Explanation #1: Rashi explains that when it says that 'We find that one becomes Chayav to separate T'rumah', that is according to Rebbi, who says that there is T'rumah in the ears of corn ...

Reason: Because he holds that bringing the Melilos into the house is considered their 'Goren' and the conclusion of their work (that obligates them to be Ma'asered.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas our Mishnah which says that we do not find ... ', that is according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'There is no T'rumah in the ears of corn', since the Torah is particular about Dagan, whereas this is merely a collection of corn.

Text: And the text will shortly read 'And according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah too, one can find a case ... ' - implying that according to him, one is even allowed to eat a fixed meal without having to Ma'aser. ...

Reason: Because if one were to be Chayav by a fixed meal, we would have a case where one becomes obligated to separate T'rumah - when one eats a fixed meal.

Question #1: The Lashon does not seem to say that ...

Question #1 (cont.): Seeing as the Beraisa is referring to a casual meal (Arai), when it says 'If he brought ears of corn to make a dough, one may eat from it a casual meal'.

Question #1 (cont.): And it is regarding this Beraisa that we conclude 'to roll the ears of corn, Rebbi obligates (from Arai) and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah exempts (from Arai).

Question #2: According to Rebbi too, where do we find that one becomes Chayav to Ma'aser on Yom-Tov ...

Reason: Because since he holds that bringing it in to roll the ears is considered its 'Goren' and the conclusion of their work, it became Chayav yesterday ...

Question #2 (cont.): In which case, one is not permitted to separate it on Yom-Tov).

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that when the Tana says 'she'Zakai be'Haramasah', it goes according to Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah who rules that he is Patur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because, since he holds that 'bringing them into the house is not their Goren', when he rolls them on Yom-Tov to eat casually, that is when the Chiyuv (to Ma'aser them) comes into effect, and he now obtains the right to Ma'aser it.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas the Tana who says 'Eino Zakai be'Haramasah' concurs with Rebbi, who holds that bringing them into the house is their Goren, in which case, the owner should have Ma'asered them yesterday, and he does not obtain to Ma'aser them now.

Text: And shortly, the text reads 'And according to Rebbi, we find the case ... '.

Question: R. Shimshon from Coucy asks that in the whole of Shas we do not find the term 'Ika de'Amri' in this format, where it comes to teach us the opposite of the first Lashon?

Question (cont.): What we normally find is that the first Lashon is unanimous and the second Lashon, that they argue over that point, or vice-versa, but never in a format like this?

Question (concl.): At least it ought to have said that 'they argue by Kitniyos, but by Shibalin, they all agree'?

Answer: He therefore answers that this is what the Gemara means to say: According to the first Lashon, 'they argue over Shibalin' (there where he specifically brought them in as Shibalin) 'but with Kitniyos' (if he brought them in order to roll them), 'they both agree that it is Tevel'.

Answer (cont.): Likewise, they argue over where Kitniyos and Shibalin S'tam.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to the second Lashon it means: 'They argue over 'be'Shibalin' S'tam (where he does not specify that he intends to roll them), 'but be'Kitniyos (S'tam) both agree that it is not Tevel.

Answer (concl.): Likewise, they also argue by Kitniyos which he brought in to roll, and by Shibalin, too.

Conclusion: Now it is acceptable, seeing as they do not reverse their opinions completely; because where the first Lashon maintains that the opinions argue, the second Lashon explains that they both agree that it is not Tevel.

Question: But it does not deal with the Machlokes at all, only where he explains that he brought it in for Shibalin?

Answer: When the Seifa says 'to roll the ears', that is because S'tam it is as if it is to roll ... , since, as long as the owner does not specify that it is in order to make a dough, we assume that this was his intention.

Question: The problem with this explanation is when the Gemara asks shortly 'Is it not speaking by Tevel?', why does it not answer that it is speaking where he specifies, whereas the Beraisa is talking about S'tam?

Answer #1: Because the Gemara understands that the Beraisa is speaking in all cases, even by S'tam.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Gemara wants to establish it according to all the Tana'im.

Question: Why do we need to learn that T'rumas Ma'aser can be taken with Machshavah alone from T'rumah Gedolah, why can we not learn it from "ve'Nechshav", which refers to T'rumas Ma'aser?

Answer #1: Rashi explains that when the Tana mentions 'Machshavah' it is La'v Davka, and that he is only really concerned with taking it 'be'Omeid' (by assessment).

Answer #2: Alternatively, if we would not learn that T'rumas Ma'aser can be taken with Machshavah from T'rumah Gedolah, we would not know that it can, since although "ve'Nechshav" is written by T'rumas Ma'aser, we establish it by T'rumah Gedolah.

Support: Because so the Yerushalmi says - 'The entire Torah works on the basis of learn and teach, except for T'rumas Ma'aser which teaches but does not learn ...

Support (cont.): Since "Mimenu" that is written by T'rumas Ma'aser, from which we learn the Din of Mukaf (that the crops that are covered by the Ma'asros that one takes must be next to the crops from which they are being taken) ...

Support (cont.): Since we Darshen "Mimenu", 'from what is next to it', and we establish it by T'rumah Gedolah ...

Support (cont.): But T'rumas Ma'aser, min ha'Torah, does not require Mukaf.

Support (concl.): And just as "Mimenu" that is written by T'rumas Ma'aser, we establish by T'rumah Gedolah ...

Conclusion: So too, will we establish "ve'Nechshav" by T'rumah Gedolah, as Tosfos explained.

Question: How can we even think to say the opposite, that the Levi is Chayav by 'Shibalin and Patur, by K'ri?

Question: (cont.): If he is Chayav by 'Shibalin, how much more so, by 'K'ri, which comes after it?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains as follows: 'What do you see to declare Chayav 'Hikdimo bi'K'ri' and 'Patur by 'Shibalin' under all circumstances ...

Answer (cont.): Perhaps both with regard to Chiyuv and with regard to P'tur, if he arrived at the K'ri first he is Patur as long as it has not yet entered the house, and Chayav if it has?

Answer (concl.): And the Gemara answers 'Hai Idgan' - meaning that if he arrived first at the K'ri, it is logical to declare him Chayav under all circumstances, since it is then called 'Dagan'.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he peeled it from inside the husks.

Question: How could Rav's wife peel for him cups-full, seeing as we learned earlier (on Daf 12:) that one should roll wheat-kernels in one's hands on Erev Shabbos, implying that on Shabbos itself, it is forbidden.

Answer: That Gemara is speaking about detaching the wheat kernels from their outer husks, which is considered 'Mefarek', a Toldah of threshing, which is an Av Melachah.

Answer (cont.): Whilst here it is speaking where the grains were already detached from the outer husks on Erev Shabbos, but they are still contained inside their peels. Consequently, it is permitted.

Refutation: And what Rashi says here that if he peels it and places it inside his palm it is forbidden 'because it is fixed', is not correct ...

Reason: Since the Gemara will shortly imply that the reason is because it is 'G'mar Melachah' (completing a task), because seeing as he peels a lot simultaneously, that is its 'Digun'.

Clarification: This refers to Yom-Tov, since, on Shabbos, it is forbidden to roll.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas 'Keizad Menafe'ach (How does he blow)?' refers to Shabbos, since on Yom-Tov, it is permitted to use even K'non ve'Tamchuy (a funnel or a dish).

Question: But earlier, we said that someone who is Moleil Melilos on Friday, may blow them from hand to hand ... as long as he does not use a funnel ... '?

Answer: The Gemara earlier really means between the joints of his fingers.

Implied Question: Then why does it mention 'K'non ve'Tamchuy'?

Answer: It mentions them on account of Yom-Tov (where they are permitted).