Implication: This implies that 'You are obligated to give it to him!' is not the conclusion of the Din until they say 'Go and give it to him!'

Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara says in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 6a, See there Tosfos DH 'Nigmar') 'Once the Din has been concluded, Beis-Din is no longer permitted to aim at a compromise' ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... and in reply to the question 'what is the defnition of 'G'mar Din' (conclusion of the Din), the Gemara explains there 'P'loni you are Chayav!' or 'P'loni you are Patur!' ...

Answer: Even though it is not the real 'G'mar-Din', since the Din has almost been concluded, Beis-Din is forbidden to 'trick' the litigant who (Beis-Din already know) is innocent (See Maharam).

Question: It is a little difficult as to why the Tana does not mention Orlah first.)

Clarification: Rashi translates it as 'broken pieces of tile'.

Question: But in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 88a, See Tosfos DH 'Charasis') the Gemara reckons 'Charasis and ground tiles'?

Question: The Ri queries this from the Gemara at the end of 'Kisuy ha'Dam' (Ibid.) which confines covering the blood to something with which one plants and it grows ...

Question (cont.): And it implies there that one may cover with 'Charasis'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that what one plants in Charasis grows, only it does not produce more than what one plants (See Mesores ha'Shas), which is why it refers to it as 'Charasis that is not subject to benefit'.

Answer (cont,): And even if it does produce more than what one plants, it is still referred to as 'not subject to benefit', since the fruit that it produces is such a small amount.

Clarification: Assuming that Kerem R'vai is subject to Shevi'is, as is implied by the fact that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is referring to the words of the Tana Kama (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Clarification (cont.): We will have to say that the Tzenu'in are referring to the other years of the cycle ...

Clarification (cont.): ... because if they were referring to Shevi'is, the pickers would acquire the fruit from Hefker, in which case the Tzenu'in could no longer transfer the Kedushah.

Question: When did they say this?

Question: Bearing in mind that the statement would not have been effective with regard to what the pickers picked after it was said, they would have had to keep on saying it non-stop without a break?

Refuted Answer: And if you will suggest that they said it every evening, like the case of the poor that the Gemara will discuss shortly ...

Refutation: ... that is not a solution regarding what the pickers ate before the statement.

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that " 'Kol ha'Nilkat' does not mean literally immediately after the picking ...

Answer (cont.): ... but that they put down the money before the fruit has been picked and declare 'After the fruit of this Kerem R'vai has been picked, it shall be Mechulal (on this money)'.

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Dosa will shortly say (in connection with the case of the poor) 'in the evening', one could just as well do it in the morning, as I just explained' ...

Answer #1: Only he is giving a good piece of advice, to prevent the poor from 'going to town' and picking a lot, seeing as the owner declared it Hefker (already in the morning).

Answer #2: Alternatively, he meant specifically 'the evening' ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... but in the morning, we forbid it, for fear that he will fail to declare that the Hefker only takes effect after they have picked it (in which case it will not take effect due to 'B'reirah').

Question: Seeing as Chilul applies to what is attached to the ground, as is implied in the Gemara shortly, why did the Tzenu'in do it so awkwardly? Why were they not Mechalel the entire orchard in one go?

Answer #1: Perhaps they had in mind to take the rest of the fruit to Yerushalayim, and that is why they did not want to be Mechalel it all in one go.

Answer #2: Alternatively, because the Chilul would not have helped with regard to what grew afterwards.

Question: In that case, when they say 'Kol ha'Mislaket too, it will also not help with regard to what grows afterwards?

Answer #1: Nevertheless, whatever they could do to rectify matters, they did.

Answer #2: Moreover, perhaps what grows afterwards would be Bateil be'Rov ...

Implied Question: ... even though something that will become Mutar does not become Bateil even in a thousand (Beitzah 3b) ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, min ha'Torah it is Bateil.

Clarification: This implies that Chilul takes effect even on what is attached to the ground.

Source: ... seeing as it was Mischalel before it was picked?

Proof: ... because once it has been picked and it has entered the domain of others, the owner no longer has the power to redeem it.

Question: It is implied in the Tosefta that Chilul does not take effect on what is attached to the ground ...

Source: ... when the Beraisa at the end of Ma'aser Sheini states in connection with Kerem R'vai: 'Beis Shamai say that one can only redeem it once it is wine, Beis Hillel say either grapes or wine; and they both agree that one cannot redeem it whilst it is attached to the ground ...

Reason: ... and presumably this is because we learn "Kodesh" "Kodesh" from Ma'aser (Sheini).

Answer: The reason there is only (mi'de'Rabanan) because as long as it is attached, its value is not known (See Maharam), which explains why it cannot even be redeemed with three people (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Answer (cont.): And that is also Beis Shamai's reason.

Clarification: He (Rebbi Dosa) instituted this Takanah on behalf of the poor, when they collect more than they are entitled to - such as three grains at one time, and eat them without taking Ma'aser from them ...

Reason: ... since Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah are Patur from Ma'aser.

Clarification (cont.): That is why the owner declares that whatever they have picked should be Hefker, which is Patur from Ma'aser.

Chidush: And we are forced to say that the owner did not give up hope ...

Reason: ... because if he did - and it would be considered Yi'ush mi'Da'as, like the dates blown down by the wind - one can ask how Hefker can be effective to exempt him from Ma'aser, seeing as the poor already acquired it in the form of theft through Yi'ush?

Refuted Question #1: One cannot however, ask that if the owner gave up hope, why would he then need to declare it Hefker in order to exempt it from Ma'aser, bearing in mind that Yi'ush is akin to Hefker to exempt from Ma'aser ...

Source: ... as is evident in 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 21b).

Refuted Question #2: Moreover, why will 'Kol she'Laktu ... ' not be effective according to all opinions? Why should it be any worse than Yi'ush?

Refutation: ... because the Yi'ush by Gazlan cannot be compared to the Yi'ush by Metzi'ah.

Refutation (cont.): And even if one says that the Gazlan does not acquire the Gezeilah unless it is in his domain, but if it was in the R'shus ha'Rabim at the time that the owner was Meya'esh, then whoever takes it for himself would acquire it.

Question #2: Or according to the opinion that holds that 'Yi'ush on its own is not Koneh at all', and whoever takes it for himself acquires it ...

Answer #1: ... nevertheless, this Yi'ush does not exempt the Gazlan from Ma'aser ...

Reason: ... because, granted the owner cannot claim it from whoever takes it after Yi'ush, as the Gemara says in the last Perek (later, Daf 111b) ...

Source: ... since it is specifically if someone steals before the owner has been Meya'esh and someone comes and eats it that the owner may claim from whichever one he wants ...

Source (cont.): ... but after Yi'ush, he cannot claim from the second one ...

. Reason (cont.): Nevertheless, since nobody else is permitted to take it - seeing as the Gazlan needs it in order to pay the owner ...

Reason (cont.): ... and even if somebody else already took it, he is at least obligated to pay money to the Gazlan ...

Source: ... as the Gemara said earlier (on 68a) that even according to the opinion that Yi'ush is not Koneh, the second Ganav is Chayav to pay the article to the first Ganav ...

Reason (concl.): It is not considered Hefker to exempt from Ma'aser ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... because the reason that Hefker is Patur from Ma'aser is because the Torah writes 'And the Levi who has no portion or inheritance with you shall come', to preclude Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah, where he does have a portion and an inheritance with you (Sifri, Re'ei), and the same reason applies to Hefker ...

Answer #1 (concl.): ... whereas in the current case, he has no portion in it, since he is forbidden to acquire it, and if he does, he is, at the very least, obligated to pay its value.

Answer #2: Moreover, one can assume that the owner's Yi'ush is confined to the poor, and it is not effective to exempt him from Ma'aser unless it is Hefker for both the poor and the rich, like Sh'mitah (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

This entire Mishnah is explained in Perek Kol ha'Get (Gitin, Daf 25a, Tosfos DH 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin).

Question: Rabeinu Tuvya points out that one can query Rebbi Yochanan who does not hold of 'B'reirah' here, from his ruling 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah' - and the S'tam Mishnah in 'ha'Loke'ach [min ha'Kutim' in D'mai 7:4] conforms to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Yesh B'reirah'?

Refuted Answer: And even though the S'tam Mishnah of Tzenu'im doesn't hold of B'reirah ...

Refutation: ... the question remains however, what makes Rebbi Yochanan pick one S'tam over another?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan does not say 'Ein B'reirah' there where one specifically stipulates.

Question: And at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Get' (Ibid.), where Rebbi Yochanan says that also the last case there does not invalidate (the Get) ...

Answer: ... it is different there, since the Torah writes "ve'Kasav lah", implying that the written condition must be specific at the time of writing (even if one specifically stipulated).

Proof: ... as the Gemara explains at the beginning of 'Kol ha'Get'.

Clarification: Not strictly according to the Din, since 'if someone steals, then neither (the thief nor the owner) is able to declare it Hekdesh, to redeem it or be Mafkir it' ...

Clarification (cont.): Only it is a Takanah, in that the Rabanan placed the article in the owner's R'shus to redeem it or to be Mafkir it in order to prevent the poor and the Ganavim from sinning ...

Clarification (cont.): 'But Rebbi Dosa does not hold like the Tzenu'in', since the Rabanan made that Takanah on behalf of the poor but not on behalf of the Ganavim.

Clarification (concl.): But now that Rebbi Yochanan equated the Tzenu'in with Rebbi Dosa, he must hold that that it is not only due to a Takanah, but to the strict Din.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to say that they only said the same thing regarding 'B'reirah' in that neither of them hold of it.

Answer: ... since 'Davar Echad' implies that they literally share the same opinion.

Question: In Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 124b) Rebbi Yochanan says that 'Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas say the same thing', though this cannot be taken literally, since they only agree with regard to Maga, but with regard to Masa, they argue ...

Source: ... seeing as the Mishnah there, citing Rebbi Yishmael, states that 'Two half-Zeisim render Tamei visa Masa but not via Maga ...

Source (cont.): ... whereas regarding Rebbi Dosa, the Mishnah in Ohalos (3:1) states that 'Whatever is Metamei be'Ohel that is divided in two that one brings into the house, Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas declares Tahor, and the Chachamim, Tamei ... .

Question (cont.): ... implying that Rebbi Dosa declares Tahor regarding both Maga and Masa?

Answer #1: Seeing as regarding Maga, they say the same thing, it doesn't matter if they argue over Masa.

Answer #2: Furthermore, says the Ri, it is possible to say that Rebbi Dosa holds (completely) like Rebbi Yishmael ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and Rebbi Yishmael says 'Mitztarfin' where the two halves are joined together, whereas Rebbi Dosa is speaking where they are completely separate, since Masa requires someone to carry them, and they need to be carried when they are joined, as Ula explains in that Sugya ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and the Gemara establishes Ula like Rebbi Dosa and not like the Rabanan ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Since in any event, Ula is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, and whatever we can establish like Ula, we do.

Answer #3: Alternatively, Ula establishes the Machlokes (between Rebbi Dosa and Rebbi Yishmael) where the two halves are joined together, and it goes like the Rabanan ...

Answer #3 (cont.): ... in which case, Rebbi Dosa and Rebbi Yishmael do not say the same thing.

Question: The Ri asks that, without the Chomesh Rava could have extrapolated that the Ma'aser belongs to the owner, from the fact that he is able to redeem it, and that nobody can stop him from doing so, whereas nobody else can redeem it against his wishes?

Answer: The reason that the owner can redeem it and nobody else is because he has it in his domain, whereas if it was in somebody else's domain, such as the case of Kerem R'vai, he would not be able to redeem it ...

Answer (cont.): But now that we find it to be considered his to such an extent that only he adds a fifth, but nobody else - even if he redeems it with his consent, it proves that the Torah has placed it in his R'shus, even if it is factually in somebody else's domain.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 35a, See Tosfor DH 'Achleleih'ih') need to learn from the Pasuk "Kodesh Hilulim" 'Achleih ve'Hadar Achleih' (redeem it and then eat it)!' to teach us that Kerem R'vai requires Chilul? ...

Question #1 (cont.): Why can we not learn it "Kodesh" Kodesh" from Ma'aser?

Answer #1: Because if we did not find Chilul by it (independently), we would learn "Kodesh" Kodesh" from Shevi'is, which is not subject to redemption at all.

Question #2: One cannot however ask why we need "Kodesh" "Kodesh" at all? Why can we not simply learn it from "Hilulim" ...

Answer to Question #2: ... since we need the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Kodesh" "Kodesh" to teach us that he must pay an extra fifth, as the Gemara explains in Kidushin (Daf 54b, See Tosfos There DH 'Gamar').

Answer #2 to Question #1: Rabeinu Chayim answers that, were it not for "Hilulim", from the Gezeirah-Shavah we would not know that it (Kerem R'vai) requires Chilul in the Sh'mitah year, since Ma'aser Sheini does not apply in the Sh'mitah-year.

Support: And he supports this from the Yerushalmi in Ma'aser Sheini (Perek 5, Halachah 2), which states 'What you said that Ma'aser Sheini does not apply in the Sh'mitah, Neta R'vai does not apply in the Sh'mitah either' ...

Support (cont.): And the Gemara there tries to extrapolate that in that case, in the third and sixth years, when there is no Ma'aser Sheini, it should not apply either?

Support (concl.): But Rebbi Yossi concludes that (it does, since) in the third and sixth years, the other Ma'asros apply, whereas in the seventh year, there are no Ma'asros at all.

Question: All the Gemara needed to say is that regarding Leket there is no Pasuk?

Answer: Only it is teaching as an additional Chidush, in that even if there would be a Pasuk they would not be comparable.