Explanation #1: Rashi explains that since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel made no mention of house or field, their rulings must be based on a different reason, and not on Takalah.

Explanation #2: It seems to the Ri however, that even if Beis Shamai's reason was based on Takalah, it is not considered a compromise, seeing as the disputants did not reveal any interest in dividing between Bayis and Sadeh, since neither of them said 'both in the house and in the field'.

Comment: In fact, that is how Rashi himself explained it above (Daf 13.), when the Gemara stated that 'Rebbi Akiva is not a Machri'a'.

Support: And the case of 'Kulei Matlaniyos', where Rebbi Eliezer says 'whether they are prepared or not, they are Tamei', whereas Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that 'whether they are prepared or not, they are Tahor', and where Rebbi Akiva concludes 'If they are prepared, they are Tamei; if they are not, then they are Tahor' ...

Support (cont.): The Gemara in Perek Kirah (Shabbos, Daf 39:) considers it a compromise - since both Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua revealed the possibility of drawing a distinction between whether they are prepared or not.

Implied Question: And the case in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos 43:), where Beis Shamai say that one recites a B'rachah over oil', and where Raban Gamliel comments 'I will be Machri'a - oil we merit both its smell and anointing with it, whereas a myrtle-twig, we merit its smell, but cannot anoint with it'.

Implied Question (cont.): And Rebbi rules there like the words of the 'Machri'a' (even though Beis Shamai said nothing about the distinction)?

Answer: Rebbi is not saying that because it is considered a proper Machri'a, but in order to give a reason to his ruling.

Proof: And a proof for this is that if he was, then why would he see fit to rule like him, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan has already stated in Perek Kirah that the Halachah is always like the Machri's?

Question: This explanation however, is a little difficult, because why does the Gemara here ascribe the reason for its ruling here to 'Hachra'ah Shelishis La'av Hachra'ah, why not rather ascribe it to the (more established) principle that 'The Hachra'ah of a Talmid is not considered a Hachra'ah'.

Explanation #3: Indeed, Rabeinu Chananel explains that, by 'Hachra'ah Shelishis', the Gemara means the third generation, which is synonymous with 'the 'Hachra'as Talmid', as the Gemara says in Perek Kirah.

Clarification: It is forbidden to sell it (the Chametz), but if one did, the proceeds are Mutar be'Hana'ah, since 'Its status is not transferred on to the proceeds'.

Proof: As we learned in the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 56:) 'If he sold them (Isurei Hana'ah) and betrothed a woman with the proceeds, she is Mekudeshes.

Implied Question: Even though it does not go like Rebbi Yehudah,even according to the Maskana (the final outcome)?

Answer: What the means to suggest is that it does not go like Rebbi Yehudah, only like Rebbi Meir ...

Answer (cont.): And it concludes that it does not go like Rebbi Meir either.

Clarification: One does not transgress the Isur of 'bal Yatmin'(not to hide Chametz), since the prohibition of 'bal Yatmin' is based on the Pasuk "Lo Yimatzei", and seeing as the location of the Chametz is not known, it is not considered 'Matzuy'.

Proof: And so is implied in the first Perek (on Daf 6:), where the Gemara asks 'And when he finds it, let him declare it null and void?'

Proof (cont.): Implying that as long as he has not found it, he has not transgressed the Isur of 'bal Yera'eh'.

Question: he Rashba asks on what basis one is permitted to feed a wild animal whose way it is to hide things, seeing as we learned in the Mishnah in the first Perek (Daf 9:) 'Whatever one leaves over (after Bedikas Chametz), one should place it in a discreet location, to prevent the scenario where a weasel carries it away in one's presence, as this will obligate him to begin searching all over again ...

Question (cont.): How much more so may one not place Chametz in front of them?

Answer: One needs to differentiate between a wild animal, which does hide things to the extent of a weasel that lives in one's house ...

Conclusion: Seeing as a Chayah does not hide things like a weasel, which hides things in all the nooks and crannies.

Clarification: Assuming he did not declare it null and void.

Alternative Explanation: In fact, the Gemara might just as well have expressed the fear that perhaps he might come to eat from it.

Explanation #1: The Ri citing Rabeinu Tam, explains that Rebbi Yehudah goes according to Beis Hillel, who forbid Kutach because the name of the owner remains on it, so that everyone knows that it is so-and-so's Kutach, and will believe that he sold it on Pesach through a Nochri ...

Explanation #2: Or that he sold it to the Nochri on Pesach. Therefore Rebbi Yehudah forbids selling Kutach to a Nochri.

Conclusion: And this goes even according to Rabeinu Tam, who explains at the beginning of 'Eilu Ovrim' (Daf 42.) that one is permitted to retain Kutach on Pesach.

Clarification: The Gemara is speaking where the Chametz became unfit for canine consumption. Otherwise it would not be permitted

Precedent: Like the case of bread that turned moldy (in the first Perek, Daf 15:).

Refutation of Initial Text: Rashi erases the word 'P'shita?' from his text.

Reason: Since Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili disagrees and maintains that it is permitted all seven days.

Refutation of suggested Reinstatement #1: Neither can one explain that it it is obviously Asur be'Hana'ah, based on the inference from the Reisha - seeing as it is normal for a Tana to repeat his words a number of times.

Refutation of suggested Reinstatement #2: Moreover, in that case, the Gemara does not answer properly.

Reinstating Initial Text: It seems however, that the Gemara asks 'P'shita', based on the Mishnah in the first Perek (Daf 11:) which requires Chametz to be burned, which clearly indicates that it is Asur be'Hana'ah.

Conclusion: Whereas according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili there is no need to burn it, and one is even permitted to feed it to one's dog or to sell it to a Nochri.

Reason: Because according to Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that Chametz must be burned, the ashes are permitted, as we learned in a Beraisa in the last Perek of Temurah (Daf 34.) 'Whatever must be burned, the ashes are permitted'.

Reason (cont.): And the Gemara now suggests that whilst one is burning it, deriving benefit from it ought to be permitted.

Conclusion: Whereas according to the Rabbanan, who hold that Chametz is not subject to burning, but that is belongs to the things that may be buried, about which the Gemara in Temurah there states that their ashes are forbidden, it is obvious that deriving benefit from it whilst burning it is forbidden.

Question: Whoever benefits from Chametz on Pesach ought to be Chayav Kareis, seeing as the Torah writes 'ki Kol Ochel Chametz ve'Nichr'sah"?

Suggested Answer: And if you suggest that indeed he is ...

Refutation: Then, later, on Daf 23:, when the Gemara questions the ramifications of the Machlokes between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Avahu, why did it not answer that the difference between them lies in this very point?

Answer: The Ri answers that we can learn "Lo Ye'achel" and "Lo Sochal" from "Lo Sochlu", but not "ki Kol Ochel".

Clarification: This implies that had the Torah written this, we would have Darshened the Pasuk specifically like Rebbi Meir.

Precedent: And in a similar vein, regarding "Neshech" and "Tarbis" in Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a 61.).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara suggests in Kidushin (Daf 32:) that 'According to the Rabbanan, had the Pasuk meant to say like Yossi ha'Gelili, it ought to have written "Mipnei Seivah Takum Vehadarta, Takum Vehadarta P'nei Zakein' ...

Answer: That is because neither does the Lashon "Vehadarta" go with the word "mi'P'nei", nor does "P'nei" go with "Takum".

Implied Question: And as for the five Pesukim that cannot be clearly placed "Se'eis", "Arur", "Machar", "Meshukadim" and "ve'Kam" (Yoma 52.)

Answer: That has no connection to our Sugya, seeing as they can refer equally to the earlier phrase or to the latter one ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, neither word can apply both to "Ger" and to "Nochri" exclusively.

Clarification of Gemara in Zevachim: And in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 24.) the Tana'im argue over the Pasuk "Velakach ha'Kohen mi'Dm ha'Chatas be'Etzba'o Venasan ... "

Clarification ... (cont.): Some who connect "Etzba'o" with 'Lekichah' and not with 'Nesinah' - because that is the simple explanation of the Pasuk; whilst others connect it with 'Nesinah' that follows it - because we find elsewhere "Velakachta mi'Dam ha'Par Venasata al karnos ha'Mizbe'ach be'Etzba'echa" (where Etzba goes with 'Nesinah') ...

Clarification ... (concl.): Whereas a third opinion connects it with both, since on the one hand it goes better with 'Lekichah' whilst on the other, we find it together with 'Nesinah' (as we explained).

Question: Why does the Gemara not also query Rebbi Meir, since it is necessary to give precedence to the Nesinah to a Ger?

Answer: The Ri answers that to be sure, had there been no Pasuk at all, we would have said from a logical standpoint, that one should give the Ger precedence.

Answer (cont.): But now that the Torah writes both 'Nesinah' and 'Mechirah' ("Titnenah va'Achalah O Machor"), had it omitted "O", we would have thought that it comes to teach us that it is not necessary to do so.

Conclusion: And it is also necessary to insert both "Ger" and "Nochri" ...

Conclusion (cont.): This is because, had it only written "Ger", we would have thought that it comes to preclude giving it to a Nochri; and had it mentioned only "Nochri", we would have thought that it comes to preclude selling it to a Ger.