Explanation #1 (Rashi): Stam Dayish is not Terumah or Ma'aser, for it is not normal that there is Terumah or Ma'aser before Miru'ach.

Objection: If so, even if they are fixed (tithed) Chulin, he does not transgress, for it is not common that they are fixed before Miru'ach!

Explanation #2: Rather, the reason is because it says "Disho" (its Dayish), which connotes that what is proper for it, and Ma'aser is Hash-m's property;

Also Terumah, a Yisrael may not put it in front of his animal;

And even a Kohen, he may put Terumah in front of his animal only regarding vetch, which is [primarily] animal food, but not wheat, due to loss of Terumah.

Support: We expound in Me'ilah (13a) from "Disho" regarding the Mishnah's teaching that a cow may not eat Hekdesh vetch [even while working].

Explanation: (Chachamim decreed that Gidulei (what grows from seeds of) Terumah are Terumah, lest a Yisrael keep Tamei, or a Kohen keep Terumah.) It is not appropriate to decree lest he delay [Ma'aser] in his hand and consume it b'Tum'ah, for there is no reason for him to delay, since he can redeem it!

Even what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser and became Tamei, which R. Yehudah holds that one may not redeem it, [Chachamim] did not decree that Gidulav are Ma'aser, since the primary Ma'aser has redemption.

Explanation: Even according to R. Yehudah [who holds that Ma'aser Sheni is a person's property], he does not transgress [for muzzling] outside the wall [of Yerushalayim], like the Gemara asks below "it requires [consumption within] the wall!"

Question: Had the verse not said "Re'acha", a worker would eat from Hekdesh, just like he may eat from his friend, and it is not theft;

Likewise, we should say that it is permitted outside the wall, for according to R. Yehudah it is his property, and he can be Mekadesh a woman with it, even outside the wall, like it connotes in Kidushin (53b)!

Answer: Even so, [Ma'aser Sheni] is not called Disho (what is proper for an ox), and it is not [called] of your friend (one who works with Ma'aser Sheni is not entitled to eat it).

Support: We say similarly in Sanhedrin (111b) that all agree that [Ma'aser Sheni] is not called [the city's] spoils regarding an Ir ha'Nidachas, and [a dough of Ma'aser Sheni] is exempt from Chalah, for it is not called "your dough."

Question: Why do we need to explain here what is the case? Also until now we discuss this, for we cannot establish it to discuss Gidulei Ma'aser!

Explanation: Rabanan do not argue with him regarding this that he explains the reason because it is good for it.

Explanation: [He tells him "muzzle it and] thresh my grain." He profits through telling the Nochri;

[If it were] the Nochri's grain, obviously it is permitted, since the Yisrael does not benefit from the muzzling. Just the contrary, he loses (his animal may not eat)!

Opinion #1: This is like it is obvious that one may tell a Nochri "eat a Neveilah."

For this reason, one may tell a Nochri on Shabbos "take this meat and cook for your needs", if the Yisrael is not obligated to feed him, for he does not benefit at all from this command.

Rebuttal (Ri): Here is unlike telling a Nochri "eat a Neveilah." There, [the Isur of] telling a Nochri [to do an Isur] does not apply, for the Yisrael himself may put the Neveilah in [the Nochri's] mouth;

However, here the same matter that he tells the Nochri to do, the Yisrael may not do it, e.g. to cook or muzzle.

Support (for Opinion #1 - Citation - Yerushalmi in Gitin): We may encourage Nochrim [working] in Shevi'is. He says to him "plow well in it, and I will but it from you after Shemitah" (even though the Yisrael may not do so in Shevi'is)!

Rejection (Ri): This is no proof. There, because he already began plowing, [it is permitted] for Darchei Shalom.

Implied question: In Mo'ed Katan (12a), we say that telling a Nochri [to work in the field] in Shevi'is or [do Melachah] on Chol ha'Mo'ed,] is forbidden (even though there is no Misah for them)!

Answer: There, it is because Shabbos and Yom Tov are one matter (the same Melachos are forbidden), and they decreed (about Yom Tov and Chol ha'Mo'ed) due to Shabbos. (Maharam says that Shevi'is is called Shabbos. Maharshal says that "Shevi'is" is a printing mistake in Tosfos. It should say "Shabbos".)

Explanation (She'altos of Rav Achai): They used to tie tightly a coin to the testicles [of the bull], and the Nochri steals the coin and cuts off the testicles and [thereby] castrates it.

Objection: The Gemara's words "they steal them" does not connote that they came to steal only the coin.

Explanation: [The Nochrim] castrated them without [the owners'] consent. Even so, they traded them, lest people not say that it was without their consent, or lest others tell a Nochri to do so, and they will say that it was without their consent.

Question: We say below "do not thresh with muzzling"!

Answer: That is only when he muzzled outside, so that it will not eat. However, here that the thorn came automatically, we ask whether this is like when it became sick.

Explanation: If you will say that when a thorn came [in its mouth] it is forbidden, because the muzzling is in its body, [perhaps] a lion, which is far from it, is not muzzling;

If you will say that also a lion is muzzling, this is because due to fear of the lion it does not eat, even if it is very hungry, but when its child is outside, it is not muzzled so much (perhaps it is permitted).

Alternative text: Some texts say "he put its child outside."

Observation: Even so, it does not ask "this is proper muzzling!", because it does not refrain from eating so much due to this, like it does from fear of a lion, like I explained [in the previous Dibur].

Question: In Shevuos (21a), R. Yochanan said that R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Yosi ha'Gelili that any Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, one is not lashed for it, except for swearing [falsely], Temurah and cursing a Yisrael with Hash-m's name;

R. Yochanan himself said here that bending his lips is an action. If so, why does he consider swearing, Temurah and cursing to be a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh?

Answer: R. Yochanan said that bending his lips is an action only here, because through his speech it does an action. It goes and threshes without eating;

This is like we say in Temurah (3b) regarding except for "swearing, Temurah and cursing a Yisrael." R. Yochanan told one who recites Beraisos "do not teach Temurah, for through his speech he does an action."

Support: This is why here, R. Yochanan challenges Reish Lakish from Temurah, for he considers it to be an action, for through his speech he does an action;

However, one who swears does not do an action through his speech, like we establish there [that he swore] "I ate" or "I did not eat." (He will not do an action due to the Shevu'ah.)

Question: In Sanhedrin (65a), R. Yochanan said that [even though normally speech is an action,] bending his lips to blaspheme is not an action, because it is in the heart;

The Gemara asks from a Beraisa that says "this excludes Edim Zomemin, who do not do an action" (even though testimony is not in the heart), and answers "rather, blasphemy is different, because it is through voice";

The Gemara asks "does R. Yochanan hold that voice is not an action? If he muzzled through voice, R. Yochanan holds that he is liable!"

It answers that Edim Zomemin are different, for they are [liable for testifying] about sight (and they did not see it).

Summation of question: How did we ask from muzzling through voice to blasphemy, which does not do an action through his speech?

Answer: We do not ask about blasphemy, rather, about Edim Zomemin. In the answer the Gemara gave that blasphemy is different, because it is through voice, this answers also for Edim Zomemin;

About them (Edim Zomemin) we ask "does R. Yochanan hold that voice is not an action?", for through their speech an action is done. They obligate the defendant!

It answers that Edim Zomemin are different, for they are about sight, but the reason why blasphemy is not considered to be an action is because it is through voice, and no action is done through his speech.

We no longer need the reason that [blasphemy] is in the heart.

Support: This is the reason for one who entices an individual [to do idolatry] or a city, or curses his father. In Toras Kohanim we exclude them from "v'Asah" (these are not actions);

There, it is not in the heart, or through sight. Rather, you are forced to say that it is because they are through voice.

Implied question: In Kerisus (4a) it does not give the reason of blasphemy that it is through voice, rather, because blasphemy is in the heart, and Edim Zomemin are through sight!

Answer: It relies on the Sugya in Sanhedrin.

Alternative text: Rashi [in Sanhedrin] says that the text says "Edim Zomemin are different, for they are through voice." It does not say "blasphemy is different";

[He rejected our text] because if [Rava] retracted from the first reason, that [blasphemy, and presumably, also Edim Zomemin] are in the heart, if so, in the conclusion, that we reject the reason that they are through voice [and rather explain Edim Zomemin because they are through sight] we should have returned to the first reason and said that blasphemy is different, for it is in the heart!

Rebuttal: Also in the conclusion, we did not reject the reason that they are through voice regarding blasphemy and enticers of an individual or city, like we explain, that through their speech no action is done.

Question: In Makos (13b), we say that we require a Lav she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh [to be lashed] because we learn all Lavim from muzzling;

The Torah wrote "Arba'im Yakenu Lo Yosif" next to muzzling, and muzzling has an action;

Now, according to Reish Lakish, muzzling through voice has no action. We should say that he is lashed, and we should learn that one is lashed for every Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh;

Why does he exempt here, for muzzling itself, when there is no action?

Answer #1: Reish Lakish holds that the verse primarily discusses normal muzzling, which has an action.

Answer #2: Reish Lakish learns like the other answer in Makos that expounds from "La'asos" that one is lashed only for Lav she'Yesh Bo Ma'aseh.

Question: In Makos, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about one who swore "I will eat this loaf today", and the day passed and he did not eat it;

R. Yochanan exempts him, for it is a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, and Reish Lakish exempts him due to Hasra'as Safek (Safek warning), but [he holds that] one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh!

Suggestion: [Reish Lakish] said so according to R. Yehudah, but he himself disagrees.

Support: It connotes like this afterwards, that they argue about R. Yehudah's words. He said about "Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker", that the Torah gave an Aseh ("veha'Nosar Mimenu ba'Esh Tisrofu") after the Lav to teach that one is not lashed for [the Lav];

Rejection #1: R. Yochanan infers that [one is not lashed] because the Torah [gave an Aseh]. If not, one would be lashed, for Hasra'as Safek is valid Hasra'ah;

Reish Lakish infers that [one is not lashed] because the Torah [gave an Aseh]. If not, one would be lashed. This implies that one is lashed for Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh!

If [Reish Lakish] said according to R. Yehudah, why didn't he infer also from his words that Hasra'as Safek is valid Hasra'ah, like R. Yochanan inferred?!