Question: But don't we already know this from the Reisha where we learned that 'Any location where Chametz is not taken does not require Bedikah?

Answer: We would have established that where a weasel has no access.

Ruling: The Ri permits Kohanim to enter a house (in Chutz la'Aretz) belonging to a Nochri even where there are no Chazerim or weasels ...

Source: Because we learned in the Tosefta that the Din of Meduros Akum (that their dwellings are automatically Tamei) does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam confines this statement to the flesh of a Nefel, which is soft ...

Source: Since otherwise the Gemara in the second Perek of Bava Kama (19: & 20.) defines a Chazir eating meat as 'Achilah she'al-Y'dei ha'Dechak' ('it barely falls under the category of eating').

Question: But the dwellings of Nochrim are private domains, and we have learned in Maseches Taharos (Perek 6, Mishnah 4) that 'Wherever it is possible to increase S'feikos and S'feikei S'feikos in a R'shus ha'Yachid, it is Tamei?

Answer #1: This Safek is not comparable to most S'feikos, since there is no real reason to assume that they contain a Nefel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the assumption that the animal ate it is stronger than other S'feikos, since it is an ongoing Safek, and is in fact close to Vaday.

Proof: Proof of this lies in the Gemara's suggestion that it should even detract from a Vaday.

Question: In any event, this is a case of Vaday Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan, with regard to Achilas K'va (despite his having brought it in with its chaff).

Source: As is evident from the statement 'so that the animal should eat', implying that the owner himself is forbidden to eat.

Question (cont.): And we learned in the Tosefta (cited in the first Perek of Beitzah [Daf 13.]) 'If someone brings grains of corn into the house to make a dough out of them, he may eat from them casually without having to Ma'aser them.

Question (cont.): Yet the Safek takes away from the Vaday mi'de'Rabbanan, and we place them on a Chazakah of being rectified.

Question (cont): Why then, by Chametz does the Safek also not take away from the Vaday Chiyuv Bedikah mi'de'Rabbanan, seeing as min ha'Torah, Bitul alone will suffice?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that our Mishnah is speaking where the owner did not make Bitul, rendering it (not just Vaday de'Rabbanan, but) Vaday d'Oraysa.

Answer #2: Furthermore, says the Ri, when the Beraisa places the kernels on a Chazakah of being rectified, he is referring specifically to kernels that are only fit for an animal to eat (but not kernels that are fit for human consumption).

Implied Question (Part 1): When the Gemara in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos 67:) queries the ruling that the Miru'ach of a Nochri does not exempt (the produce from being Ma'asered) because of the 'Ba'alei Kisin (wealthy men who sell their produce to Nochrim before the Miru'ach), and buy it back from them after the Miru'ach) ...

Implied Question (Part 2): Terumah too, it is possible to do like Rebbi Oshaya ... ' (See Maharam), implying that one is completely Patur (if one does)?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that one can do like Rebbi Oshaya, in which case, as far as animal food is concerned, what will the Chachamim then have gained with their Takanah (see also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz)?

Ruling: This implies that Tevel that has seen the inside of the house, may not even be eaten ny an animal.

Question: The Ri queries this inasmuch as why should this be any different than other kinds of benefit, since we not find that Tevel is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Answer: Because the Gemara in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 26.) regarding the prohibition of lighting with Tamei Tevel, extrapolates from the Pasuk "es Mishmeres Terumosai" - that the Pasuk is speaking about two kinds of Terumah (Terumah Tehorah and Terumah Teme'ah) ... and just as Terumah Tehorah one is only permitted to eat it after separating it, so too, Terumah Teme'ah (with reference to fuel, for which it is used).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara then learns Terumah Tehorah from Terumah Teme'ah 'Just as Teme'ah may not be kindled before it has been separated, neither may Tehorah. Likewise, it may not be given to one's animals, or any other Hana'ah that destroys it.

Inference: We can also learn from here the prohibition of feeding oats of Terumah to one's animal ...

Second Opinion: Though Rashi in Shabbos does not hold like that.

Refutation of Proof #1: There is no proof from here that a Shifchah is subject to Tum'as Leidah ...

Reason: Since it may have been the Nefel of her mistress (that she threw into the pit).

Proof #2: The Toras Kohanim specifically states (in connection with the Din of Tum'as Leidah) "Daber el B'nei Yisrael" - 'I only know the B'nei Yisrael. From where will we include a Giyores and both a slave-girl who has been set free and one who has not?' Therefore the Torah adds the word "Ishah".

Implied Question: When the Gemara asks in Perek Ha'Areil (Yevamos 74: & 75.) 'How can one say that the Pasuk (regarding Tum'as Leidah) is speaking about Terumah? Does the Beraisa not include a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres from the word "Ishah"?

Implied Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara mention 'Meshuchreres' (implying that a Shifchah is not subject to Tum'as Leidah)?

Answer: It does not mean to preclude a Shifchah that is not Meshuchreres. Only the Gemara cited only part of the Beraisa, since it only intends to ask from a Meshuchreres ...

Proof: As the Gemara specifically concludes 'And if you would have thought that it is talking about Terumah, since when does a Giyores and a Shifchah eat Terumah?

Proof (cont.): And if she was not a Meshuchreres, she would certainly eat Terumah, if she belonged to a Kohen.

Observation: The Ri explains that the Kohen must have been a Shoteh, because, even if we will say that the Nefel belonged to the Shifchah's mistress, and that the Kohen was a relative of hers, he should not have rendered himself Tamei ...

Source: Seeing as the Toras Kohanim specifically forbids a Kohen to make himself Tamei for a Nefel ...

Reason #1: Because (it is only permitted to do so on behalf of a Meis) that, like his father and mother, possessed the potential to live.

Reason #2: Furthermore, in this case, the Kohen did not render himself Tamei on behalf of the Meis.

Question: Where is the pit situated? If it is in a R'shus ha'Rabim, even one Safek will suffice to render the Kohen Tahor?

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is in a R'shus ha'Yachid, how can the Gemara answer that the Shifchah threw a sort of Nefel into the pit, seeing as we have learned in the Mishnah in Taharos (6:4) no matter how many S'feikos and S'feikei S'feikos one adds in a R'shus ha'Yachid, it is always Tamei?

Answer: A weasel or a Bardeles dragging the Nefel away is an ongoing Safek, as Tosfos explained on Amud Alef (and is therefore a more likely Safek than a regular one).

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that the feet of the Kohen must have been in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Reason: This is due to the fact that the burrow did not have an opening of a Tefach, because if it did, what will it help to say that the weasel dragged the Nefel away, seeing as an opening of a Tefach will bring the Tum'ah into the pit anyway?

Reason (cont.): That being the case, if his feet were in the R'shus ha'Yachid, we would have to suspect that the weasel might have dragged the Nefel under his feet, and Tum'ah (which does not have an opening of a Tefach) goes straight upwards rendering Tamei whatever is above it.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, his feet may well have been in the R'shus ha'Yachid, only the possibility that the weasel dragged it away and ate it is a more likely Safek (see Maharsha).

Refutation of Explanation #1: The Gemara does not mean to ask that we ought to suspect that a weasel came from another room,

Reason: Because if it did, then there would be no end - seeing as it is impossible not to inspect one house before the other, in which case we ought to always suspect that a weasel may have brought Chametz from a house that has not yet been searched that has?

Explanation #2: The Gemara is therefore speaking about a weasel bringing Chametz from one corner of a room that has not been searched to a corner of the room that has, and is coming to teach us that we do not suspect even that.

Clarification: This means that sometimes it does not leave over. Consequently, where we have not actually seen Chametz, we do not suspect that maybe there was Chametz there, seeing as even if there was, the weasel would not necessarily have left any over.

Clarification (cont.): But there where we actually saw Chametz, we suspect that it is still there (even on the thirteenth).

Clarification (cont.): Whereas on the fourteenth, when it always leaves over, we suspect that it did, even if we did not actually see Chametz lying around.

Clarification (cont.: Regarding meat (i.e. the Nefel) however, even if we saw that what the Shifchah threw into the pit was a Nefel, we do not suspect that it is still there, since the weasel never leaves over Basar.

Observation: According to this explanation, Abaye will conform with Rebbi Zeira (at the beginning of the Sugya, who differentiates between bread and Basar at the beginning of the Sugya).

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the ruling with regard to Bedikah (the obligation to search).

Question #1: This does not appear correct according to the Ri, because how can the Gemara then bring a support for it from the case of 'Nine Shops' which is a S'feika d'Oraysa, where we tend to go le'Chumra, whereas here it is merely a S'feika de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara will explain shortly?

Answer: One might however answer that it is speaking where he did not yet make Bitul Chametz (in which here too, it is a S'feika d'Oraysa).

Question #2: Another Kashya is that by the case of nine shops, there is no Chezkas Heter, as there is here, based on the Chazakah that the owner examined the house, which there must be (otherwise it would be obvious that the house requires Bedikah).

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore establishes the ruling with regard to a mouse that brought it into the house, and the question is whether one is allowed to eat it on Pesach.

Question: When a mouse comes and takes from one of those piles, why is it considered 'Kavu'a'? On what grounds is 'Chametz that is found in the mouth of a mouse' any different than 'an Isur that is found in the hands of a Nochri'?

Source: Since, in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin 95. & 95:) the Gemara queries Rav who forbids 'meat that has been hidden from the eye' from the Din of 'A piece of meat that is found (on the ground), where we go after the majority' (of Kasher shops).

Source (cont.): And the Gemara answers there that 'Nimtza' means that it is found in the hands of a Nochri' (and is therefore not considered 'Kavu'a).

Answer: The Ri explains that the Gemara here is speaking where we saw the mouse take from one of the piles (but we do not know which one), so that the Safek occurred in the place of Kevi'us.

Answer (cont.): Had we not seen it, it would it would have the Din of 'Piresh', and we would go after the majority.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks in Perek Ta'aruvos (Zevachim 73:) in connection with Shelamim which became mixed up with Chata'os that have to die or with an ox that needs to be stoned - 'Why should they all die? Why not simply mix them up and move them, enabling us to apply the principle 'that whatever separates, separates from the majority?'

Implied Question (cont.): Despite the fact that the Safek occurred in the place of Kevi'us?

Answer: It is different there, since it is not a genuine case of 'Kavu'a'. This is because the Isur was mixed up with the Heter, and was not identifiable, rendering it a case of Kavu'a mi'de'Rabbanan, since min ha'Torah, it is only considered 'Kavu'a if the Isur is recognizable in its place.

Clarification: And that is also the reason why the Gemara there decreed that one may take from the Kavu'a, more than by 'Nimtza', seeing as the Isur is not known.

Clarification: This Sugya, which differentiates between Bedikas Chametz and the Din of two boxes, does not go like Resh Lakish in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos 89.), who establishes the case of two boxes where the Chulin exceeds the Terumah ...

Clarification (cont.): But like Rebbi Yochanan, who does not require a majority of Chulin. According to him therefore, it goes well to compare Chametz to that case.

Clarification (cont.): And the entire Sugya speaks where the loaf is so large that the weasel ate it.