Question: The Ri asks from Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a 70:) which states that if someone is 'Mekabel' sheep of Tzon Barzel (for which he accepts responsibility) from a Nochri, the babies are Patur from the Bechorah, despite the fact that he could send the Nochri away with money, as the Gemara says there 'Since, if the Nochri wanted money, but could not find any, he takes the animal'?

Answer: And he answers that it is different there, since to begin with, the animal belongs to the Nochri. Consequently, since if he does not find money, he can take the animal, it has not in effect, left his domain.

Answer (cont.): But in our case, where the animal belongs to the Yisrael, since he is able to send him away with money, it has not left his domain.

Implied Question: Why does the Beraisa then say that it is Chayav?

Answer #1: Rashi explains that the Tana is talking (not about an animal, but) about a dough.

Question #1: The Rashba queries Rashi however, in that the Beraisa in the Tosefta specifically states that it is subject to the Bechorah.

Question #2: Another Beraisa issues the same ruling with regard to a dough, which it renders Chayav Chalah, even there where he cannot send him away with money (see Maharsha).

Answer #2: Some versions have the text that exempt an animal of Arnona from the Bechorah, provided he cannot send him away with money ...

Answer #2 (cont.): According to this text, one can reconcile both Beraisos (since both Beraisos can then be speaking about an animal without clashing (see Maharsha).

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case where the owner did not accept liability (on the Nochri's Chametz), but merely said 'Here is the room before you!'

Question: The Ri asks however, that in that case, he ought to be Patur from destroying it even if he did not designate the room?

Answer #2 (cont.): Furthermore, how can the Gemara state shortly 'This means to say that renting acquires?'

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that it speaks even where he did accept liability. And that is why the Gemara learns it from "Lo Yimatzei" (see Maharsha), because, since he designated a room, it is not considered 'Matzuy'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rav Papa learns it from a S'vara, seeing as he designated him a room, it is akin to accepting liability on the Chametz belonging to a Nochri in the Nochri's domain.

Implied Question: Even though there is an opinion in Perek Kirah (Shabbos 43.) that declares forbidden taking a vessel for anything other than what it is made for?

Answer #1: One an establish the case where he picked up the vessel because he needed to use its location (which is permitted).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is permitted here, because one may come to eat it (thereby transgressing an Isur Kareis).

Refutation (Explanation #1): When the Gemara in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin 60.) cites the Parshah of Teme'im as one of the eight Parshiyos that were said on the day the Mishkan was set up (Rosh Chodesh Nisan), it is not referring to the Parshah of "Vay'hi Anashim", which was said on Erev Pesach, as is implied here ...

Explanation #2: It is referring to that of Tum'as Terumah and Kodshim (in Emor).

Implied Question: Even though Moshe told it to them following their request (and not of his own volition).

Answer: It would nevertheless have sufficed for him to reply 'Don't bring the Korban Pesach!', and no more. The rest he said, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, because it was fourteen days before Pesach.

Question: According to Rava in the Gemara in Shabbos in Perek Rebbi Akiva (86: & 87.) that everybody agrees that they arrived in Midbar Sinai on Rosh Chodesh; and he learns it from the Pasuk there in Yisro "ba'Yom ha'Zeh Ba'u Midbar Sinai" with a Gezeirah-Shavah from the Pasuk in Bo "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh.

Question (cont.): So we see that the Gemara takes for granted that "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh" was said to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh (so what is the Gemara asking here)?

Answer #1: The Ri answers that even though Hash-m said it to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh, it is possible that Moshe only told it over to Yisrael on the third or the fourth of the month.

Answer #1 (cont.): The Gemara concludes that we learn it with a Gezeirah-Shavah "be'Midbar" (Beha'aloscha) from "be'Midbar" (Bamidbar), since it says in Bamidbar "be'Echad la'Chodesh ha"Sheini", which is when Hash-m spoke to Moshe; and we know that Moshe passed it on to B'nei Yisrael on Rosh Chodesh too, since the Pasuk writes there "be'Echad la'Chodesh ha'Sheini, Vayisyaldu ... ".

Answer #2: The Ri however, explains (the Gemara's Kashya) in that, even though "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh" was said on Rosh Chodesh, perhaps "Dabru el Kol Adas B'nei Yisrael" was not?

Question: Why does the Gemara in Shabbos not learn (that they arrived in Midbar Sinai on Rosh Chodesh) via a Gezeirah-Shavah "Midbar" from "ba'Midbar" here?

Answer: We do not learn "Midbar" from "ba'Midbar" (if we can learn it from "Midbar").

Clarification: That is specifically where there is nothing to learn from changing the order.

Proof: For we find the Mishnah in Perek Nigmar ha'Din (Sanhedrin 45. & 45:) places pushing down the person being stoned before one actually stones him, even though the Torah reverses the order in Parshas Yisro, where it writes " ... and you shall stone them ... and push them down".

Proof (cont.): That's because in Parshas Shoftim, the Torah inserts Sekilah just before death, when it writes "and you shall stone them ... and they shall die.

Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara suggest, at the end of 'ha'Parah' (Bava Kama 54: & 55.) that "Behemt'cha" of the first Dibros and "Shor va'Chamor" of the second Dibros should form a 'K'lal u'Perat'. To which the Gemara answers that " Behemt'cha" of the second Dibros makes up a 'K'lal u'Perat, u'Kelal" 'P'rat' (even though the P'rat and the second K'lal are far away from the first K'lal)?

Answer: That is because the two sets of Aseres ha'Dibros are counted as one Inyan, since they were said in one go.

Explanation #1: This means that they are not automatically Bateil, like crumbs are.

Refutation (Explanation #2): Whereas according to Rashi, who explains 've'Da'teih Ilaveih' to mean that he is reluctant to declare it Bateil, how can the Gemara then ask 'Let him declare it Bateil when he finds it?'

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this to mean 'from the beginning of the sixth hour'.

Refutation: This does not seem right however, according to Rabeinu Tam, since when the Gemara said earlier (Daf 4:) that Chametz from the sixth hour and onwards is forbidden, it definitely refers to the end of the sixth hour (see Maharsha).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore establishes it by the end of the sixth hour.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara then proves this ruling from Chiti Kurdenaisa which is hard, and is therefore Chametz Nukshah, which is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (see Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).