Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he was going to wait at the border for nightfall, in order to acquire a place there, in order to walk four thousand Amos (in that direction) for a D'var R'shus (something that is not a Mitzvah).

Question: In that case, one can query the opinion in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin 31.) that prohibits making an Eiruv for a D'var R'shus.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that 'Lishbos Shevisas ha'Reshus' means - to go and rejoice on Pesach at the house of one's friend or relative.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Tzofim is the name of a village.

Question: The Ri queries him however, in that the Tana ought to have then added 'and the same distance in all directions' ...

Question (cont.): In the same way as we will learn later in a Beraisa in Perek Mi Shehayah Tamei (on Daf 93:) 'What is considered 'Derech Rechokah? From Modi'in and beyond, and the same distance in all directions'?

Answer: Moreover, says the Ri, the Tosefta in our Masechta specifically asks 'What is Tzofim?' And it answers 'That one can see without interruption', meaning any location around Yerushalayim from where one is able to see the city.

Explanation #1: Rashi defines this in accordance with the Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (earlier Daf 24.) "Ba'kodesh, ba'Eish Yisaref" - 'in the place where it is eaten is should be burned'.

Question: The Ri queries this however, in that, if it is min ha'Torah, then what difference does it make whether one has already passed Tzofim or not?

Explanation #2: The fact is that min ha'Torah one may burn it wherever one wishes ...

Source: Because in Perek Kol Sha'ah, the Gemara referred exclusively to P'sulei Kodshei Kodshim and to the limbs of Kodshim Kalim. It does not refer to other Kodshim that may be eaten by Zarim.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And the reason that the Chachamim required the current Kodshim to be burned in front of the Beis-ha'Mikdash is due a decree on account of Kodshei Kodshim.

Clarification: In Zevachim in Perek T'vul Yom (Daf 104:) they argue over this point: Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that it is a location on the Har ha'Bayis that is called 'Birah' ...

Clarification (concl.): Whereas according to Resh Lakish, the entire Beis-ha'Mikdash is called 'Birah', as the Pasuk writes 'el ha'Birah asher Hachinosi".

Clarification: The Riva citing a Yerushalmi, explains that it is because Basar Kodesh cannot be annulled, and so they were stringent already with a k'Zayis, Chametz, whereas Chametz can, and so they were lenient by extending the stringency to a k'Beitzah.

Question: Why did they not cite 'Tanya Nami Hachi' from tis case as proof for Rav Chisda?

Inference: This implies that he was not a Kohen.

Implied Question: And when we say in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf8.) that Rav Kahana took a Sudar as Pidyon ha'Ben?

Answer: That was on account of his wife.

Proof: As we say in Perek ha'Zero'a (Chulin Daf 132.) Rav Kahan used to eat (Matanos) on account of his wife.

Implied Question: And when in Perek Arvei Pesachim (on Daf 113.), Rav said to him 'Strip a carcass in the market-place and take money for it, but don't say "Kahana Ana" ' ...

Answer: This was not because he was a Kohen, but because it was his name.

Implication: This implies that Gaba'ei Tzedakah are greater than children's Rebbes.

Implied Question: Consequently, when it says in Perek ha'Shutfin (Bava Basra 8.), that the Pasuk "ve'ha'Maskilim Yazhiru ke'Zohar ha'Raki'a"refers to Gaba'ei Tzedakah, and "u'Matzdikei ha'Rabim ke'Kochavim", to children's Rebbes,

Answer: We will have to say that the sky shines brighter than the stars.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains 'Doreis ve'Ochel' to mean that it doesn't wait for its prey to die, so too does an Am ha'Aretz not wait to pacify his wife before being intimate with her.

Question: How does one know that it belongs to an Am ha'Aretz?

Answer: Because it speaks where a caravan of Amei ha'Aretz was passing, and we saw how the article fell from them.

Inference: It now implies that, although one does not announce his lost article, one is however, forbidden to actually steal from him.

Question: The Ri asks why his money is forbidden. Now that his body is permitted, i.e. one is permitted to tear him apart like a fish (as we learned earlier), how much more so his money?

Precedent: Because the Gemara asks a similar Kashya in 'ha'Gozel Basra (Bava Kama 119.) and in Avodah-Zarah (26.) with regard to a Moser, according to the opinion that does not hold of the S'vara that 'Perhaps a decent son will descend from him?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that the Gemara that we learned earlier is speaking about an Am ha'Aretz who recognizes Hash-m and who denies him in order to anger him.

Answer (cont.): Since otherwise, how could one be allowed to kill him on Yom-Kipur that falls on Shabbos, something that one is not allowed to do even to a Nochri?

Proof: And his is also implied by the Lashon 'He doesn't even care about his own life!'

Answer (concl.): Since there are many different types of Am ha'Aretz, as is evident in Sotah, in Perek Hayah Noteil (Daf 22.)

Implied Question: The Ri explains that that what we accept testimony from an Am ha'Aretz?

Answer: It is as the Gemara explains in Chomer ba'Kodesh (Chagigah 22.) 'Like whom do we accept testimony from an Am ha'Aretz nowadays? Like Rebbi Yossi.

Clarification: It appears that these Shi'urim (of k'Zayis and k'Beitzah) are merely an Asmachta.

Rashi Agrees: And Rashi too says this, in connection with the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos 20:), in connection with the Gemara which permits a son (who is a Katan) to Bench on behalf of his father.

Rashi Agrees (cont.): The Gemara there establishes the case where the father ate a Shi'ur de'Rabbanan, which Rashi explains as a k'Zayis or a k'Beitzah, since mi'd'Oraysa, one requires enough to be satisfied.

Poof: And this is also evident from the Gemara there which states 'Shall I not favor Yisrael, seeing as I wrote for them "And you shall eat and be satisfied and Bench", yet they are particular to Bench already after eating a k'Zayis and a k'Beitzah'.

Question: In Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (Ibid. 48.) the Gemara describes how once, King Yanai and the Queen (Shelomis) were eating bread together, when the king expressed how he wished that someone would come and Bench for them.

Question (cont.): When Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach was (eventually) brought to join them ... he drank and Benched for them. However, the Gemara concludes, Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach did his own thing, since one cannot be Motzi others unless one has eaten k'Zayis of wheat-bread.

Question (cont.): This implies that had he eaten a k'Zayis of wheat-bread he would have been able to be Motzi others (who ate and were satisfied).

Question (concl.): Now if a k'Zayis is only de'Rabbanan, how could he be Motzi them in face of what we learned that a de'Rabbanan cannot come and be Motzi a d'Oraysa?

Answer: The Ri explains that this only applies to a Katan (who is not Chayav at all min ha'Torah) not being able to be Motzi a Gadol (who is and) who ate a Shi'ur d'Oraysa. But not to a Gadol, who can be Motzi others min ha'Torah, even if he did not eat at all.