proof (cont.): ... only since he is a Shogeg, he is considered 'clean from sin'?

Answer: It is different here, since, at the time that he gives her to drink, he knows that he was intimate with her be'Isur, he is not 'clean from sin', irrespective of whether he was intimate with her be'Shogeg or be'Meizid ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas in the case of Gilgul, where, when he gave her to drink, he did not know ... , he is indeed 'clean from sin'.

Clarifying the Text: We do not have the text 'that he warned her whilst she was an Arusah, and she secluded herself and then entered the Chupah' (got married), but 'Does it not speak via a Gilgul?' ...

Explanation: Where he warned her when they were already married, and he added on her a Shevu'ah when she was an Arusah, even though an independent Shevu'ah at that time was not appropriate, seeing as he had not warned her ...

Explanation (cont.): ... and similarly, one adds a Shevu'ah on Karka, even though Karka is not otherwise subject to Shevu'ah.

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not establish the case where he warned her when she was an Arusah and she then secluded herself, and he gives her to drink after they is married, since she is then 'under his jurisdiction', and where he had not yet been intimate with her - so that he is 'clean from sin' ...

Answer #1: The Gemara attempts to give this answer in Maseches Yevamos (Daf 58a), but rejects it due to the Pasuk "Besides your husband" - implying that 'Intimacy with her husband must precede that of the adulterer' and not vice-versa'.

Conclusion: Consequently, there can be no case of a Shevu'ah regarding the Z'nus (prostitution) of an Arusah other than via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, since the Z'nus of an Arusah entails 'preceding the intimacy of her husband'.

Refuted Explanation: In Yevamos (Ibid.) there is an opinion that establishes the case where the Arus had been intimate with her in her father's house' ...

Refutation: ... but Ula (in our Sugya) does not subscribe to that explanation, as he considers it a Dochek - Rashi.

Question: But it is clear that our Sugya too, relies on that answer - since the Gemara says 'If you say that he warned her when she was an Arusah and gave her to drink when she was still an Arusah - the Torah writes "Tachas Ishech", to preclude an Arusah' ...

Question (cont.): Why does he need this Pasuk? He ought to have quoted the Pasuk "mi'Bal'adei Ishech", ' and not where the intimacy of the adulterer preceded that of the husband?

Question (concl.): It must be because it relies on the answer that 'The Arus was intimate with her in her father's house'

Conclusion: In which case, the initial question remains.

Answer #2: Tosfos therefore explains that the Gemara declines to establish the case where she got married and was not yet intimate ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... because it holds like Shmuel, who says that 'Pesulos are not subject to Chupah' - and since she secluded herself, Chupah does not take effect, and we cannot refer to her as "Tachas Ishech".

Question: Since Rav says (Ibid. 58b) that 'Pesulos are subject to Chupah', and we can establish the case where he warned her when she was betrothed and they got married without their having been intimate, from where does he learn Gilgul Shevu'ah?

Answer: He learns it from "Amen" 'me'Ish Zeh', "Amen" me'Ish Acher' - meaning that, although she is not basically Chayav a Shevu'ah on another man - seeing as he did not warn her about him, he adds a Shevu'ah on him (via Gilgul).

Question: Then why does Ula not learn Gilgul Shevu'ah from "Amen" 'me'Ish Zeh', "Amen" me'Ish Acher'

Answer: Because we would not be able to learn from there Gilgul Shevu'ah on Karka'os

Reason: ... since the fact that one can add a Shevu'ah regarding another man is only because the other man himself would have been subject to a Shevu'ah, had there been a warning regarding him, whereas Karka, which is not subject to a Shevu'ah at all, we would have thought that one cannot be Megalgel ...

Answer (cont.): But now that we compare Gilgul Shevu'ah by Karka to that of Arusah, it is fine, seeing as by Arusah too, there is no Shevu'ah other than via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, as Tosfos just explained.

Question: How can Rav learn Gilgul Shevu'ah (by Karka) from 'Ish Acher', seeing as they are not comparable, as we just explained?

Answer: He holds that 'Ish Acher' refers even to a Katan (See Sotah, 24a), through whom one cannot warn her, since he is not subject to a Shevu'ah - nevertheless, via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, one can.

Conclusion: But Ula does not concur with that S'vara.