Clarification: Even discreetly, and even if he intended to return home ...

Reason: Since it is impossible to do work discreetly like other things.

Question: The Ri asks that it is forbidden to deviate from local custom, on account of Machlokes, even le'Kula (i.e. by doing nothing), as we learned earlier - 'There is no Isur of changing from the Minhag here, since people will say that "there are many idle people in the streets" '. But if not for that reason, it would have been forbidden to deviate, due to Machlokes?

Answer #1: One can answer however, that if one is Chayav to destroy the fruit mi'd'Oraysa, then one would not be permitted to transgress the words of the Torah because of Machlokes.

Answer #2: Furthermore, the Ri explained, Machlokes is only applicable regarding something that is connected with a person's body, but not with regard to fruit, as people will say that it came from a place where the fruit was finished.

Clarification: According to Abaye, there is nothing missing in the Mishnah, seeing as Rebbi Yehudah is referring to the inference of the Mishnah.).

Clarification: Such as turnip, onion and leek, whose period of Biy'ur differ.

Clarification (cont.): Rebbi Eliezer permits eating all three on account of the first one, whose taste renders them all forbidden (once its time of Biy'ur arrives), and which is not considered 'destroyed'.

Question: The Ri however, asks how Rebbi Yehoshua can permit eating those whose time of Biy'ur has arrived?

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam cites the Toras Kohanim in Parshas B'har, which explains that the Machlokes is based on Pesukim, as we learned there "Min ha'Sadeh Toshlu es Tevu'asah", 'As long as you can eat from the field, you may eat from the house ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): state From here the Chachamim extrapolate 'Someone who pickles three kinds of vegetables in a barrel, Rebbi Eliezer says "As soon as one of them is finished in the field, clear out everything from the house!"

Question: According to Rebbi Eliezer, let the Torah not mention that, since we already know it from "ve'li'Vehemt'cha"?

Answer: Rebbi Eliezer holds that, if not for this Pasuk, we would have thought that, in spite of the fact that the taste of the forbidden species is mixed together with them, it is only the species which has finished that must be cleared out, but not the others.

Reason: Because the Isur of Biy'ur is not comparable with other Isurim, seeing as it is permitted to the poor.

Reason (cont.): Consequently, since only the taste remains, we would havethought that it is considered as if it was destroyed.

Answer (cont.): And Rebbi Yehoshua holds that the taste is indeed considered destroyed, and the Pasuk therefore comes to permit even the species that is finished in the field, seeing as the taste of those species that are still permitted is mixed together with them.

Answer (cont.): And from "min ha'Sadeh", he understands to mean that 'from something which a part of the taste is still in the field, you may eat even if what is Asur is together with it.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Raban Gamliel, species body of each becomes forbidden once it is forbidden in the field, and it is only the taste that is considered destroyed.

Explanation #2: And in the Megilas S'tarim (the hidden notes) of Rabeinu Nisim, it explains that "Rishon" refers to the first species that is pickled (and not that was the first to become forbidden).

Yerushalmi: And this is how the Yerushalmi explains 'What is Rebbi Eliezer's reason? Because it is the first one that gives taste to the later ones. Consequently, the moment that the first is finished from the field, it forbids all the others.

Yerushalmi (cont.): But the last one does lend taste to the first ones, in which case, when it is finished from the field, it does not render the other species forbidden.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yehoshua's reason is - because the last one gives taste to the first one (i.e. even the last one gives taste ... , as the Gemara says here 'also' on account of the last one').

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Rebbi Yehoshua holds that as soon as any of the species (the firs, the last, the first or the middle one) all of them become Asur, since they give each other taste. And Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah goes le'Chumra like him.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Raban Gamliel holds as we explained, that the actual vegetable of whichever one is finished in the field, is forbidden, whereas the taste is as if it has been destroyed).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Until the last one of the lands is finished, and the three lands in each one are all the same.

Question #1: But this does not seem correct, because if there is no difference between them, why does the Tana list three lands in each one?

Question #2: Moreover, asks the Ri, we learned in the Mishnah in the ninth Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 2) that 'There are three lands for Biy'ur', and that 'each one comprises three lands; until the last one inside it.

Question #2 (cont.): Rebbi Shimon says that 'They only said three lands regarding Yehudah'.

Question #2 (cont.): From which we can extrapolate that according to the Tana Kama, the three are three individual lands regarding Biy'ur ...

Question #2 (cont.): And Rebbi agrees with that as far a Yehudah is concerned.

Explanation 2: It therefore seems that 'ha'Acharon she'bah' refers to the fruit that grows in the mountain - until the last fruit in the mountains are finished; 'the fruit in the valley' - until the last fruit in the valley is finished, and 'the fruit in the lowlands' - until the last fruit in the lowlands is finished.

Yerushalmi: And the Yerushalmi, citing Rebi Chiya b'Rebbi Akiva in the name of Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Chanina, who says that the Chachamim assessed that the wild animals of the mountain do not feed on the fruit of the valley, and those of the valley do not feed on the fruit of the mountain.

Inference: This implies that the current Halachah is d'Oraysa (See Maharsha).

Implied Question: One cannot query this from the Gemara in our Sugya that 'A Chayah in Yehudah does not feed on the produce in Galil'?

Answer: Since that is speaking even from one mountain to another.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, when we conclude in this Sugya (on the following Amud) in a Beraisa, quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel that 'Siman le'Harim Milin' (Gallnuts grow well in the mountains [but that other fruit does not]), this has ramifications regarding 'Shalosh Artzos she'bi'Yehudah' (See Rashi there).

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara did not specifically say so ('Nafka Minah le'Biy'ur')?

Answer: Is because the difference between a mountain, lowlands and a valley only applies to Yehudah, as we specifically learned in Maseches Shevi'is.

Answer: (concl.): Whereas 'Bikurim' and 'Nachal Eisan' (which the Gemara there does specifically mention) apply throughout Eretz Yisrael.

Proof: The Yerushalmi in Maseches Shevi'is (in connection with the statement 'Siman le'Harim Milin') does in fact state that 'There are some who extrapolate that that Siman refers to the three lands'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one throws them out for the Chayos and the Beheimos to trample underfoot.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since everyone agrees that, even after the time of Biy'ur, the poor are permitted to eat them ...

Source #1: As we learned there (in Mishnah 8), according to Rebbi Yehudah 'If somebody has fruit of Shevi'is and the time of Biy'ur arrives, he may distribute food for three meals to everyone; the poor are permitted to continue eating after the time of Biy'ur, but not the rich. Whereas, Rebbi Yossi holds that both the poor and the rich may continue to eat after the time of Biy'ur.

Source #2: And in the Tosefta too, we learned that 'If somebody has fruit of Shevi'is and the time of Biy'ur arrives, he distributes it to all his neighbors, relatives and acquaintances. Then he takes it outside and places it at the entrance of his house, and announces "My brothers, Beis Yisrael, whoever needs to take, come and take!"

Source #2 (cont.): Following which he may take it back into his house and continue eating it until it is finished.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that the implication in many places that one is forbidden to eat Shevi'is after the time of Biy'ur is confined to someone who retains it in one's house as if he was the owner.

Conclusion: But as long as one declares it Hefker and takes it outside for whoever wishes to help himself, whether it is a human or a wild beast, one is permitted to take it back into the house and eat it, eve after the time of Biy'ur.

Question: The Riva asks from the Mishnah in the sixth Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 5) 'One may not take oil that has to be burned or fruits of Shevei'is from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz la'Aretz'?

Answer #1: It speaks there about taking it out to eat it, whereas Rav Safra took it out to sell, which is permitted under certain circumstances.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rav Safra took it out be'Shogeg (thinking that it was permitted).