Question: The Ri from Orleans asks that, since we learn via the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lechem" "Lechem" that Matzos must be one's own, why does the Gemara earlier find it necessary to preclude Matzos of Tevel, because of 'Matzos that are Asur on account of Chametz ... '. What is wrong with the reason that the Matzos must be 'Lachem', and Tevel is not 'Lachem'?

Question (cont.): Like we find in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul in Succah (Daf 35:), where Beis Hillel declares Kasher an Esrog of D'mai; and the Gemara there attributes it to the fact that the owner could use it were he to declares his property Hefker, in which case it would be fit for him to use; consequently, now too (even if he did not do so) it is considered "Lachem" and he is permitted to use it.

Question (concl.): This implies that real Tevel would not be considered "Lachem"?

Answer #1: The Ri replies that the reason that an Esrog of Tevel is not considered 'his own' is because he is obligated to give some of it to the Kohen and to the Levi, whereas the entire Esrog needs to be his.

Answer #1 (cont.): Matzah on the other hand, where even if one gives T'rumah and Ma'aser from what he ate, one will still eat a Shi'ur (k'Zayis) it is considered his own.

Answer #2: The Rashba however, answers that the Gemara earlier needs the Pasuk for a case where what he separates will remain his ...

Answer #2: Where he is a Kohen, a Levi or a poor Yisrael who already separated T'rumah and Ma'aser Rishon, in which case it is considered his.

Clarification: This Sugya follows the opinion in Makos (Daf 20.) that 'a Mechitzah to gather in is d'Oraysa ...

Proof #1: Because if it was merely de'Rabbanan, it would have a Heter Moshvos, since even if it left the Mechitzah, even if it was still Tahor it would be redeemable.

Proof #1: Alternatively, seeing as mi'de Rabbanan, it is not redeemable, it is not considered 'edible in all Moshvos'.

Question #1: The Ri asks that if we were to say 'Ho'il', then Bikurim could also be eaten anywhere, seeing as it (Bikurim) has not yet been declared by its name?

Answer: This is not comparable to Bikurim, seeing as there it is the 'name Bikurim' that cannot be eaten anywhere, whereas here the 'name Chalah' can be eaten anywhere, as can the name Ma'aser. Therefore by Chalas Ma'aser we can say 'since he did not declare it by its name'.

Question #2: Furthermore the Ri asks, if we say 'Ho'il', Ma'aser Sheini may also be eaten anywhere, since it was not yet brought to Yerushalayim. Why then did the Gemara earlier (36:) find it necessary to establish it like Rebbi Elazar?

Answer: If not for Rebbi Elazar, it would not be considered Ma'aser Sheini being eaten anywhere due to his have not having brought it to Yerushalayim, just as it is not, because he did not declare on itthe name Ma'aser.

Explanation: Rebbi Yehudah's reason is because he Darshens 'Kesef Rishon' and not not Kesef Sheini, and that is why Tahor grain that one purchased with money of Ma'aser Sheini cannot be redeemed outside Yerushalayim.

Explanation (cont.): And by the same token,one cannotredeem Tamei crops even inside Yerushalayim,seeing as both are learned from the Pasuk "Lo Suchal Se'eiso".

Explanation (concl.): Whereas the Rabbanan, who do not Darshen 'Kesef Rishon ve'Lo Kesef Sheini', hold that one may redeem both Tahor grain that one purchased with money of Ma'aser Sheini outside Yerushalayim and Tamei grain inside Yerushalayim.

Question: The Rashba asks from the beginning of 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim Daf 49.) where the Gemara asks whether it is true that the Tafeil (what is secondary) is never more stringent than the Ikar, and it cites the case of Ma'aser, which can be redeemed, whereas what is purchased with money of Ma'aser cannot ...

Question(cont.): As we learned in the Mishnah - If what is purchased became Tamei one may redeem it', implying that if it didnot become Tamei, one may not! Now this is referring to crops outside Yerushalayim, since that is the case where the Ma'aser itself can be redeemed (and in any other case, the Tafel would not be more stringent than the Ikar).

Question (concl.): So we see that even the Rabbanan agree that what has been purchased cannot be redeemed when it is Tahor even when it is outside Yerushalayim?

Answer: The Ri answers that the Sugya there is speaking mi'de'Rabbanan.

Explanation: The Ri agrees with Rashi, who establishes the case where the Korban has not yet been Shechted on them and they have not yet been sanctified.

Proof #1: Because if they had been sanctified, then they would be Pasul anyway because the Matzos must be one's own, as we learned earlier from "Lechem" "Lechem".

Proof #2: Furthermore, the statement 'to sell in the market-place one is Yotzei' implies that they have not been sanctified.

Implied Question & Answer #1: And what the Gemara means is that 'Matzah that has been guarded for the sake of Matzah, to preclude these which are guarded for the sake of a Korban - once they are sanctified.

Implied Question & Answer #2: And similarly, the statement that they can only be eaten for one day relies on the Pasuk of "u'Shemartem", i.e.that the Matzos must be guarded for seven days (and not just for one).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks 'Give the reason as 'Because they cannot be eaten when the owner is an Onein', and 'Because they cannot be eaten anywhere'?

Answer: What it means is that they were not made to eat anywhere or to eat when the owner is an Onein.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not ask from the fact they were not made to be the owner's Matzos only Hash-m's?

Answer: Is because, since the P'sul of 'Matzaschem' is not written explicitly, it is not possible to ask from it.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this does not go like Rebbi Shimon,who says in the first Perek of Megilah (Daf 9:) that 'they only brought Pesachim and Korb'nos Chovah that have a fixed time (in Nov and Giv'on), but not Chovos that do not have a fixed time.

Proof: And a Beraisa in the last Perek in Zevachim (Daf 117.) implies that too, where Rebbi Meir states that 'Whatever is Nidar ve'Nidav can be brought on a Bamah, but whatever is not ...', the Chachamim say 'that they only brought Olos and Shelamim; whereas Rebbi Shimon holds that even the Tzibur brought only Chovos that have a fixed time' ...

Proof (cont.): Implying that Rebbi Shimon concedes to the Chachamim that they did not bring a Minchah or the Korbanos of a Nazir on the Bamah.

Question: But did the Mishnah in the first Perek of Megilah not learn that 'The only difference between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah was the Pesach', adding 'This is the general rule: Whatever was Nidar and Nidav could be brought on the large Bamah, and whatever was not ...'. And the Gemara established the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon.

Question (cont.): In that case, Rebbi Shimon holds that the Minchah, which is Nidar ve'Nidav, was in fact, brought on the Bamah. And the Korb'anos of a Nazir too, were brought on it according to him ...

Question (cont): Seeing as Rebbi Meir, who specifically stated that 'Whatever is Nidar and Nidav can be brought on the Bamah', holds that they brought the wafers of a Nazir on the Bamah, too.

Proof: Because the Gemara there bases Rebbi Meir's reason on the Pasuk "Do not do like all that we do here (in the desert ... "). Moshe said to them 'When you come to Eretz Yisrael, offer up 'Yesharos', but not Chovos!'

Proof (cont.): And both a Korban Minchah and a Korban Neziros are considered 'Yesharos', since Nezirus itself is Nidar ve'Nidav, despite the fact that the Korban then becomes a Chovah.

Proof (concl.): Whereas the Rabbanan, the Gemara explains there, hold that the Minchah is not brought on the Bamah, and although the Nezirus itselfis Nidar ve'Nidav, the Korban is a Chovah.

Answer: The Ri therefore explains the Mishnah in Megilah like this: There is no difference between a Bamah Gedolah and a Bamah Ketanah other than Pesachim. This is the general rule: Any Nidar and Nidav that can be brought on the Bamah Gedolah can also be brought on a Bamah Ketanah, whereas whatever can't ... '.

Conclusion: And the Tana is only coming to teach us where the Gedolah and the Ketanah are equal. There are however, cases of Nidar ve'Nidav which cannot be brought on either of them - such as a Minchah and the Korbanos of a Nazir.

Question: If so, asks Rabeinu Nisim how can the Gemara preclude Bikurim from "be'Chol Moshvos", seeing as Bikurim are a Chovah with a fixed time-period - bearing in mind that one has from Shevu'os until Succos to bring them and to read the Parshah.

Question (concl.): And that being the case, one ought to be able to bring them in Nov and Giv'on, like Pesachim, which everybody agrees can be brought there?

Answer #1: Since the time-period is so long, it is considered as if they do not have a fixed time.

Answer#2: Whereas according to the Rashba, Bikurim are considered as not having a fixed time, due to the fact that someone who does not possess fruit he is not Chayav to bring Bikurim.