Unconnected Dispute: In Perek Kol Sha'ah (28:) Rebbi Yehudah learns the prohibition of eating Chametz from six hours and onwards, whereas Rebbi Shimon disagrees with him.

Unconnected Dispute (cont): We cannot learn this from our Sugya however ...

Reason: Since the comparison of eating Chametz to destroying it does not concern the time period of after six hours, but that of the seven days of Pesach.

Question: The Rashba asks, however, why we do not learn a Chiyuv Kareis for failure to destroy Chametz, since it is compared to eating it (on Pesach).

Clarification: This refers to both (Pesukim - "ba'Yom ha'Rishon Shabason" and "u'Lekachten Lachem ba'Yom ha'Rishon"), since, outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash, the Lulav is only taken for one day.

Implied Question: Even though the word "Rishon" is mentioned many times ...

Answer: They are all written in connection with these three Mitzvos, and however many it is written in connection with one Mitzvah is considered as one.

Refuted Question: Neither can one ask how we know that we make the current D'rashah from those three "Rishon", and from "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon in the way that we did? Perhaps the latter "Rishon" is needed for the current D'rashah?

Answer: It makes sense to say that we learn the current D'rashah from those by which the Torah writes "Mikra Kodesh".

Question: The Rashba asks how we can learn from here that Chametz is forbidden from six hours and onwards, seeing as the time for the Shechitas ha'Pesach only falls due after the Tamid has been brought; and a Tamid that is Shechted before midday is Pasul. It therefore transpires that the Pesach on;ly falls due after the minimum time after midday that it takes to bring the Korban Tamid?

Answer: Since Bedi'eved a Korban Pesach that one Shechted before the Tamid is Kasher (as we will learn later in a Mishnah on Daf 61.), the time for the Shechitah of the Pesach can be said to be as from midday.

Implied Question: Even though it is indeed true that the La'av of "Lo Sishchat ... " applies to each individual who Shechts, as we learned in Perek Tamid Nishchat (on Daf 63.).

Answer: Nevertheless, since we find that the Torah warns both that one should destroy the Chametz and against Shechting the Pesach when one has Chametz, it makes sense to say that the Torah warns on Hashbasah at the time of Shechitah.

Question: Th Ri asks from Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns this from a different Pasuk (i.e. "Ach", 'Chalak')?

Question (cont.): And in a number of places we ask from Rebbi Yishmael on to Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael.

Implied Question: Even though once it has been burned and has turned into ashes, one may derive benefit from it (in which case the Isur of Bishul ought not to apply) ...

Source: As we learn in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Daf 26:) with regard to Orlah 'If he cooked it on top of coal, everyone agrees that the bread is permitted'.

Implied Question: Then why does the Mishnah there (on Daf 21.) forbid lighting a stove or an oven with it?

Answer: That is only mi'de'Rabbanan (whereas we are speaking about min ha'Torah).

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that it is logical to say that the Pasuk of "Tashbisu" is speaking in all cases, even there where one has no need for the coal.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, since the moment one begins to burn it, deriving benefit from it becomes forbidden, it is forbidden, despite the fact that one will able to benefit from it later.

Precedent: Like Nedarim and Nedavos, according to the opinion in Beitzah (19 & 20) which prohibits bringing them on Yom-Tov.

Reason for exception: And those who permit bringing them, learn it from "la'Hashem" (i.e. a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).

Clarification #1: Since it calls it an Av Melachah.

Clarification #2: Moreover, says the Ri, according to those that hold 'le'La'av Yatzas, it would not be Asur on Yom-Tov, seeing as the term 'Melachah' is not applicable to it.

Clarification: Because if we did say 'Mitoch', it would be permitted (to burn the Chametz on Yom-Tov).

Implied Question: Even though there must be at least a slight personal need?

Answer: Here, the fact that he is burning it is considered a personal need (see Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).

Question: Rav Ya'akov from Orleans asks that here we not require two Pesukim to preclude Chametz that belongs to a Nochri and Chametz that belongs to Hash-m; but we learn them both from the same "L'cha" - even though the Torah writes "L'cha" three times, and in Perek Kol Sha'ah it implies that all three are needed.

Question (cont.): Whilst in Menachos, in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (67.) the Gemara states that the Torah writes two times "Arisoseichem", once to preclude the dough of a Nochri from Chalah, and once to preclude the dough of Hekdesh.

Textural Change: In a more accurate text however, the Gemara reads 'One, K'dei Arisoseichem (the amount of your doughs [with reference to the dough in the desert]), and one to preclude a dough of Hekdesh'.

Proof: And this version appears correct, since the Gemara in 'Reishis ha'Gez' (Chulin 135.) specifically Darshens from "Arisoseichm" 'K'dei Isaschem' (the amount of your doughs).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, since one 'L'cha' is superfluous, we attach it to "Lo Yimatzei".

Question: The Rashba asks that from the redundant word "L'cha" itself one can preclude a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction, without "Lo Yimatzei"?

Answer: The Ri explains that if not for "Lo Yimatzei", we would not preclude the Chametz of a Nochri who is under jurisdiction from "L'cha" alone, since that is considered "L'cha", and we would have learned something else from it.

Answer (cont.): But now that we attach "L'cha" to "Lo Yimatzei", due to the meaning of the word, we preclude a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction, since "Lo Yimatzei implies that even if it is Matzuy, it must be yours as well.

Question: He (the Rashba) asks further, that since we attach "L'cha" to "Lo Yimatzei". Why does the Gemara earlier find it necessary to Darshen that 'just as yeast that is mentioned in connection with 'Gevulim' you must not see your Chametz but you can see the Chametz of others and of Gavohah, so too, the yeast that is mentioned in connection with 'Batim' ... ?

Answer: The Ri answers that were it not for the D'rashah of "Se'or" "Se'or", we would have established it ("L'cha" & "Lo Yimatzei") to preclude that of others and of Gavohah in houses just as in Gevulim, but not to preclude a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction.

Reservation: Though this answer is a Dochek (forced).

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that nowhere do we require two Pesukim, one for a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction, and one who isn't (like we do here)?

Question (cont.): Such as in Perek Reishis ha'Gez (Chulin 135:) with regard to "Beischa", "Degancha" and "Sadcha", and many other cases that are cited there; in all the cases the Gemara requires only one Pasuk to preclude a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction, and one who isn't?

Answer: The Rashba answers that now that the Pasuk here has taught us that even a Nochri who is under one's jurisdiction is not considered 'yours', we no longer two Pesukim anywhere else, and we preclude them both from one Pasuk.

Answer to Earlier Question: In the same vein one can answer the Kashya that Rav Ya'akov from Orleans asked from "Arisoseichem" (in the previous Dibur).