Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one may eat it.

Question #1: It is impossible that it should not belong to him at the time that he eats it - since, if the Nochri gave it to him, then it is his, and even if he stole it from him, he is liable for what happens to it, in which case it is no worse than Chametz for which one is responsible, which is considered one's own?

Question #2: Furthermore, later the Gemara will say that they follow their reasoning, where they argue over Chametz over which Pesach passed. Why do they not argue over Chametz on Pesach itself?

Explanation #2: The Riva therefore explains that when the Gemara says that 'even Toch Z'mano is permitted', it is referring to Hana'ah (See Maharsha).

Implied Question: And when it concludes 'But you may eat that which belongs to others' ...

Answer #1: It is La'av Davka.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is referring to Achar Z'mano'.

Question: It is difficult however, to explain Chametz of Hekdesh in connection with during Pesach, because if one did not redeem it it is Asur be'Hana'ah, whereas if one did, then it becomes his?

Answer: Perhaps what the Gemara therefore means is 'But you may derive benefit from what belongs to Hekdesh' - that there is no Isur Chametz, even though the Isur Hekdesh remains.

Question: The Ri asks that according to those who learn "Ason" "Ason", at the beginning of Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos 30.), and who hold that Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim is Patur from paying according to Rebbi Nechunyah ...

Question (cont.): Why, later (on Daf 33.) does Rebbi, who holds (on Daf 33.) that 'Heizid bi'Me'ilah is Patur from Misah', exempt Kareis from payment

Question (cont.): Since even though elsewhere he exempts Misah from payment, here he will not do so, seeing as the Torah reveals that by Shogeg one is Chayav; By Kareis too, even though by Kareis he is Patur, that is because Kareis is be'Meizid, but be'Shogeg he ought to be Chayav?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that by Misah, where the Torah reveals here that he is not Patur from payment (be'Shogeg), it reveals; whereas by Kareis, where it does not, it does not!

Question: But the Gemara says later (Daf 31:) that 'Somebody who eats T'rumas Chametz on Pesach be'Shogeg is obligated to pay the principle plus a fifth'. And although we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechunya, one is nevertheless Chayav to pay/

Question (cont.): Because just as one is not Patur from paying on account of the Chiyuv Misah of T'rumah, so too, is one not Patur from paying on account of the Isur Chametz.

Answer #1: The Ri answers that the payment of T'rumah is a Kaparah - as is evident in Maseches T'rumos (Perek 6, Mishnah 1) where we learned 'If the Kohen wishes to forego the payment, he is not able to do so.

Answer #1 (cont.): And since it is a Kaparah, Kareis does not exempt him on account of 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih'.

Proof: According to the one who does not learn 'Ason" "Ason", who does not exempt Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim from paying, why does someone who eats T'rumas Chametz on Pesach have to pay?

Proof (cont.): One cannot attribute it to the fact that, since Misah does not exempt, neither does Kareis, since Misah never exempts.

Proof (concl.): It must therefore be because it (the payment of T'rumah) is a Kaparah.

Answer #2: furthermore the Ri answers, it is because the Gemara here goes according to the Rabbanan who hold that 'Heizid bi'Me'ilah is subject to a La'av'.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara here is talking about Shogeg, seeing as it mentions 'Ma'al' and 'Lo Ma'al' ...

Answer: Nevertheless, we Pasken like Chizkiyah, who says that 'Chayvei Misos Shogegin P'turim min ha'Tashlumin', and the same applies to Kareis according to Rebbi Nechunya.

Question: The Riva asks why one is Patur here from a Korban on account of 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah mineih'.

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Gemara in Shabbos (94:) that 'Someone who carries food into the street in a K'li Shogeg on the food and Meizid on the K'li, is Chayav a Chatas on the food and S'kilah on the K'li'.

Question (cont.): So we see that 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah mineih' does not exempt one from a Korban?

Answer: And he answers that (in our case) once he is Patur from Keren and Chomesh, is also Patur from a Korban, since one only brings an Asham Me'ilos there where there is keren ve'Chomesh.

Question: R. Chayim asks from the second Perek of Bechoros (Daf 14:) where it is implied that they only argue in a case where the Hekdesh preceded the blemish, but that if the blemish came first, since Kedushas ha'Guf never took effect, both agree that they can be redeemed ...

Question (concl.): Whereas here it seems that they they argue even in a case of Kedushas Damim?

Answer: And he answers that 'Ein Podin' in our Sugya means mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question: Nor should wonder how, due to a suspicion that is merely de'Rabbanan, one can remove Me'ilah 'd'Oraysa?

Answer: Because once the Rabbanan say 'Ein Podin', the object no longer has any value.

Implied Question: And what the Gemara says in 'ha'Ta'aruvos' (Zevachim 71:) 'If they got mixed up with an ox that was worshipped, with Kil'ayim or with a T'reifah, they should be sent into field until they obtain a blemish and are then sold ...

Implied Question (cont.): Which can only be in order to feed them to the dogs, since one cannot feed a Yisrael T'reifah ...

Answer: This is in order even according to those who hold that 'One may not redeem Kodshim to feed to the dogs' - that is only where they are unfit to feed to humans, whereas here, in principle they are, only they are not discernable (from those that are Asur).

Proof: Because Rebbi Akiva in Bechoros (Daf 32.) allows one to invite a Nochri to partake of a B'chor animal, even though in Zevachim (Perek T'vul Yom, Daf 104.) it is evident that he forbids feeding a B'chor that is a T'reifah or a Ba'al-Mum to dogs ...

Proof (cont.): Seeing as even the skin is forbidden once the animal is found to be T'reifah before it has been skinned.

Conclusion: And there where it is permitted to a Yisrael, it is compared to "Zvi ve'Ayal".

Question: The Ri asks that even if one cannot redeem, he ought to be Mo'el, seeing as after it has been burned and become ashes, one is able ...

Question: The Ri asks that even if one cannot redeem it, he ought to be Mo'el, seeing as after it has been burned and become ashes, one will be able to redeem it, and it will be Mutar be'Hana'ah?

Answer: Since as it is now it has no value, 'Me'ilah' is not applicable to it.

Extension: And that is also the reason that one cannot betroth a woman with all Isurei Hana'ah, despite the fact that the ashes of whatever must be burned are permitted.

Implied Question: And even if we hold 'Anything that causes a monetary gain is considered Mamon, in which case one will be Mo'el, it is not comparable ...

Answer #1: Since there it will be fit for use after Pesach, rendering it as if it was really there.

Answer #2: Moreover, one cannot betroth a woman with Isurei Hana'ah speaks where the ashes would not be worth a P'rutah.

Question: One can ask on the first answer however, that one is permitted to benefit from Isurei Hana'ah in an unusual manner? (See Maharsha).

Question: The Gemara in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 4:) suggests (Savruhah) that the author there is Rebbi Yehudah, who permits the Chametz of sinners immediately after Pesach, because they switch it (for Heter).

Question (concl.): Whereas here we conclude that according to Rebbi Yehudah, even the Chametz of a Nochri is Asur after Pesach?

Answer #1: 'Savruhah' there goes according to what Rav Acha initially thought here (and from which he has now retracted).

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam answers that 'immediately' mentioned there in the Gemara is 'La'v Davka', since in any event, there must be sufficient time to switch.

Answer #2 (cont.): And the Chametz of Nochrim too, will be permitted if sufficient time elapsed to have made it after Pesach.

Question: The Ri asks what the correct text is. If it reads 'Everybody holds 'Podin', then why do the Rabbanan say that he is not Mo'el; seeing as even though it is Asur be'Hana'ah for a Yisrael, what's to prevent him from selling the Hekdesh itself to a Nochri?

Question (cont.): Whereas if the correct text is ' ... Ein Podin', then even according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili why is one Mo'el?

Answer: The correct text is 'Ein Podin', and even though one may not redeem it to feed one's dogs, it is nevertheless permitted to place it underneath one cooked dish, as Tos explained (on Amud Alef Dh 'Ein').

Answer (cont.): This is because we are talking here about Kedushas Damim, on which the Rabbanan decreed not to feed to one's dogs.

Answer (concl.): But where the prohibition to redeem it is d'Oraysa, which is synonymous with a case of Kedushas ha'Guf, redeeming it is prohibited even to burn underneath one's pot.

Proof: Since we learned in Bechoros (Daf 15.) 'If they died, they must be buried!' And the Gemara asks there 'From where we know that the reason for this is because they require 'Ha'amadah and Haarachah'. Perhaps it is because of 'Ein Podin es ha'Kodshim Leha'achilan li'Kelavim?'

Proof (cont): Now if the reason is because of 'Ein Podin ... ', why must they be buried, seeing as they are fit to place underneath one's pot?

Proof (concl.): We are therefore forced to admit that mi'd'Oraysa, there is not difference (between feeding the dogs and burning them underneath one's pot).

Precedent: Similarly earlier (on Daf 22.) we Darshen that one is not allowed to throw to the dogs all Isurim in the Torah, and they are likewise forbidden to burn underneath one's pot.

Question: According to the Rabbanan, why is one not Mo'el, since one is permitted to sell Hekdesh to a Nochri on condition that he burns it before Pesach?

Answer: We forbid it on case he comes to eat it.

Precedent: Like we find at the end of Maseches Avodah-Zarah (Daf 15.), where the Gemara forbids selling an animal to a Nochri on condition that he Shechts if (in case he comes to eat it).

Inferred Halachah: The Ri proves from here that someone who retains Chametz on Pesach with the intention of destroying it does not transgress the Isur of 'Bal Yera'eh ... '.

Proof: Because if one were, then the question remains why one is Mo'el according to Rebbi Yossi ... , seeing as the moment he redeems it, it becomes his ...

Proof (cont.): And Rebbi Yossi concedes that 'You may not see what is yours!'

Conclusion: Clearly then one does not transgress.

Reason: And the reason is because "Lo Yera'eh" is connected to an Asei, which prevents one from transgressing as long as one destroys it at the end.