They are holy, etc.: (See his commentary in Chiddushei Halakha)

Eat not the bread, etc. For as one that has reckoned within himself, etc.: This is explained in the chapter [entitled] Elu Neamarin (Sotah 38b:12), see there.

If during their lifetimes it is so, etc.: (See his commentary in Chiddushei Halakha.)

Because their terror (eimatam), etc.: It is referring to the mules from earlier. And he holds like the one in Pesachim (54a) that says that mules came to be from the days of Anah. And there, there is one who disagrees and holds that mules came to be from the days of creation. So the explanation of yemim (in Genesis 36:24), according to him, is like the Targum of Onkelos, "mighty men."

It is written, 'there is none other beside Him,' etc.: This is the understanding of [this] verse: "There is no other," cannot be said about any power beside the Holy One, blessed be He. And that is that whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, decrees; there are no other powers - that is the forces of impurity and sorcery - to change the decree. But that which they decree by sorcery, there is an Other who is able to change the decree through merits, like that [case] of Rabbi Chanina. And it is easy to understand.

To a matter of a commandment, etc.: [Commentators] ask, "But behold, we say, 'Those entrusted with [the performance of] a commandment are not injured, not on their way and not on their return!'" So it appears that it can be explained that it is for that reason that it said that it "effects atonement like the blood of a burnt offering": As a burnt offering comes to atone for meditations of the heart. So it is possible that when he went to the matter of a commandment, he was meditating about a sin, such that injury is found. And we say like this at the end of our tractate; and it is easy to understand.

In [all] his days he never broke on a piece of bread, etc.: Broke [the bread] with a blessing of HaMotzi (over bread) - it is understood like the explanation of Rashi. But even though he did not break from a piece of bread, that was not his, with the blessing of HaMotzi; he did recite the blessing of HaMotzi over a complete one that was not his if he did not have his own. [This is because] a piece of a complete [loaf] or a complete piece has precedence [over a piece of a piece] for the blessing of HaMotzi. And it is easy to understand.