Clarification: It seems that it is only if they are already 'disgusting' that one is permitted to retain them; but to make them disgusting (in order to retain them) is forbidden. This is because in the meantime, it will become a stumbling-block (causing one to sin).

Proof: Just like by the case of treading grapes, in Perek 'ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros Daf 22.) where the Gemara says that 'If a Sa'ah of Tamei T'rumah falls into a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin, Rebbi Eliezer rules that one should separate T'rumah and let it rot'.

Proof (cont.): Whereas in the fifth Perek of T'rumos, the text reads 'separate T'rumah and burn it'.

Conclusion: And Rabeinu Tam explains that if they are disgusting, it should be burned and one is permitted to benefit from it whilst burning it (See Maharsha & Maharam).

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that they did this on behalf of the Kohanim of Rebbi's household ...

Clarification (cont.): Since a Yisrael is only permitted to benefit from it in a way that does not destroy it, like we find by Eiruv, where one may make an Eiruv consisting of T'rumah for a Yisrael.

Clarification (concl.): But a Hana'ah which does destroy it, such as feeding it to one's animal or to use it as fuel, is forbidden to a Yisrael ...

Proof #1: As we learned in the firstPerek of Avodah-Zarah (15.) 'A Kohen who rents a cow from a Yisrael, may not feed it oats of T'rumah'.

Proof #2: Likewise, we learned in the Mishnah in T'rumos (Perek 11,Mishnah 10) 'One is permitted to kindle T'rumah oil that became Tamei, in the Shuls and the Batei-Medrash, in the domain of a Kohen' - meaning aslong as there is a Kohen there, based on the principle 'A lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred'.

Reason: The Ri attributes this to the Pasuk "Mishmeres T'rumosai", from which Chazal Darshen 'Just as T'rumah Tehorah ... ', and 'just as Tehorah is permitted specifically to a Kohen, so too T'rumah Teme'ah'.

Conclusion: And by T'rumah Teme'ah, the sole use is as fuel for lighting.

Question: The Ri asks from the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 16:) which concludes that the Chachamim decreed that Gidulei T'rumah is T'rumah, on account of T'rumah Teme'ah in the hands of a Kohen - because we are afraid that that he will retain it in order to replant it.

Question (concl.): But now that the Chachamim declared it Tahor, he will retain it for replanting in order to render it Tahor.

Answer: The Ri explains that he will not retain it for such a minimal profit, seeing as it remains T'rumah and does not become Chulin.

Question: Rabeinu Nisim Gaon asks from a Tosefta which states that 'Gidulei T'rumah and Ma'aser Sheini are like Chulin' ('Harei hein ke'Chulin')?

Answer: And he discovered an answer in the Yerushalmi in Maseches T'rumos, which interprets 'Harei hein ke'Chulin' with regard to being Chayav Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah, which poor Yisre'elim and poor Kohanim are allowed to pick, though the former are forbidden to eat it.

Proof: And that is why the Beraisa adds that the poor of Yisrael sell theirs to a Kohen cheaply like T'rumah.

Reason: The reason for this is - because, since min ha'Torah T'rumah and Ma'aser are not Chayav Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah, a Rabbinical decree cannot remove the Din T'rumah from the crops.

Question: Furthermore R. Moshe from Nivraish asks from the Mishnah in Bikurim (Perek 2, Mishnah 2) which differentiates between Ma'aser and Bikurim, whose Gidulin may not be eaten in Yerushalayim, even to Zarim and to animals, whereas T'rumah is ...

Question (concl.): Implying that T'rumah is permitted to Zarim?

Query: Aside from that however, the expression 'even to Zarim' is a problem, since it ought to have said 'even to Kohanim'?

Answer: It therefore seems that 'Zarim' there refers to Nochrim. And that is alo ow the Yerushalmi seems to explain it.

Clarification: The Riva explains that 'Gidulin' refers to the first growth of the seeds, whereas if one replants the Gidulin, that is 'Gidulei Gidulin'.

Proof: And he proves this from the Yerushalmi, which concludes that Gidulei Gidulin is when one makes two granaries. This in turn, means that it was planted, picked and planted again.

Rashi Disagrees: According to Rashi however, both of the above constitute the first Gidul.

Explanation #1: And what Rashi explains that garlic falls under the category of 'Davar she'Zar'o Kalah' (something whose roots decay) ...

Refutation: Appears to be incorrect ...

Refutation (cont.): Since the Tana in Maseches T'rumos (Perek 9, Mishnah 6), describing something whose roots do not decay, lists 'Lof (a bean-bearing plant), garlic and onions'.

Question: Earlier (on Daf 20:) we learned that 'If it was in a discreet location, one may move to one that is open. And we explained 'causing it to become Tamei yes, but to render it Tamei with one's hands, no!'

Question (concl.): The question is why, the moment one takes one's mind off it, why can one not burn it straightaway?

Question: The Ri asks that perhaps the P'sul under discussion concerns the blood or the owner, which (always) require Ibur Tzurah?

Answer: Even if it did, once it has been sprinkled into the Lul, the Kohen takes his mind off it (and it will no longer require Ibur Tzurah).

Implied Question: Even though the Tzitz does not atone for Yotzei ...

Answer: Rebbi Yehoshua holds that the Zerikah is effective on Yotzei ...

Source: Like Rebbi Akiva, who holds at the beginning of Me'ilah (Daf 6:) that 'Zerikah is effective to remove Yotzei from the realm of Me'ilah, and all the more so to atone ...

Conclusion: Since we find that Rebbi Eliezer, who says here 'Yizrok', says there that it is not effective to remove it from Me'ilah (See Maharsha).

Clarification: Because "Venasan" implies that the water is considered detached with regard to Kabalas Tum'ah ...

Clarification (cont.): Even though it is actually attached (See Rabeinu Chananel).

Conclusion: And the Gemara is now bringing a proof that there is no Hashakah by Hekdesh min ha'Torah (only mi'de'Rabbanan).

Conclusion: And similarly by T'rumah the Rabbanan initiated a Ma'alah.

Refutation: Rashi's explanation is a Dochek (See Gilyon ha'Shas).