Clarification: Rashi explains that in a location from which one may not bring, one is permitted to reap.

Implied Question: And a Beis ha'Shalachin and all those cases, even though the Mishnah in Menachos (Daf 85.) rules that if one brought from there it is Kasher ...

Answer: Seeing as Lechatchilah one is not permitted to do so, it is considered a location from which is not permitted to bring.

Refuted Question: Nor should one be surprised that something that is forbidden Lechatchilah is permitted Bedi'eved ...

Answer: Since there are many things, such as Kodshim, which require a Pasuk to teach us that something is crucial.

Reason: Because there will be no loss if one waits with making a haystack until after the Omer ...

Reason (cont.): And it is specifically due to the loss involved that they permitted reaping, to hurry and reap the corn more than other fruit, since if one does not do so, it will get spoilt.

Implied Question: And the reason that, earlier on, Rebbi Yehudah permits flour and parched ears of corn ...

Answer: One can answer that they were lenient for the benefit of the Olei Regalim on Yom-Tov.

Answer (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Meir forbids flour ... but permits reaping (later in 'Makom she'Nahagu' (Daf 56.), where he says that 'They reaped with the consent of the Chachamim', due to the loss involved. And that is also how Rashi in Menachos explains it.

Question: In that case, what is the Gemara asking here? Perhaps Rebbi Yehudah only permits here, because there is a loss, but by Chametz, they issued a decree?

Answer: On account of the Mitzvah of Bi'ur Chametz it ought to be allowed no less than on account of a loss.

Clarification: Not Davka 'Korech' (wrap it), since one is even permitted to tie it, seeing as he does not negate it there.

Clarification (cont.): And the words 'but one may not tie a bow', refer to a rope.

Refuted Question: The Gemara does not want to ask from Rebbi Meir on himself, since above, he decreed by Chadash but not by B'chor.

Refuted Question (cont.): Inasmuch as in Perek Pesulei ha'Mukdahin (Bechoros 33:) the Beraisa quotes him as saying that 'If a B'chor has a blood-clot, one may let blood in a location where one not create a blemish.

Answer: Because one can answer that a B'chor is different, since there is a loss.

Observation: The Gemara could just as well have said that 'This one knew that the previous month was a short one, and this one did not'.

Question: The Riva asks that if we were to examine these witnesses - to say that both of them knew that the previous month was a full one, their testimony would be contradictory, resulting in its rejection.

Question (cont.): How can we then go ahead and kill the defendant based on a doubt- just as the Gemara will ask shortly?

Query: Even though in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin 69.) the Gemara extrapolates from here that most people tend to err with regard to Ibur ha'Chodesh (the month having been declared a full one) ...

Answer to Query: Nevertheless, what do we stand to lose if we do examine them?

Answer: Our exmination of the witnesses here is justified, since we ask them on which day it took place, and they give the same answer, it is evident that they did not know.

Implied Question: Nevertheless the Gemara in ben Sorer u'Moreh (Ibid.) is justified in extrapolating from here that we go after the majority even in matters concerning Dinei Nefashos, since most people err with regard to Ibur ha'Chodesh.

Answer: Since if we did not go after the majority, the moment one of them said that it took place on the second and the other, on the third, their testimony would immediately be considered contradictory, and what they subsequently say would be considered 'Chozer u'Magid' (a retraction from their initial statement).

Proof: A proof of this lies in the ruling that where one of them says that it took place on the third of the month, and the other, on the fifth, their testimony is negated - despite the fact that they mentioned the same day ...

Proof (cont.): And we don't say that they erred in two Ibur months, since people do not generally err in two Ibur months, and we consider them 'Chozer u'Magid'.

Question: Why does their testimony stand? What if we were to examine the testimony of the witness who said 'two hours' and assume that he meant at the beginning of two hours, which is before Hanetz ha'Chamah (sunrise), then it would be invalid?

Source: And we will learn later - that the beginning of the second hour is before sunrise, since the distance that a person walks in a day is ten Parsa'os, which is forty Milin. And from Amud ha'Shachar (dawn-break) till Hanetz ha'Chamah is four Milin, as we learnt in 'Mi sha'Hayah Tamei' (later on Daf 93:), which equals one and a half hours?

Answer: It is true that when one witness says 'before Hanetz ha'Chamah' and the other, 'after Hanetz ha'Chamah, where they both pay attention to 'Hanetz', then we say that a person does not err (between before and after Hanetz ha'Chamah).

Answer (cont.): But where, as in this case, they are only concerned with hours, people are not expert in hours, and they think that the second hour begins after Hanetz ha'Chamah.za