Clarification: In the R'shus ha'Yachid for communal use. And not like Rashi, who establishes it in the middle of the street.

Proof: Since we learned in Maseches Orlah (Perek 1, Mishnah 2) 'Someone who plants for public use is Chayav; whereas Rebbi Yehudah rules that he is Patur'. And then it says 'Someone who plants in the street, a Nochri who plants and a Gazlan ... '.

Conclusion: And since the Tana divides them into two sections, they are clearly two different cases.

Reason: The Gemara in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin 28.) attributes it to the fact that 'Although it is not fit for the Nazir, it is fit for others'.

Observation: The Gemara does not ask from here on the opinion that permits making an Eiruv only if it is for the sake of a Mitzvah - and the Mitzvos were not given to benefit from?

Question: According to Chizkiyah, what does "Nizro" come to teach us?

Answer: There are some texts that read "And the other opinion (i.e. Chizkiyah) learns that "On his own Nezirus he shaves, but not on the Nezirus that his father declared'.

Refuted Explanation: In spite of the fact that the Din of 'Kotzer la'Shachas' is only permitted for animals, as is evident in Menachos (in Perek Rebbi Yishmael, Daf 71:).

Refuted Explanation: Nevertheless, the Gemara does not associate 'Ma'achil li'Beheimah' with 'Kotzer la'Shachas' ...

Reason: Because if it did, the Gemara's Kashya would be meaninglless, seeing as the Torah only forbids Chadash if it is fully grown.

Correct Explanation: Consequently, 'Ma'achil li'Beheimah' refers even to fully-grown wheat, that has been picked by hand (and not with a sickle), as Rashi explains..

Proof: Moreover, the Seifa states that 'Rebbi Shimon permits harvesting it and feeding it (to one's animals) even after it has grown a third of its full growth.

Question: The Rashba asks from where we know that the Pasuk comes to teach us this ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as we need it for the D'rashah in Perek Rebbi Yishmael, in Menachos (Daf 72. & 72:) "Your harvest", ' and not the harvest of a Mitzvah'? And Chizkiyah too, can answer like that?

Answer: Since a. the Torah does not write 'Reishis Katzir' and b. it could have then written 'Ketzircha'- yet it writes "Ketzirchem", we now have two D'rashos.

Question: In that case, how can one sell horses and donkeys?

Answer: The Pasuk is speaking specifically with regard to eating.

Proof from Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Maseches Shevi'is (Perek 7, Halachah 1) asks - 'How about a donkey and a camel?' And it answers that they are reared for their work!'.

Question: The Gemara states in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama 82.) "Cursed (mi'de'Rabbanan) be one who raises Chazeirim!'

Question (cont.): Why not say that it is prohibited because the Torah forbids it?

Answer #1: The difference is that, in addition, he is also cursed.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is only Asur mi'd'Oraysa there where one raises them to gain financially by selling them to a Nochri to eat, but not where he sells them to him to benefit from their fat or their skin.

Answer #3: Or where he raises them not sell, but to benefit personally in order to anoint with their fat or for lighting.

Answer #4: Or else even where he came by them 'by chance', for example, as in inheritance, he is nevertheless forbidden to raise them.

Question: According to Chizkiyah, let the Torah not write "Lo Ye'achel", and it will not need to write "L'cha"?

Question: Let us say that an ox that has to be stoned and other Isurei Hana'ah will prove otherwise?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that 'If already Cheilev, which is punishable by Kareis and is forbidden to eat, yet it is Mutar be'Hana'ah like Neveilah itself, how much more so should Gid ha'Nasheh, which is not punishable by Kareis, be included in the Heter of Neveilah!'

Conclusion #1: In that case, it is no longer possible to ask 'Tochi'ach'

Conclusion #2: Neither can we learn (that it is permitted) via a Kal va'Chomer from blood, since blood is not included in Neveilah, even to the extent that it is not subject to the Tum'ah of Neveilah, as Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 22.)

Conclusion (cont.): Whereas Cheilev is indeed included in Neveilah, in which case no Pasuk is needed to render it Tamei; On the contrary, we need a Pasuk to render it Tahor from the Din of Neveilah.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says that 'It is permitted, but not the Cheilev' ...

Answer: That is not because it is not included in Cheilev, but because it is only what one is permitted to eat by a Tahor animal, that the Torah permits by Neveilah (and Cheilev is not).

Conclusion: What the Gemara now answers that 'According to the other opinion, we are speaking about an animal' fits nicely, since we are only concerned that it should be included in the Heter Neveilah, but elsewhere, he agrees that it would be a good Kashya.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask that the Gid of a Chayah should at least, be Asur ...

Refutation: Because, since that of a Beheimah is not Asur be'Hana'ah, if so, "Lo Yochal" that is written in connection with Gid ha'Nasheh, is written exclusively with regard to eating, in which case, from where would be learn the Isur Hana'ah by a Chayah?

Question: The Rashba asks why we do not present the difference between them as Chametz Nokshah and regular Chametz in a mixture ...

Question (cont.): Which we include at the beginning of 'Eilu Ovrin' (on Daf 43.) from the Pasuk "Kol Machmetzes Lo Socheilu" - which will be Mutar be'Hana'ah according to Chizkiyah, whereas according to Rebbi Avahu, wherever the Torah says "Lo Sochlu" it incorporates an Isur Hana'ah.

Refuted Answer: And if you want to answer that since we include it for eating, we also include it for Hana'ah ...

Refutation: Then one ought to be Chayav Kareis as well (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes this by the goat of Nachshon.

Explanation #2: However the Toras Kohanim establishes it explicitly by the goat of Rosh Chodesh (See also Rashi in Chumash) ...

Proof: Since the Torah writes "And it He gave to you ... to atone for them ... ", a direct reference to the goat of Rosh Chodesh, which atones for the sin of Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodoshav'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Moshe said to them "Hein Lo Huva ... ", implying that if it had, they would have been justified in burning it.

Question: Rabeinu Sh'lomoh from Troy asks that,in any event, they ought not to have burned it, since they did so without 'Ibur Tzurah' (leaving it off the Mizbe'ach all night until it became Pasul be'Linah?

Question (cont.): Based on the Gemara in Keitzad Tzolin (82:) which says that 'Whereas whatever is intrinsically Pasul is burned immediately, if it is Pasul via the blood or the owner, then it requires ''Ibur Tzurah before being burned?

Conclusion: What the Pasuk therefore means to say is - 'Why did you not eat the Chatas ... seeing as its blood was not brought inside. But if it had, they would have been justified in not eating it.

Explanation #2: Whereas the Ri explains it like this - If we do not need the Pasuk for itself, seeing as we rule in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (Ibid.) that whatever is intrinsically Pasul must be burned', and the Chatas of Aharon was due an act that occurred, we must learn it with regard to other Isurim [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]).