Implied Question: Why does the Gemara refer to this as a 'different Din' more than the previous cases (where Rebbi Yehudah also retracted)?

Answer: The Riva attributes it to the fact that now it no longer needs the Isur Achilah Hana'ah and the fact that it is Chayav Kareis.And one can learn it from the sole fact that it is subject to 'Bal Tosiru' which all the others are not.

Question: The Ri asks how the Gemara could possibly have learned a Kal va'Chomer from Nosar, which is not subject to Bal Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei, seeing as here it considers 'Bal Tosiru' equivalent to 'Bal Yera'eh'?

Answer: And he answers that the Kal va'Chomer is nevertheless justified, because Nosar is indeed not subject to Bal Yera'eh, since the moment one leaves over, one has transgressed, but one does not continue to do so ...

Conclusion: Whereas with regard to Chametz, even once one has left over, one continues to transgress 'Bal Yera'eh' every moment.

Question: The Rashba asks that, according to the Rabbanan who say that they have to be burned, why do we not learn that Chametz must be burned from Nosar?

Answer: The Ri answers because they extrapolate from Nosar that Nosar must be burned, but no other Isurim - even Chametz.

Source: Rebbi Yehudah's source is cited in the Toras Kohanim, which Darshens "ki Kodesh Hu" - "Hu" bi'Sereifah, ve'Lo Chatas Of ve'Asham Tluy bi'Sereifah'.

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that the Rabbanan in our Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi in Perek Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 43:).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, our Mishnah can also go like the Rabbanan there, who argue that it will become manure and produce plants, whereas the Torah states "Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha ... ")

Implied Question: And the reason that it is (nevertheless) permitted here is ...

Answer: Because by Chametz, the Torah writes "Lo Ye'achel", in which case it the Isur Hana'ah is confined to way that one normally derives benefit from it.

Answer (cont.): Whereas by Avodah-Zarah the Torah does not write 'Achilah', in which case the Isur Hana'ah extends even to deriving benefit from it in an irregular manner.

Reason: Since we do not find anywhere the Yam ha'Melach mentioned in connection with Chametz.

Reason (cont.): Whereas by Avodah-Zarah we find it in many places, such as on the previous Daf 'Yolich Hana'ah le'Yam ha'Melach').

Conclusion: Consequently, whenever the Tana refers to 'Yam' in connection with Avodah-Zarah, it means the Yam ha'Melach.

Rabah Disagrees: According to Rabah however, grinding the Avodah-Zarah is effective in other rivers too, as we will say shortly 'Ka'n be'Yam ha'Melach, Ka'n be'Sha'ar Naharos'.

Observation: The term 'Ipcha' is not accurate, since Rabah equates them (i.e. Chametz and Avodah-Zarah [See Maharshal]).

Explanation #1: Initially, it appears that Rav Yosef requires breaking up even by the Yam ha'Melach ...

Proof #1: Since in all probability, wherever Rabah does not require breaking up (i.e. by the Yam ha'Melach), Rav Yosef does.

Proof #2: Moreover, if Rav requires breaking up exclusively by other rivers, and not by the Yam ha'Melach, in which case he argues with Rabah only by Chametz, but not by Avodah-Zarah, why does the Gemara refer to 'a Beraisa like Rav Yosef'?

Proof #3: And why does it say that 'breaking up is a Kashya on Rabah'?

Halachah: If that is so, then Rav Yosef will hold that breaking up will not help by other rivers, since he requires 'taking it to the Yam ha'Melach'.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, from the fact that Rebbi Yossi brings a proof from the Pasuk "And he scattered it on the surface of the water - implying that breaking up does help by other rivers!

Refutation #2: Moreover, wherever the Yam ha'Melach is mentioned - in Avodah-Zarah and in other places, it does not mention breaking-up!

Refutation #2 (cont.): Also in may places we find that although the Tana'im mention Yam ha'Melach, it nevertheless helps to take it to other rivers.

Source #1: Like the Mishnah at the end of 'Kol ha'Tzelamim (Avodah-Zarah 49:) where Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yolich Hana'ah le'Yam ha'Melach', yet the Gemara there states, with regard to the case of Chavis 'Take four Zuzim and throw them into the river!'.

Source #2: Similarly, in Nazir (Daf 24.) and in Me'ilah (Daf 11.),in connection with the case of someone who designates money for his Nezirus and dies, the Mishnah rules 'Yolich le'Yam ha'Melach!', indicating that Hekdesh requires the Yam ha'Melach.

Source #2 (cont.): Yet in Erchin (29.), in connection with Hekdesh, the Gemara states likewise 'Take four Zuzim and throw them into the river!'.

Explanation #2: Consequently, we need to say that even Rav Yosef only not require breaking up by other rivers, just like Rabah,

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only Rabah holds that the term 'Throw it into the river!' in connection with Avodah-Zarah, always refers to the Yam ha'Melach where breaking-up is not necessary ...

Proof: As we learned in the Reisha of the Beraisa, in connection with an image of the moon and the sun and in various other locations 'Yolich le'Yam ha'Melach!'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rav Yosef establishes it by other rivers, in conjunction with breaking it up.

Conclusion: It transpires that the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Yosef is restricted to Chametz by other rivers.

Question: According to the Rabbanan, who do not hold of breaking-up and throwing to the wind in connection with Avodah-Zarah, what does one do with Avodah-Zarah? Is one supposed to travel each time to the Yam ha'Melach?

Question (cont.): Seeing as according to them, breaking-up does not help by other rivers, since they said there in a Beraisa 'Is there a proof from there? Does it not say "And he scattered it (the Golden Calf) on the surface of the water" - He only did so in order to test them as if they were a Sotah!'

Question (cont.): And since they need to come onto that reason, we can extrapolate that breaking-up by other rivers.

Question (cont.): And the reason for that is because the water simply carries it (the Avodah-Zarah) to the river-bank.

Answer: According to the Rabbanan, one breaks it up and throws it to the wind in a location where it cannot grow,as the Gemara itself says there.

Clarification: It seems that, according to Rebbi Shimon, even though someone who eats Chametz before the time has not transgressed, he concedes that eating Chametz is prohibited from six hours and onwards.

Proof #1: Sine we learned in the first Perek (Daf 14.) that 'One is not permitted to burn T'rumah Tehorah together with T'rumah Teme'ah - implying that on its own, one may burn it. Now if one was permitted to eat it, why can one not continue to eat it until nightfall?

Proof #2: Furthermore, since the Gemara establishes the statement 'From the time that it may not be eaten one may also derive no benefit from it' like the Tana Kama, this implies that according to Rebbi Shimon, eating it is prohibited even though it is not Asur be'Hana'ah - which is after six hours.

Source: And he presumably learns this from "Tashbisu" and from "Ach"- 'Chalak'.

Source (cont.): And he understands "Tashbisu" (desist) with regard to benefiting in an unusual manner (i.e. eating), whereas burning it underneath one's cooked dish is permitted.

Question: Why must one burn it is the sixth hour, according to Rebbi Shimon, why can one not burn it bit by bit underneath one's cooked dish right up to nightfall?

Answer: The Chachamim forbade doing that in case one comes to eat it.

Conclusion: Similarly, according to Rebbi Yosii ha'Gelili, who permits burning Chametz underneath one's cooked dish, does so only if it is all together, but not bit by bit.

Semi-Rejection: The Lashon is forced.

Alternative Explanation: The Rashba therefore explains the Gemara as follows: 'Did the Torah not already write "Tochal alav Chametz", and the word 'alav' there refers to the Korban Pesach; so too, when the Torah writes "Lo Sochal alav Chametz", it refers to the time of eating the Pesach (but not earlier).

Question: Why does one need a Pasuk for this? Why would one even think that the La'av of eating Chametz should pertain to the fourteenth, bearing in mind that, according to Rebbi Shimon, all the Pesukim concerned are needed.

Question: According to Chizkiyah from where do we know that there is an Isur Hana'ah before the time, seeing as the Torah writes "Lo Ye'achel" only once, and logically, we establish it by during the time that it is Asur?

Answer: The Ri answers that since one of the Pesukim involved implies an Isur Hana'ah, we will not differentiate between them.

Clarification: The Riva explains 'Machmas Davar Acher' to mean a different species.

Reason: This is because if it were to rise because of yeast it would be even more Chamtz that if it rose by itself, as is evident in Perek Kol ha'Menachos (Menachos 2:).

Conclusion: So it speaks for example, where it became Chametz through dregs of wine, after they have been dried, in the way that they do in Germany.

Conclusion (cont.): And it is not comparable to a dough that has been kneaded with dough (on Daf 96:), which is not subject to Kareis, only a La'av.

Question #1: The Ri asks from the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 37:),where the Gemara learns the Chiyuv nowadays from "Moshvoseichem" that is written in connection with Matzah - which concurs with neither of the opinions mention in our Sugya?

Question #2: And furthermore, there is s Kashya on Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, who holds in 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 120.)that Matzah nowadays is de'Rabbanan, and he Darshens all the Pesukim like none of the Tana'im?

Question: With regard a Mumar, who is an apostate, why do we need a Pasuk? Is it not obvious that he is Chayav to eat Matzah, seeing as he is Chayav to observe all the Matzos?

Rejected Answer: And it cannot be coming to teach us that he is allowed to eat Matzah, even though he is Patur from the Korban Pesach, since that too, is obvious, seeing as Matzah has no Kedushah!

Answer: We need the Pasuk for a case where the Pesach was Shechted when he was a Mumar, and where he subsequently did Teshuvah. Because although he may not eat the Pesach, which can only be eaten by those who registered, he is nevertheless Chayav to eat Matzah and Maror.

Clarification: Rashi explains that he was not circumcised because two brothers died as a result of the B'ris Milah.

Extension: According to his explanation, he is also disqualified from eating T'rumah, since the Gemara in 'he'Areil' (Yevamos 70. & 70:) learns T'rumah from Pesach via a Gezeirah-Shavah of "Toshav ve'Sachir".

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara there (71.) ask 'Whether one is permitted to anoint an Areil Katan with T'rumah-oil - whether Orlah which is premature invalidates the oil or not'?

Answer: One can draw a distinction between the issue of 'premature' by a Katan, where others of his age are not Chayav to circumcise either, and the case of an Areil whose brothers died on account of Milah, where others of his age are Chayav.

Proof: Proof of this lies in a Tumtum, who may not eat T'rumah, as we learned in Perek ha'Areil (there 72.), even though he is presumably not obligated to tear open.

Conclusion: Likewise therefore, someone whose brothers died on account of Milah, may not eat, even though he is not obligated to circumcise.