Question: The Rashba asks that we need to list them, to teach us that they are subject only to a La'v but not to Kareis?

Answer: The Ri answers that it would have sufficed to list just two of the cases, one of Nokshah, and one of Nokshah via Ta'aroves.

Question: And furthermore he asked that the Tana Kama who lists them, does not hold of the current principle, seeing as there is the case of women's ornaments which are a kind of corn, yet they are not subject to a La'v on Pesach?

Answer: But it is Rebbi Eliezer who states it.

Clarification: It is implied in our Sugya that if not for the Pasuk which includes Nokshah, there would be no Isur attached to it.

Question: The Ri queries this from the first Perek in Chulin, where Rebbi Zeira asks what the Din will be if someone undertakes to bring Lachmei Todah from 'Chametz or Matzah, and he subsequently brings 'Si'ur' ...

Question (cont): And the Gemara asks 'whose Si'ur; if it is the Si'ur of Rebbi Meir according to Rebbi Meir, seeing as it is subject to Malkos, it is clearly Chametz?'

Question (concl.): Now how do we know that it is Matzah regarding the Todah? Perhaps Chametz on Pesach is different, seeing as the Torah specifically included it?

Answer: The Ri answers that there too, there must be a Pasuk from which we include Chametz Nokshah in the realm of Chametz.

Implied Question: And the Beraisa that we learned in a Beraisa in Perek Kol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah (Menachos, Daf 53:) 'Ein Machmitzin be'Tapuchim, de'Havi Chametz Nokshah', as is implied there ...

Answer: That speaks Lechatchilah, but Bedi'eved, it is Kasher.

Question: Why do we not say that the Tana does not mention it because it is a Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: If it was a Kal cha'Chomer, then he would have needed tomention it to teach us that it is not subject to Kareis.

Clarification: min ha'Torah, one is even permitted to eat it, since it is real Matzah, as we have learned in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 23.)

Clarification (concl.): And it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that it is Asur.

Question: The Ri asks that there are actually two "ki Chols" with regard to Kareis -"ki Chol Ochel Chametz Ve'nichresah" and "ki CholOchel Machmetzes", so why can we not include Ta'aroves Chametz in the Din of Kareis?

Question (cont.): And even the Rabbanan, who do not Darshen "Kol', do however Darshen "ki Chol".

Answer: The Gemara knew that the second "ki Chol' too, teaches us some specific D'rashah or other.

Question: The Ri asks how it is possible to Darshen like this? Surely, he asks, based on the principle 'Lechumra Darshinan', one should rather Darshen the opposite?

Answer #1: And he answers that the Gemara thought that it is normalforthe Seifa to explain the Reisha (and not vice-versa).

Answer #2: Moreover, here it is preferable to Darshen a Heter for the women due to the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Chamishah-Asar" "Chamishah-Asar" from Chag ha'Succos, in which case they ought to be Patur from Matzah just as they Patur from Succah, from which the Pasuk specifically exempts them, Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, as the Gemara explains in Succah (28.)

Question #1: Some ask women are not Chayav Tzitzis, because whoever is Chayav Sha'atnez is Chayav Tzitis?

Question #2: Whereas according to the Ri, who explains that it islogival to Darshen from the Seifa to the Reisha, the Kashya is the opposite - namely, that women ought to be Patur from Sha'atnez?

Suggestion: Nor can we answer that indeed they are ...

Refutation: Since in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 14.) it is implied that Kil'ayim are not fit for any use.

Clarification #1: In PerekKol ha'Menachos Ba'os Matzah (Menachos 58.) Abaye explains 'Ein li Ela Kulo (i.e. a k'Zayis); from where do we know Miktzaso (half a k'Zayis).

Clarification #2: Whereas Rava there explains 'We only know a complete Kometz, fromwhere do we know part of a Kometz'?

Clarification #2 (cont.): That is why he explains 'Kulo' to mean 'a k'Zayis', and he also holds that Haktarah applies even to less than a k'Zayis.

Implied Question: Even though in Perek Keitzad Tzolin (79.) Rebbi Yehoshua rules that all Kodshim in the Torah are Kasher, provided a k'Zayis of Cheilev and a k'Zayis of blood remain - implying that Haktarah does not apply to less than a k'Zayis?

Answer: The reason in our Sugya is because it holds that there is a Kometz on less than two Zeisim, and consequently, when the Torah includes half a Kometz, it must be coming to include half a k'Zayis. Whereas Rava holds that there is no Kometz less than two Zeisim, in which case Haktarah will not apply to less than a k'Zayis.

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Akiva too, Darshens "Kol" in Perek Ta'aroves (Zevachim 82.) in connection with "Kol Chatas"?

Answer #1: It is not a Kashya, seeing as even if the author was Rebbi Akiva, nevertheless there ought to be a Tana who says that Ta'aroves Chametz is Chayav Kareis.

Answer #2: Moreover, it seems to the Ri that even according to the Rabbanan in our Sugya ,who do not Darshen "Kol, do Darshen it elsewhere, as we find at the beginning of 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama 63.) where it says that "Kol" is a Ribuy; and in the second Perek of Succah (Daf 28.) in connection with "Kol ha'Ezrach".

Answer #2 (cont.): And it is specifically here that they do not Darshen it, with regard to something where it is illogical to do so, such as 'Eiruvo', and regarding 'Nashim' - because of the Hekesh (as Tosfos explained earlier), and Miktzas of bal Taktiru'.

Answer #2 (concl.): Consequently, what the Gemara means here is 'Like whom? Like Rebbi Eliezer, who Darshens "Kol" even with regard to things that it is illogical to Darshen (such as 'Eiruvo' and 'Nashim'), and in this regard the Gemara states that the Rabbanan do not Darshen "Kol".

Implied Question: Even though by Chatas too, the Gemara says later that according to Rebbi Yochanan, 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'?

Answer: The Gemara does not reckon Chatas here, since it is not talking about Kodshim.

The Ri explains that Ze'iri interprets 'Se'or' as a case of 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur' ...

Source: Seeing as the Tana learns 'Eiruvo' from "ki Chol". Now since he included 'Eiruvo', it means that 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', like Rava, according to whom 'Miktzaso Minayin' a complete ke'Zayis (as we learned earlier).

Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas according to Abaye, who explains 'Miktzaso Minayin' with regard to half a k'Zayis, Heter Mitztaref le'Isur does not apply here, since he is Chayav even for a Mashehu of Isur on its own.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And when the Gemara includes 'Eiruvo', it speaks where it is completely mixed, and it teaches us the Isur is not Bateil in the Heter.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'Like whom,like Rebbi Eliezer, who Darshen "Kol",this is because even according to the Rabbanan, who Darshen "ki Chol", will not learn from it 'Eiruvo', but rather 'Miktzaso'.

Explanation #2: Rashi explains that Ze'iri understands 'Miktzaso to mean half a Zayis Kometz of yeast and half a Zayis of Matzah, not mixed, but each one separate.

Question #1: And there are many Kashyos of Rashi; Firstly, that Ze'iri holds neither like Abaye nor like Rava?

Question #2: Furthermore, what does 'like whom,like Rebbi Eliezer' then mean, seeing as it it goes according toto the Rabbanan too, who Darhsen "ki Chol", and establish it by Miktzaso, which is 'Heter Mitztaref le'Isur', according to Rashi?

Question #3: Moreover, from where do we now know 'Ta'aroves', seeing as we need the Pasuk for Heter Mitztaref le'Isur'?

Question 4#: And finally, according to Rashi, we will need to explain 'Miktzaso Minayin', to mean half a Zayis Isur and half a Zayis Heter which are not mixed together, since otherwise it is considered 'Eiruv'm ...

Question 4#: Whereas later with regard to Chatas (on Daf 45.) with regard to Chatas, it is implied that Heter is not Mitzeref le'Isur unless the Heter and the Isur are mixed, since the Gemara says there 'until it becomes absorbed in the flesh'?