Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not trying to say that they were created in a standing position ...

Reason: Since the Gemara says in Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin 38:) in connection with Adam ha'Rishon 'In the fourth hour a Neshamah was cast into him; in the fifth hour he stood up on his feet'.

Correct Explanation: What be'Komasan therefore means is that they were created fully grown from the first moment.

Explanation #1: The Aruch explains that we learn all the items from 'Tzivyonam', which is a Lashon of beauty, like we find in Yeshayah (4) " ... for beauty and for glory".

Explanation #2: One can also explain that "Komasan" is a derivative of 'Hatzavah' (though it is unclear wht Tosfos means by that).

Introduction to Question (Part 1): According to what the commentaries say that Chanoch was Matatron, as the Paytan wrote 'The mighty Angel Matatron turned into fire from flesh'. And they describe him further as the 'Sar ha'Olam', as the Paytan wrote 'The administering Angel who is called 'Na'ar' is the honored and fearful Matatron'.

Introduction to Question (Part 2): And the Gemara says in the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 16: & 17.) that the Pasuk "Na'ar Hayisi ve'Gam Zakanti ... " was said by the 'Sar ha'Olam'.

Question: There is a Kashya on that from here, where it is implied in the Gemara that the 'Sar ha'Olam' existed already during the six days of the creation?

Answer #1: Perhaps they are conflicting Medrashim; The one that considers Matatron to be Sar ha'Olam does not hold that Chanoch was Matatron.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Paytan calls Matatron 'Sar ha'Olam', not on account of the Pasuk "Na'ar Hayisi", but because of Seifer Yosifun, where it is written that Matatron had seven (some say seventy) names, one of which was 'Na'ar'.

Answer #2 (Part 2): And we also find that 'Na'ar' is the name of an angel, as the Pasuk writes in Zecharyah (2) "Run to that Na'ar!").

Question #1: It is an explicit Mishnah in the first Perek of Maseches Kil'ayim (Mishnah 7) 'One may not plant one tree in another or one vegetable in another'?

Question #2: And the following Mishnah too, states 'One may not place a pumpkin seed inside a 'Chalamis' (a type of vegetable) because it is one vegetable inside another'?

Answer #1 (Part 1): The Gemara's She'eilah concerns Chutz la'Aretz, where K'lai Zera'im is permitted but grafting (in a tree) is prohibited, as we learned at the end of the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 39.), where the Gemara Darshens "Sadcha" - to preclude K'lai Zera'im in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): Whereas Harkavas ha'Ilan is forbidden, since the Torah writes in Vayikra (19) "es ... Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sad'ch Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - 'Just as Beheimah refers to interbreeding, so too, does Sadeh; and just as Beheimah is forbidden both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz l'Aretz, so too, is Sadeh.

Answer #1 (Part 3): And the Gemara is now asking whether, since the Torah wrote "le'Miyneihu" by their creation, mixing seeds is compared to Harkavas ha'Ilan or not.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the She'eilah pertains even in Eretz Yisrael - according to Rebbi Yashiyah, who states that (it is permitted) until one sows wheat barley and grape-seeds in one throw, in which case the Mishnah in Kil'ayim may well go like the Rabbanan.

Answer #3: Or else, it is speaking here about K'lai Zera'im according to the Rabbanan, who say in ha'Kometz Zuta (Menachos 15:) that 'The Torah forbids Kanvas and Luf (a species of bean plant), but not other kinds of seeds.

Answer #4 (Part 1): Another alternative is that the She'eilah goes according to the B'nei No'ach, to whom K'lai Zera'im is permitted, but Harkavas ha'Ilan is forbidden, as we have learned in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin 60.)

Answer #4 (Part 2): And we learn it from the Pasuk there "es Chukosai Tishmoru" - 'the statutes that I carved out for you already' "You shall not interbreed your animals Kil'ayim; you shall not sow your field Kil'ayim".

Answer #4 (Part 3): This refers to grafting, similar to animals (as Tosfos explained earlier), and 'that I carved out for you already' refers to the B'nei No'ach, by whom the Torah writes "le'Miyneihu" with regard to both trees and animals.

Answer #4 (Part 3): Since "le'Miyneihu" implies an Isur Kil'ayim, as is evident at the end of 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' (Bava Kama 55.) where the Gemara asks what the Din will be if one interbreeds two species of sea-creatures, whether we learn a Gezeirah-Shavah "le'Miyneihu" "le'Miyneihu" from the dry land or not.

Answer #4 (Part 4): The question now is whether Harkavas Yerek is considered like Harkavas Ilan, in which case it is included in "Sadcha".

Implied Question (Part 1): Having written "le'Miyneihu", why does the Torah then find it necessary to write "es Chukosai", 'she'Chakakti l'ch K'var'?

Answer: Because had it not done so, we would not have known that "le'Miyneihu" refers to the Isur of Kil'ayim

Implied Question (Part 2): And had it not written le'Mineihu", from we would not have known it from "es Chukosai" alone either ...

Answer: Since we would have explained "Chukosai", 'she'Chakakti L'ch Kvar' - with reference to (the Mitzvos taught at) Marah.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara asks there 'But in that case, when the Torah writes "u'Shemartem es Chukosai", which 'Chukos that I carved out for you' can it possibly be referring to?'

Question (Part 2): What is the Kashya? We only establish "es Chukosai" by the B'nei No'ach because the Torah also writes "le'Miyneihu" at the Creation (as we just explained)?

Answer (Part 1): Nevertheles the Gemara's Kashya is justified, since just as the one refers to B'nei No'ach, so ought the other.

Answer (Part 1): To which the Gemara answers that whereas there (in the latter case), the Torah writes "Chukosai" after "u'Shemartem", whereas here (in the former case), it writes "Chukosai" before "Tishm'ru".

Observation: In the Torah-language, Yare'ach is masculine, as the Pasuk writes in Yehoshua (Perek 10:13) "ve'Yare'ach Amad".

Explanation: This is because he recognized the Shesu'ah.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara says in 'ha'Mapeles (Nidah 24.) that the Shesu'ah comes from a Kasher animal, and nobody argues with that.

Question (Part 2): That being the case, it may well be that Moshe had a Kasher animal, which bore him a Shesu'ah; in which case it is no longer necessary to say that Moshe had was a (K'nigni) animal hunter?

Answer: Perhaps a Shesu'ah came from an animal that is not found among us.

Clarification (Part 1): There are two consecutive Pesukim in Seifer Yehoshu'a (13) Firstly - "The five princes of the P'lishtim, the Azasi, the Ashdodi, the Ashk'loni, the Gitti the Ekroni and the Avim" and then it writes "From the south, all the land of the Cana'ani, Me'arah that belongs to the Tzidonim to Afeikah until the border of the Emori".

Clarification (Part 2): Rav now explains that the word "ve'ha'Avim" that is written at the end of the first Pasuk actually refers to the word "Teiman", the first word in the following Pasuk.