Implied Question: The Chiyuv Chalah begins from the time of kneading . ...

Answer #1: ... only the Tana is coming to teach us either that, even though he has made all these changes, he is still considered a 'Mena'etz' (one who angers Hash-m) ...

Answer #2: ... or that, there where it was not a dough to begin with, the Chiyuv Chalah does not take effect until after it has been baked (See Hagahos ve'Tziiyunim).

Clarification: Abaye follows his reasoning, when he said at the beginning of Temurah (Daf 6a & 6b) that 'Whenever the Torah says "Don't do something", and one does it, it is effective'.

Clarification (cont.): And, as the Gemara explains there, the reason that he must separate Pe'ah from the sheaves is due to the extra word "Ta'azov" ...

Reason: ... without which he would not be Chayav because, we would have thought that the fact that he transgressed (the La'av of) "Lo Sechaleh" would be effective and he would be Patur.

Clarification (cont.): And that is why Abaye needs to state that according to Rebbi Yishmael, Shinuy remains in its place (is not Koneh).

Clarification (cont.): According to Rava, on the other hand, who holds there that when the Torah says don't do something, and one does it, it is not effective - he will be obligated to separate from sheaves without the extra "Ta'azov" ...

Clarification (concl.): ... from which he therefore learns to render Chayav somebody who declares his vineyard Hefker or according to Rebbi Yishmael, if he holds that Shinuy is Koneh, that one (nevertheless) needs to separate from the sheaves.

Question: From where does Abaye, who needs the extra "Ta'azov" to render the sheaves Chayav, know that someone who declares his vineyard Hefker, is Chayav be'Pe'ah?

Answer: We learn both things from there ...

Answer (cont.): And that is also how we will have to answer Rava according to Rebbi Yishmael, assuming the latter holds that 'Shinuy is Koneh', and that he Darshens the extra "Ta'azov" to obligate separating Pe'ah from the dough - in which case, from where will he learn that 'ha'Mafkir Karmo' is Chayav? ...

Answer (cont.): ... because it seems that that D'rashah is unanimous ...

Source: ... from the fact that the Gemara in Perek Ba Si'man (Nidah Daf 51a & 51b (See Tosfos there DH 'Miyn') explains the Mishnah there 'Kol she'Chayav be'Pe'ah Chayav be'Ma'aser' to mean that every species that is subject to Pe'ah, is subject to Ma'aser...

Source (cont.): Because otherwise, there 'Mafkir Karmo' would be Chayav Pe'ah but Patur from Ma'aser ...

Source (cont.): ... and what proof is that, when perhaps that Mishnah goes according to Rebbi Yishmael, who establishes the extra "Ta'azov" to obligate taking Pe'ah from the dough, in which case it will not be superfluous to render 'Mafkir' Chayav?

Conclusion: We must therefore say that nobody argues with the Tana of 'Mafkir Karmo', and that we learn both things from it, as Tosfos explained.

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion that holds 'Yesh B'reirah' (on 89a) ...

Answer: ... because as long as he had not separated Pe'ah and had not selected it, it all belonged to him, and it was all subject to Ma'aser, from which it cannot become Patur.

Question: Why does the Tana not mention that he must also separate Terumah and give it to the Kohen?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that since all Pe'ah is subject to Terumah, the Ani will separate it anyway ...

Refutation #1: ... Firstly, because this would mean that one gives Ma'aser before Terumah.

Refutation #2: And secondly, because the Mishnah states in the first Perek (Mishnah 5) of T'rumos that Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah are not subject to Terumah'.

Answer #1: It therefore seems that it is because Terumah is so easy to give that it is not necessary to mention it.

Answer #2: Some commentaries explain that the reason that he does not need to separate Terumah, is because it is customary to separate it already in the granary ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Maseches Ma'aser (Perek Sheini) 'If one finds fruit that has been flattened (after winnowing) in the field - if it is piled up, taking it constitutes Gezel; if it is scattered, it is permitted' ...

Source (cont.): ... Either way, it is subject to Ma'aser but Patur from T'rumah, because it is inconceivable for the work in the granary to have been completed and for Terumah Gedolah not to have been separated.

Question: Why does the Gemara not cite the Mishnah (on Daf 96b) 'Gazal Beheimah ve'Hizkinah, Avadim ve'Hizkinu Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah', where even Rebbi Meir argues exclusively by 'Avadim' ...

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that he is only speaking according to the Chachamim (but that he disagrees with them, as the Gemara attempts to say later) ...

Refutation #1: .. seeing as Rebbi Meir specifically holds that 'Shinuy is Koneh', in the case of 'Someone who gives wool to a dyer' (later, on Daf 100b).

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Mishnah continues 'Gazal Matbe'a ve'Nisdak, Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'.

Answer: In all of these cases one could answer that it is a S'tam ve'Achar-kach Machlokes, since Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue later (on Daf 100b) over a case where one was supposed to dye it red but dyed it black ...

Implied Question: ... and even though Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because he holds 'Shinuy Ein Koneh', as Tosfos will explain later ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, we could have refuted the Kashya by saying that it is.

Implied Question: Whereas the proof from the Mishnah 'Lo Hispik Litno' (which the Gemara does cite) we cannot refute in this way ...

Answer: ... because even in the case of a S'tam in one Masechta and a Machlokes in another, Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah'.

Clarification #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that Rebbi only instituted the Takanah for his generation, not for those before him and not for those after him ...

Proof #1: ... since we see that every day there are cases where one accepts from Gazlanim and judges Dinei Gezeilos ..

Example #1: Such as that of someone who stole a pair of oxen (later on Daf 96b) ...

Example #2: ... that of 'the Narsha'ah who stole a Seifer' (later on Daf 115a) ...

Example #3: ... that of 'a certain shepherd' (in the first Perek of Bava Basra,

Example #4: ... and the case of the piece of silver of Rebbi Aba' (Ibid, on Daf 33b).

Proof #2: And the Gemara also states in Eizehu Neshech (Daf 61b) that 'Ribis Ketzutzah (fixed interest) is extracted through Beis-Din'.

Explanation #1: And that explains why the Gemara only asks later from the Beraisos that Rebbi Chiya taught, who was a Talmid of Rebbi, and not from the Mishnah which rules that one pays the value of the article at the time that it was stolen ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Since the Mishnayos preceded Rebbi, and Rebbi merely arranged them, whereas the Beraisos Rebbi Chiya added, based on what Rebbe added to the Mishnayos.

Clarification #2: The Ri however, ecplains that the Gemara could not have asked from the Mishnah - because Rebbi only instituted that one cannot accept from the sort of people whose main occupation and income is stealing, whose entire livelihood all their lives depends on robbing or lending on interest ...

Proof: ... as the Mishnah states there 'ha'Gazlanim u'Malvei be'Ribis' ... implying that that is their source of income, and so it is with the 'shepherds' and all the other cases that the Gemara cites there.

Clarification #2 (cont.): ... and it does not ask from our Mishnah, because he did not institute the Takanah not to take from someone who steals or lends on interest only on the odd occasion.

Refuted Answer: But one cannot explain that the Gemara does not ask from our Mishnah because Rebbi confined the Takanah to those who performed Teshuvah, which is how the Beraisa from which the Gemara asks is speaking ...

Proof: ... since the Mishnah states that they are Chayav to return it because of Kavod Avihem.

Refutation #1: In any event the case of 'ha'Gazlanim u'Malvei be'Ribis' does not seem to be speaking in such a case.

Refutation #2: Moreover, anyone can pretend to do Teshuvah and then return the article, which the owner will then decline to accept.

Clarification #1 (cont.): Similarly, the case in 'Kol ha'Kelim' (Shabbos, Daf 123b) where Rebbi Chanin states that in the days of Nechemyah ben Chachalyah this Mishnah was learned, and the case at the end of 'Eilu Metzi'os' where the Gemara says that this Mishnah was learned in the days of Rebbi' ...

Clarificaation #1 (concl.): All of them, Rabeinu Tam explains, only refer to that generations. And the same applies to the Sugya in Horiyos (Daf 13b). But here is not the place to elaborate.

Question: Perhaps it means to fulfill his moral obligation?

Answer: The Gemara extrapolates (that it doesn't from the Lashon 'Chayavin', when it ought otherwise to have said 'Ein Machzirin', which would imply that their father would have to return it to fulfill his moral obligation.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that, in compliance with the Halachah, one does not accept it from them?

Answer #1: Because in that case, we would not obligate his children to return it ...

Reason: ... seeing as there would then be no shame involved.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks by a specified article, which one accepts from them due to his Kavod .

Clarification of Sugya: And the Gemara answers 'Where he did not manage to return before he died' ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): Which is why his sons are obligated to return it in honor of their father ...

Reason: ... and they accept it, since the Takanah does not apply to the children.

Answer #3: 'What is it doing by him?' He ought to have sold it or got rid of it in another way; And since he is not concerned about his Kavod, why should his sons be obliged to return it?

Sugya in Eizehu Neshech: And this is how we have to answer in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 62a, See Tosfos there DH 'I Asah Teshuvah' & 'Tana'i'), where there is no other way to explain it ...

Sugya in Eizehu Neshech (cont.): Since the Gemara asks there from this Beraisa according to the opinion that holds 'Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin', implying that their father is Chayav to return it; And it answers like it does here - 'If he did Teshuvh, what is it doing by him?'

Sugya in Eizehu Neshech (cont.): Now what is the Kashya, seeing as if 'Ribis Ketzutzah Ein Yotz'ah be'Dayanin', he will not be required to return it even to fulfill his moral obligation, as is evident there?

Proof: When it asks from the case that it cites shortly 'ha'Gazlanim u'Malvei be'Ribis af-al-pi she'she Gavu, Machzirin?' And it answers 'Tana'i Hi', and not that it speaks where he comes to fulfill his moral obligation', as it will answer shortly.

Proof (cont.): And since we Darshen that the Torah decrees 'death and not to return it', or 'to be afraid and not to return it', he does not need to return it even to fulfill his moral obligation.

Refutation of Rivan: But not as the Rivan explains there' 'The Torah decrees fear' - Someone who is afraid of Hash-m and trembles out of fear of Him returns it, and not via Beis-Din.

Conclusion: We must therefore explain 'What is it doing by him?' to mean that, since he did not bother to sell it or to get rid of it or return it in deference of the owner's honor, his children are no longer Chayav to return it in his honor either.

Implied Question: In Perek Eizehu Neshech (Daf 62a) the Gemara could not have given this answer - according to the opinion there that holds 'Ribis Ketzutzah Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin' ...

Answer: ... since, according to him, he is not Chayav even from a moral standpoint, as Tosfos explained earlier ...

Clarification: ... whereas the Sugya here holds 'Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanin', only the Rabanan instituted that the borrower should not accept it from him.

Implied Question: Nor is it possible to answer here that it is a Machlokes Tana'im - as it answers there ...

Answer: ... because the Tana'im that are mentioned there lived earlier (before the Takanah [See Tosfos there DH 'Tana'i Hi']).