Implied question: Why didn't it teach here that he put it in the window?

Answer: He is a Rasha. He detached and intends to benefit from it immediately. However, when it fell by itself, it teaches that he put it in the window.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since we answered above that whenever an expert did not permit, it is called Tam, if so, the Seifa, which calls it a Ba'al Mum, discusses when an expert permitted it.

Question: It answered so above so that Reish Lakish will be established like everyone;

However, now that we need to say that no matter what you will say, Tana'im argue about this, presumably, we should say oppositely, so the first Tana's teaching will be like its simple meaning!

Explanation #2: Now, [the Gemara] holds that because R. Yosi said [to put the wool in the window, for] perhaps there is hope [that it will be permitted], he would not say so if he relies on Shechitah [to permit it], for this is b'Yado, and this is not "perhaps"!

Rather, for Heter of an expert he said "perhaps there is hope" that a Chacham will consent to [inspect it and] permit it. This is not so clear [that the Heter will come], for who says that the Chacham will agree?

Remark: In any case, in the conclusion "perhaps there is hope" discusses [Heter through] Shechitah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It became blemished, and afterwards it was redeemed, and he slaughtered it.

Inference: He established it so will be like [the case of] a Bechor, but the detaching [of the wool] was while it was Tam.

Question: This wool needs Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah (evaluation for Pidyon), like is proven in Chulin (135a) regarding what it says there that Reishis ha'Gez does not apply to Kodshim, for it says "Tzoncha", and not of Hekdesh;

We establish it to exclude Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis, and [the Gemara] asks "it needs Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah!"

Answer #1: [R. Zeira] holds like Reish Lakish, who holds in Temurah (32b) that according to Rabanan, Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah do not apply to Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

Support: We find that also Rav holds like him above (15a).

Answer #2: Kodshei Mizbe'ach, which have Kedushas ha'Guf, the wool is Batel to the animal, even what was detached. We consider Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah to apply to it. It is unlike Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis.

Answer #3: This wool is like a Ba'al Mum from the beginning [it does not need Ha'amadah and Ha'a'rachah like Stam Kodshei Mizbe'ach do].

Support: Similarly, one may not blow Teki'os with a Shofar of an Olah. If he blew, he was Yotzei, for since he was Mo'el, it became Chulin, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (28a). This implies that Pidyon applies to it!

Question: Our Sugya is difficult. Since wool needs Pidyon, how is it applicable a decree lest people delay [Shechitah]? One must redeem it for its value. How does he profit [through delaying? With the redemption money, he could buy wool in the market!]

Explanation #2: It seems somewhat to explain that we discuss an Olah that was slaughtered for the Mizbe'ach. Zerikas Dam permits the meat to the Mizbe'ach and the skin to Kohanim. [R. Zeira] asks about wool that was detached, which is also permitted through [Zerikah, mid'Oraisa. He asks whether we decree lest one delay.]

Implied question: We said that one may not be Toke'a with a Shofar of an Olah! (Tzon Kodoshim - R. Zeira should learn from there to wool! Alternatively, Tosfos also asks why Me'ilah applies to it. Zerikah should permit it mid'Oraisa, just like the skin! - PF)

Answer: We can explain "Shofar of an Olah" is when the animal was Hukdash for Demei (it will be sold, and the money will be used to buy an) Olah. "A Shofar of a Shelamim" is from an animal Hukdash for Demei Shelamim, and it has no Me'ilah, like it says in Pesachim (27b) "we discuss wood of Shelamim."

Observation: However, Amora'im argue about this in Zevachim (86a) about bones that separated before Zerikah. R. Zeira holds that Zerikah permits them, even for a handle of an ax or scythe.

And it says there that he argues with R. Elazar, for R. Elazar taught that if they separated before Zerikah, Me'ilah applies to them, and Rashi explained that Me'ilah always applies, even after Zerikah, and all the more so [Zerikah] does not permit what separated in its lifetime.

Remark: However, some texts say there "this is like R. Elazar, for R. Elazar taught that if they separated before Zerikah, Me'ilah applies to them until Zerikah..."

Explanation (Rashi): [Does anyone permit] according to Rabanan? Surely he is a Rasha!

Inference: According to Akavya, it is possible that it is permitted, even though the truth is that also according to Akavya, it is forbidden with a Tam, like is proven in the Beraisa of one who is Tolesh wool from a Tam Bechor;

In any case Rashi explained so, that even if he did not hear the Beraisa, it is obvious that according to Rabanan, if he was Tolesh it is forbidden.

Observation: There is a Plugta like this regarding how long one must take care of an Aveidah (Bava Metzi'a 28b. Ohr ha'Yashar explains that Plugta refers to a distinction between small and large animals.)

Explanation: This is 50 days, from the day of bringing the Omer on [the second day of] Pesach, for then the grain ripens, until Shavu'os, when we bring Shtei ha'Lechem to permit Chadash in the Mikdash.

Question: There it is on the 50th day. This is unlike "Bechor Banecha v'Tzonecha Titen Li", which is after 30!

Answer: We must say that individuals do not bring Bikurim until after Shavu'os (after the 50th day).

Observation: This is not precise, for this is not considered in Sanhedrin (83a) among those who are Chayav Misah! Rather, it is close to an Aveirah of Misah.

Implied question: In several places we say that it is Terumah, and he takes Terumah again, and we do not decree!

Answer: There, since the first Terumah is for the Kohen, he knows that the second is mid'Rabanan, and even if he already gave the first to a Kohen before the Chacham tells him to take Terumah again, in any case, since the Kohen does not return to him, he knows that the second is mid'Rabanan;

However, here he thinks that he gave to the Kohen wages for his help, and the Kohen keeps it.

Observation: In several places we must distinguish between matters, like the case in Pesachim (51a) regarding the people who separated Chalah from rice. We say that if most of [the bread] that they eat is not of rice, a Zar should eat rice 'Chalah' in front of them, lest they come to separate from what is exempt (rice) on what is Chayav (the five grains. If most of their bread is of rice, a Zar should not do so, lest they not separate anything, and forget the law of Chalah.)