Shiur Supplement #11 Daf 6b
A. Amar R. Pappa lo amaran [lines 26-32] R. Pappa qualifies the statement of R. Menasi'a: Within ONE section of the Torah, the narrative IS ordered chronologically. It is impossible for this not to be true as there are certain exegetical principles used to expound laws from the pesukim which are based solely on the exact order of the verses:
1. Kelal u-Perat - When the Torah uses a GENERAL term (kelal) and THEN furnishes SPECIFIC examples (perat) the law in question applies ONLY to the specific examples. [e..g., in reference to which animals are fit to be offered as sacrifices, the Torah states [Vayikra 1:2]: "From the domestic animals, from cattle and sheep / goats..." The range of domestic animals (kelal) is limited by the mention of the perat (cattle etc.) and ONLY cattle etc. may be offered as a sacrifice.]
2. Perat u-Kelal - When the Torah furnishes SPECIFIC examples (perat) and THEN uses a GENERAL term (kelal) the law in question is NOT limited to the examples mentioned; rather, it applies to all cases. [e.g., in reference to the obligation to return a lost object, the Torah states [Devarim 22:3]: "And so shall you do with his donkey... his garment... ANYTHING that he has lost..." One is required to return ALL lost objects; not just donkies and garments.]
B. Amar R. Yehuda amar Rav [lines 37-40] According to R. Yehuda, it is insufficient for one merely to CHECK for chametz and DISPOSE of whatever he finds. It is imperative that he also NULLIFIES (bitul) any chametz that may be found in his possession. The gemara questions the necessity of doing so and suggests that perhaps we are concerned that he did not find ALL of his chametz and, therefore, they may still be crumbs lying around; leading to a transgression of the injunction against possessing chametz on Pesach (bal yera'eh and bal yimatzeh). The gemara rejects this logic as it is clear that any crumbs that happen to be lying around are worthless and are not cause for transgression. However, it is possible that the crumbs are considered of import as they are considered guarded by the Jew, being that they are in his custody.
C. Sofei te'einim u-meshamer sadeihu [lines 40-42] The gemara now attempts to refute the argument mentioned at the end of the last point by quoting a beraita that proves if the owner is unconcerned about the fate of one of his possessions, it is considered ownerless - even though it may physically be in his custody: "At the end of the date season, if there are dates still growing in the field together with the harvest of grapes and one guards his field ONLY in order to protect the grapes, the dates may be taken as they are considered ownerless." Likewise, one does not need to remove ma'aser from this produce. However, if the owner IS concerned about the dates, it is forbidden to remove them without his express permission.