Refutation: Rashi refutes this text, because that Pasuk is written in connection with Terumah ...

Refutation (cont.): And even if we would learn "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah, it would not work, seeing as the Pasuk by Terumah is speaking about eating the value of a P'rutah, which is not called Achilah; whereas Rava only includes in his list those things that require Achilah (at least the volume of a k'Zayis).

Correct Text: The correct text must therefore be "ve'Zar Lo Yochal, ki Kodesh Heim" (which is written in connection with Kodshim).

Question: Why is the La'av of "u'Basar ba'Sadeh ... " not a La'av she'bi'Kelalus, bearing in mind the Gemara in Chulin, which includes someone who eats Basar from a live animal in the La'av, seeing as it incorporates all cases of the animal being outside its borders, even where the fetus stuck its foot outside its mother's womb, or whether one took Kodshim outside the wall of the Azarah or of Yerushalayim?

Answer: We only consider it a La'av she'bi'Kelalus in the case of 'Tz'li-Eish' (with regard to the Korban Pesach), which incorporates 'raw' and 'cooked', or of 'Kol she'ba'Kodesh Pasul', which incorporates a Kodshim animal that leaves its designated area, one that is Tamei, and one that is Pasul for any other reason, all of which have different names; unlike here, when it only includes different aspects of Yotzei, which is the umbrella name for all the cases. Consequently, it is not a La'av she'be'Kelalus.

Proof: In fact, it can be compared to the La'av of Nosar, where the Pasuk "And you shall burn the Nosar in fire, it shall not be eaten" incorporates Nosar of the Todah, Nosar of other Kodshim Kalim and Nosar of Kodshei Kodshim. Yet it is not considered a La'av she'bi'Kelalos, since all the cases fall under the umbrella name of Nosar.

Question: Why did the Gemara not answer that the La'av of "Lo Yochal ... " is not subject to Malkos because it is a La'av she'bi'Kelalus (seeing as it incorporates the P'sul of Yotzei and Tamei, as well as other Pesulim?

Answer #1: This is not a problem according to Rashi, who explained earlier that 'Lokeh' means, not that he receives Malkos, but just that it is Asur. Consequently, here too, granted there is no Malkos (because it is a La'av she'bi'Kelalus), but at least the Isur of Kol she'be'Kodesh Pasul, ought to apply. But according to the explanation that we gave there that 'Lokeh' must be taken literally, like Rashi there, the Kashya remains - why should he receive Malkos, seeing as it is a La'av she'bi'Kelalus', as we explained?

Answer #2: As a matter of fact we could have answered that, only the Gemara gives a better answer, in that R. Shimon did not leave it out at all!

Clarification: And when R. Shimon said above 'If it comes to forbid a Zar who eats a Chatas before Zerikah, that we know from a 'Kal-va'Chomer from Todah', that he said with reference to an Isur, but without Malkos.

Clarification: Only then, are the Bikurim permitted, otherwise not. So we see, that K'ri'ah is crucial.

Clarification: Since R. Yehudah establishes "ve'Hinachto" with regard to Tenufah, Hanachah is not repeated, and we can assume that it is not crucial to the Mitzvah.

Question: Keri'ah is not repeated either, yet R. Shimon holds that it is crucial?

Answer: This is not a problem, says Mashi'ach, because Keri'ah would not be crucial to the Mitzvah either, if not for the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha".

Explanation #1: Since R. Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns Tenufah from the Gezeirah-Shavah, the double Lashon of "ve'Hinicho" and "ve'Hinachto" comes to teach us that Hanachah is crucial to the Mitzvah.

Question: The Sifri in Ki Savo learns that "ve'Hinicho" and "ve'Hinachto" both refer to Tenufah (and not to Hanachah) ...

Proof: ... as is evident from the fact that the Tana requires two Tenufos, which he learns from "ve'Hinicho" and "ve'Hinachto" (which complies with neither opinion in our Sugya?)

Explanation 2#: The Riva therefore explains that the above Sifri is the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who holds that both Pesukim are speaking about Tenufah, and there were two Tenufos and the Pasuk is not referring to Hanachah, which is not crucial ...

Explanation 2# (cont.): ... and when the Gemara asks who is the Tana who argues with R. Yehudah, what it really means is 'Who is the Tana who learns Tenufah from a different Pasuk (not just from "ve'Hinicho")?

Clarification: Whereas the Rabbanan, who hold that Hanachah is crucial, is synonymous with the opinion of the Tana Kama who argue with R. Yehudah in Bikurim, who learns: 'Whilst the basket is still on his shoulders, he reads "I have told today ... ", until the end of the Parshah. In fact, according to him, there is no Tenufah at all, since both Pesukim refer to Hanachah, which is therefore crucial to the Mitzvah.

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas R. Yehudah there, rules that he reads the Parshah up to "Arami Oveid Avi", at which point, he lowers the basket from his shoulders and holds it by its handles, the Kohen places his hands underneath his (the owner's) and waves it, before concluding the Parshah.

Question #1: Seeing as R. Yehudah in our Sugya learns Tenufah from "ve'Hinachto" which is written at the end of the Parshah, from where does he learn that the reading is done near the beginning of the K'ri'ah (see R. Simchah mi'Desvi)?

Question #2: Furthermore, bearing in mind that, on the one hand, in the Pasuk of "ve'Hinachto" (from which R. Yehudah learns Tenufah) the Torah does not mention 'Kohen', whilst on the other, in the Pasuk "ve'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene ... " (where it does), there is no hint of Tenufah, from where does R. Yehudah learn that the Kohen participated in the Tenufah?

Clarification: When a Zar is Chayav Misah and a Kohen Malkos for eating it outside the walls of Yerushalayim, seeing as its Mitzvah is to be eaten within its walls.