Implied Question: The Mishnah says in Beitzah (29b) that one should not bring pitchers of wine in a basket or box. (How is this permitted in our Gemara?)

Answer: This refers to bringing them from a far away place, as it appears like one is doing work normally done during the week. However, in this case he is doing so within the confines of his house.

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have said that everyone agrees that to lessen the burden is better. (Why not?)

Answer: The Mishnah that states, "four or five boxes etc." cannot hold this way, as if it did it should have said with ten and fifteen containers as long as it is the amount that fills five boxes.

Question: The Mishnah states in Beitzah (25a) that if he slaughters it in the field he should not bring the carcass on a pole. Rather, he should bring it as cut up limbs. This is despite the fact that he is making more trips!

Answer #1: The case there is different as there is much more trouble to bring it whole than with a few easy trips.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he should not bring it whole because it looks like someone who is bringing a whole animal to sell in the marketplace.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (148a) asks, "What should they do? If those who usually fill a big pail with water will fill a small pail, they will increase the amount of trips they take! If those who usually fill up with a small pail will fill with a big pail, they will increase their burden!" (This seemingly ignores our Gemara's conclusion that it is better to lessen walking than burden!)

Answer: The Gemara there means that since they are used to filling either a big pail or a small pail with water, it is difficult for them to switch from the amount they are used to carrying.

Opinion: One can prove from here that when the Mishnah says four or five containers it is even for one person.

Proof #1: If it would be based on the amount of guests one has, why would it give an amount of four or five? (It is dependent on the amount of guests!)

Proof #2: Additionally, since the doubt whether one person can take everything away or everyone clears the area for his space is only stated if we hold that everything is based on the amount of guests, the implication is that if we say that it is a set amount even if a lot of guests come there is no such doubt.

Proof (cont.): If we say that the amount of four or five containers is in fact based on the amount of guests that come, there is still a doubt whether one person can take all of it away or each person clears away his own space. Rather, it implies that it is obvious that four or five is not based on the amount of guests, and that one can do so even for one person.

Explanation: This means the entire field.

Explanation: He holds like the opinion in Shevuos (35b) that this name is a name of Hash-m and therefore is holy, as there is an opinion there that says it is a regular name. This second opinion understands he was talking to the angels and inviting them to be his guests.

Explanation: In Kidushin (39b), the Gemara explains this means that if his sins and Mitzvos are equal, this Mitzvah (that is among his Mitzvos) causes him to be considered righteous, as there is no actual reward (as opposed to benefits) for doing Mitzvos that is given in this world (it is reserved primarily for Olam Haba).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says earlier (47a) that clothes of the poor are not fitting for the rich. (How can our Gemara say that Terumah of a Yisrael is fitting for a Kohen?)

Answer: In our Gemara this grain is fitting for everyone, and it is only the prohibition that stops them from eating it. However, the Gemara earlier (47a) is discussing a case where the clothing is not fitting for the rich person because it is poor quality.

Answer (cont.): This is also the reason why we do not say there (47a) the reason that we say later in our Gemara that he could make his possessions ownerless (and eat Dmai).

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (125a) says that pieces of cloaks that are not three by three fingers cannot be carried. This implies that if they were the size of three by three they could be carried (by anyone)!

Answer #1: This is specifically regarding the poor.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it could be referring to the rich in the house of the poor.

Implied Question: It could have said the logic stated earlier, "Since it is fit etc." (Why didn't it do so?)

Answer: Rather, since this is a reason that can even make it fitting for him, it is a better reason.

Observation: In Pesachim (35b) and Berachos (47a) the Gemara requires this reason.

Observation: Since the Gemara says it was gathered, it implies that this is even if it did not yet see the house (the Levi must take off Terumas Ma'aser from Ma'aser Rishon taken before Terumah).

Question: This is difficult. Even if he took it off in the silo he should not be liable unless it was gathered together and saw his house (as it is as if he took off Ma'aser when it was growing from the ground)!

Answer #1: If the Pasuk did not say, "And you will take" I would think that one is liable for all of these even if he did not gather the grain. Now that this Pasuk is stated, we should establish it regarding the most logical case which is that it had not yet been gathered. Accordingly, even if it saw the house he would not be liable (but if it did see the house he is liable).

Answer #2: Alternatively, when the Gemara says it was gathered it means that it also saw the house if needed, and it just said it is obligated in a shorter fashion. This is because there is an opinion in Bava Metzia (88b) that we only require seeing the house for olives and grapes that are not crops that are gathered. (Since it does not apply to all crops, it did not have to explicitly state it saw the house.)

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara asks in Bava Metzia (54a) whether not giving an extra fifth affects the validity of the redemption, and it does not answer its question from our Gemara. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because it could have pushed aside this answer by saying that it was stated as an aside with the other topics (and it is not meant to teach this lesson).