Clarification: This means in the Isur alone.

Clarification (cont.): But if there would be sufficient to be Machmitz only in the Isur and the Heter combined, it would be permitted ...

Source: Seeing as we learned in a Beraisa in the last Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 68.) that 'A yeast comprising both Chulin and T'rumah that falls into a dough, if each one is capable to cause the dough to rise, and the dough rose, then it is Asur; whereas Rebbi Shimon permits it.

Conclusion: So it transpires that Rebbi Shimon holds like the Rabbanan in our Sugya.

Mishnah in Temurah): Whereas the Mishnah at the end of the first Perek of Temurah (Daf 12.) which states that 'There one Mechametz after another Mechametz only forbids according to the amount of Isur that it contains ...

Explanation: That if a yeast of T'rumah fell into a dough and caused it to rise, and then they both fell another larger dough - then if the yeast contains sufficient to cause that dough to rise, then the latter is forbidden, even though it rose on account of both the yeast of Isur and the dough of Heter ...

Implied Question: And we establish that too, like the Rabbanan in our Sugya?

Answer: The Ri explains that that may well be speaking where the (first) dough did not contain enough to be Machmitz, but the yeast did.

Correct Text: Rabeinu Tam rejects the text 'va'Acheros ba'Acheros' ...

Source: Since in the Seider ha'Mishnah it is to be found neither in Maseches Avodah-Zarah nor in Seider Zera'im.

Clarification: It now seems that Rebbi Eliezer holds (everywhere) that 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur'.

Question: The Rashba asks from here on Rav Huna bar Chin'na, who comments on the Beraisa in Temurah (Perek Kol ha'Asurin, Daf 30: & 31;) 'Kol ha'Asurin le'Gabei Mizbe'ach, V'ladoseihen Mutarin', on which another Beraisa learned 'Rebbi Eliezer forbids them'.

Question (cont.): And Rav Huna bar Chin'na now establishes the Machlokes where they animals were pregnant before they were raped,and Rebi Eliezer holds that 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu", but if they were raped first, and then became pregnant, everyone (even Rebbi Eliezer) agrees that they are permitted ...

Question (concl.): So we see that Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar?

Clarification: Rebbi's reason is based on the principle 'Yesh Sh'vach Eitzim be'Pas', not on that of 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem Asur' ...

Source: Since in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 49.) Shmuel Paskens 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem, Mutar'.

Question: Since, according to the Rabbanan, Avukah Kenegdo is considered as if the flame actually comes from the coal, what does the Gemara ask at the end of 'Lulav ha'Gazul' (Succah 40.), and in 'ha'Gozel Eitzim' (Bava Kama 101:) 'How about Eitzim de'Mashchan (oil-wood), whose benefit and burning occur simultaneously'?

Question (cont.): Seeing as, at the time that one benefits from it, it is already burned in the location of the flame?

Answer: Because such a short time period is not considered 'the benefit after the burning with regard to Sh'mitah. This in turn, is because by eating, which is the source of this ruling, the benefit and the 'burning' are also completely simultaneous; so we can only preclude other wood, where the benefit comes entirely after the wood has become coal.

Question: And according to Rebbi, wood other than Eitzim de'Mashchan should also be forbidden, since, according to him, 'Avukah Kenegdo' is considered Hana'asan u'Bi'uran Shaveh.

Answer: One can however say that since most of the benefit comes after they have been burned, the Torah did not forbid them.

Question: The question arises however, according to the opinion that according to Rebbi, if the coals are still burning, it is forbidden, why does he not forbid all wood in the Sh'mitah, seeing as their benefit and their burning occur simultaneously, since he does not consider them extinguished as long as they are burning, since the major benefit comes from them.

Question: What Chumra is this ...

Question (cont.): Remember that Hekdesh is a 'Davar she'Yesh lo Matirin' via redemption, in which case it cannot become Bateil even if it concerns only a more lenient Isur, even if it is an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan, as we have learned at the beginning of Beitzah (Daf 4.).

Implied Question: The Gemara could have established the case by wood of Hekdesh, where he transgressed deliberately ...

Answer: Only it is unusual to transgress deliberately.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have established it by the wood of Shelamim.

Question: The Rashba (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) asks why it does not have the Din of an Avodah-Zarah that broke by itself, which is permitted ...

Proof: As we say in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 41:)?

Refuted Answer: Nor can we answer that it speaking here about the Avodah-Zarah of a Yisrael, which is never subject to Bitul ...

Refutation: Seeing as, the Gemara at the end of Temurah (Daf 34.) explains ascribes the fact that the Tana there) does not combine the ashes of Hekdesh and the wood of an Asheirah and say 'Eifer Hekdesh va'asheirah Le'olam Asur', is because Asheirah has a Heter - there where a Nochri burnsis, in which case it becomes Bateil.

Halachah: The Halachah it seems, is like Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as there is a S'tam Mishnah like him in the last Perek of Temurah (Daf 33:).

Question: In that case, the Halachah should also be like him in his ruling that a Succah must be made of the four species of the Lulav, since the Rabbanan only argue with him there because of the S'vara that 'Any Din whose beginning is strict and whose end is lenient, is not a Din'?

Question (concl.): Whereas in the first Perek of Succah (Daf 11.) the S'tam Mishnah permitting to bend a vine of a pumpkin over the Succah, provided one severs it, is a S'tam like the Rabbanan?

Answer: The Gemara here paskens like Rebbi Yehudah foradifferent reason - because he learns it from a Mah Matzinu.

Implied Question: Because even though the Rabbanan query him in that 'Chatas ha'Of and Asham (which do not require burning) Yochichu', and Rebbi Yehudah remained silent.

Answer: Nevertheless, we hold like those Rabbanan who hold that Chatas and Asham do require burning, in which case the 'Yochichu' falls away.

Question: According to the opinion that Darshened above that Nosar, but nothing else must be burned!', how can Rebbi Yehudah then learn that Chametz must be burned from Nosar?

Answer: The Rashba answers that we can only preclude from Nosar other things, but not Chametz which is similar to Nosar regarding both the Chiyuv Kareis and 'Bal Tosiru'.

Question: Then why do we learn other Isurim via 'Im Eno Inyan' from Nosar? Why not rather establish the Pasuk there with regard to Chametz on Pesach, to which it is more similar.

Answer: Chametz on Pesach does not require a Pasuk,since we are able to learn it with a 'Mah Matzinu'.

Question: The Riva asks why, bearing in mind that they (Chametz and Nosar) are similar, we do not learn that itself (that Chametz must be burned) from Nosar,

Answer: And he answers that they do not have the same Din regarding the La'av of "Lo Sosiru"