Question #1: The Ri asks why the Halachah is not like Raban Gamliel, seeing as the Tana presents a S'tam Mishnah like him, in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Daf 21.), since he uses the word 'Mutar'.

Reconsideration: And even if we are uncertain as to whether one can take 'Mutar' literally or not ...

Conclusion: Why do we not rule either like Rebbi Meir or like Raban Gamliel, since 'Mah Nafshach', the Mishnah in Kol Sha'ah goes like one of them?

Answer: He (Rav Nachman) relies on the Gemara's second answer.

Conclusion: Tosfos will discuss the Din of Hachra'ah at the end of the Perek be'Ezras Hash-m.

Clarification: Even if we hold that, based on the Pasuk in Bamidbar (18) "es Mishmeres T'rumosai", one is forbidden to burn T'rumah Tehorah, just as one is forbidden to render it Tamei ...

Clarification (cont.): Here it is permitted.

Implied Question: Because, even though min ha'Torah, mere Bitul will suffice, and burning is not necessary ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since it is destined to become Asur and to be destroyed, it is permitted to burn it, just as one is permitted to render it Tamei (since we find at the end of the Perek, where Rebbi Meir permits 'burning Teme'ah together with Tehorah' (for that reason).

Clarification: How much more so by Chulin, where there are many people to eat it, that one leaves over (enough for two meals), as is implied in the Tosefta.

Reason: The reason that it implies to Nochrim is, because if it was to a Yisrael, he may as well take it himself, as Abaye will ask shortly.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi has the text 'Go and sell it via Beis-Din in the market!', implying that even though Rebbi, who was the Av Beis-Din, gave him permission to sell it, he nevertheless required a Beis-Din at the time of the sale, in order to assess it.

Question #1: How does this differ from a widow, who is permitted to sell to others even without a Beis-Din, whilst with a Beis-Din she may even keep it herself?

Question #1 (cont.): Since the Gemara says in Kesuvos (Daf 98.) 'A widow who assessed it (her deceased husband's property) for herself, has achieved nothing, because we say to her 'Who assessed it for you?'

Question #1 (cont.): Implying that in Beis-Din she is permitted to assess it.

Question #2: And we also cite there the case of a certain with whom they deposited a bag belonging to orphans, which he assessed for himself, and which later rose in price.

Question #2 (cont.): There too, Rebbi Ami asked him 'Who assessed it for you?'

Answer #1: She is permitted to sell it outside Beis-Din because of 'Chein' (in order to find favor in the eyes of potential suitors).

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas in the case of the bag of the orphans, he was only permitted to retain it himself Bedi'eved (but not Lechatchilah)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is because, in the case of orphans, it is the Beis-Din themselves who are the depositors, in which case there is no problem with retaining it oneself, with Beis-Din's permission.

Answer #2 (cont.): But not by a deposit belonging to somebody else.

Implied Question: And the reason that we say in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a 28:), in connection with an article that one finds 'One assesses their value and sets it aside'?

Answer: There by a found article there is no reason to suspect the finder, since he is returning it of his own volition.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this to mean the amount that this particular fruit normally diminishes.

Question: The Ri asks that, if that is so, what is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason for permitting him to sell them in Beis-Din?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it speaks where it dimished in one month more than the amount than it normally tends to do.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the reason that it calls it 'bi'Chedei Chesronan'; is because it did not yet diminish the full quota for an entire year.

Source: As the Gemara explains in ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, 40.) 'For wheat and rice - nine half-Kabin per Kur ... '. But if it were to diminish more than that, then everybody would agree that they must be sold in Beis-Din.

Clarification: Because he (Rav Yehudah) was his (Rachbah's) main Rebbe, he called him 'Rebbi'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one redeems that bread, which goes to Chulin, and with the proceeds one purchases another Todah or bread for another Todah.

Refutation: But this is not correct, because, since the bread itself was not fit to be used as another Todah, neither is the money; because what is the difference?

Proof: And in Perek ha'Todah, (Menachos 80.) the Gemara specifically states that 'If someone designated money for Todah Loaves, and some of the money is left over, one may not bring another Todah with it.

Explanation #1: And although the money is forbidden, the Gemara is justified in asking 'Let them redeem it?', in case the lost Todah is found.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, what the Gemara means is 'Let them redeem for a P'rutah, seeing as one is Lechatchilah permitted to redeem Kodshim worth a Manah for a p'rutah, when there is no loss to Hekdesh, as is evident in Erchin (29.).

Clarification: The Riva explains that the Gemara has now retracted from its previous contention that the loaves were Kasher. Since it speaks on the thirteenth after the Korban was Shechted, as the Gemara said earlier 'One cannot bring a Todah on the fourteenth'.

Clarification (cont.): So now they are more Pasul, since a. the blood spilled and b. they also became Pasul be'Linah.

Reason: And the reason that the Gemara establishes the case where the blood spilled, is because it considers the reason given by Rebbi Chanina ('Because there were many Korb'nos Todah brought on the thirteenth), they became Pasul be'Linah') a Dochek ...

Reason (cont.): For how can it be that, due to the large numbers of Korb'nos Torah, they cannot find people to eat them, bearing in mind that Zarim are permitted to eat them?

Yerushalmi: According to the Yerushalmi, Rebbi Chanina himself gives the current answer.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Since the text there reads 'Rebbi Chanina says that 'They wee Pasul, because in so much of a hurry were they to bring their Todos (due to the Chametz that was part of it), that it was inevitable for the blood of at least one of them to have spilt, in which case they all became Pasul.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Now, since the Yerushalmi says 'Because they were hurrying ... ', it implies that it is speaking on the thirteenth, when they all brought their Todos.

Observation: It would appear that 'Nizrak Daman she'Lo li'Sheman' is Lav Davka, and the same would apply even if the blood was sprinkled li'Shemo.

Clarification: In 'ha'Techeiles' (Menachos 47:) there is an opinion that 'Kadosh' means that the money on to which one redeems it becomes Kadosh too'.

Clarification (cont.): It does not want to say that it goes out to Chulin, but that its Kedushah is transferred and it does not go out to Chulin ...

Clarification (cont.): Because if it did, one could still ask 'Let them redeem it?'

Question: Why do we not also say' ke'Zaruk Dami' there where he sprinkled the blood she'Lo Lish'mo?

Question (cont.): So why does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say that it is not Kadosh?

Answer: Since he uprooted it from 'li'Shemo', it is worse than where the blood spilt, and it becomes retroactively clarified that it is not considered as if it had been sprinkled at the time of the Kabalas ha'Dam.

Question: In Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (Menachos 102.) the Gemara says that 'If he was Mefagel during the Zerikah, it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, according to Rebbi Shimon, due to the principle 'Kol ha'Omeid Liz'rok ... '?

Refuted Answer: And to draw a distinction between Pigul and she'Lo li'Shmo Is a Dochek.

Answer: With regard to the actual Korban itself,it is considered as if the blood has been sprinkled, even though he was Mefagel during the Zerikah; But not regarding things that are sanctified together with the Korban, such as the loaves. There the blood is not considered sprinkled if the Zerikah wasnot performed be'Hechsher.

Question: Seeing as they were Kasher, why did they leave them there up to the time of Isur.

Answer: This goes according to Raban Gamliel, who holds that 'T'rumah the whole of the fifth hour', and the Todah Loaves are like T'rumah.

Conclusion: And they would take down the second Loaf at the end of the fifth hour. And so is implied in the Yerushalmi.