Comment: In Perek Bameh Beheimah, even Rebbi agrees that Pinchas (brother of Chofni - sons of Eli ha'Kohen) did not sin (even though the Pasuk writes 'Yishk'vun', in the plural). This is (not because it is missing a 'Vav' [like "Yarshi'un", but]) because the Pasuk there clearly indicates that he did not sin, by inserting his Yichus (see Maharam).

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara not insert R. Yochanan ben Berokah in Succah in Perek Lulav va'Aravah, who claims that on Succos, the Kohanim brought palm branches (to place against the Mizbe'ach); and the Gemara there attributes this to the fact that the Torah writes "Kapos" - one for the Lulav and one for the Mizbe'ach ('Yesh Eim le'Mikra'). Whereas the Rabbanan disagree, because "Kapos" is written without a 'Vav' (Yesh Eim li'Mesores')?

Answer: This is because R. Levi there explains the Machlokes differently.

Clarification: It seems that it only in our Sugya, where the Mikra and the Mesores clash that the listed Tana'im hold specifically "Yesh Eim le'Mikra'; But where they do not clash, they Darshen both ('Yesh Eim le'Mikra' and 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores').

Proof #1: For so we find, that Rebbi, R. Akiva and R. Shimon, who hold here 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra', (in Perek Safek Achal & in Perek Dam Shechitah) declare someone who eats a piece of Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman, Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy, because the Pasuk states "Mitzvas" (without a 'Vav' - Yesh Eim li'Mesores') - because the Mikra and the Mesores there do not clash, seeing as from the Mikra (of "Mitzvos") we learn that he is Chayav if there are two pieces, and from the Mesores (of "Mitvas") we learn that one is Chayav for each piece, one Korban.

Proof #2: Likewise, in Perek Kol Sha'ah, R. Akiva Darshens both Mikra and Mesores with regard to "Lechem Oni". And in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul, he rules that just as there is one Lulav, so too, is there one Esrog, one Hadas and one Aravah; which the Gemara explains, he learns from "Kapos Temarim", which is written without a 'Vav' ('Yesh Eim li'Mesores').

Proof #3: And R.Shimon too, in Kidushin (in connection with "be'Vigdo Vah") Darshens Mikra and Mesores.

Question #1: It is difficult to understand however, why, in Kidushin, R. Akiva Darshens only the Mikra, and not the Mesores as well, like R. Shimon, like he does in Pesachim with regard to "Lechem Oni"?

Question #2: Another difficulty lies in the fact that according to one Lashon in the first Perek of Succah, both R. Shimon and the Rabbanan agree that 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores'; whereas in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (regarding the Pasuk "ba'Bayis Echad Ye'achel"), the latter holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'?

Question #3: And there is yet a third difficulty in the first Perek of Succah, where the Gemara disqualifies a Succah underneath a Succah from the fact that "Ba'Succos" is written without a 'Vav' (Yesh Eim li'Mesores'), and nobody queries this from 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'?

Answer: The Gemara could have answered like it does in Perek Beis Shamai, 'because the Torah continues "ke'Nidasah" ' - meaning that one needs to add another seven for a girl to the seven days of Tum'ah for a boy.

Answer: The Gemara could have answered that, just as .by a boy, the days of Taharah exceed those of Tum'ah, so too, by a girl, will the days of Taharah exceed those of Tum'ah.

Clarification: The Beraisa in Zevachim at the beginning of Beis Shamai learns that if the Kohanim placed one Matanah of blood from any Korban whose blood is placed on the outer Mizbe'ach one is Yotzei, from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech". And this D'rashah, it seems, goes according to Beis Shamai; according to Beis Hillel, no Pasuk is needed, since they are no worse than Chatas.

Proof: And so it is apparent there at the end of the Sugya, where it states that those Tana'im who use the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" for anothe D'rashah, learn the current Halachah from Chatas, which is also Machaper with one Matanah, like Beis Hillel.

Question #1: Why do we need a Pasuk? Why would we otherwise think that more than one Matanah is crucial. Even Beis Shamai (who maintain that a Chatas requires four Matanos), will not learn from Chatas, seeing as a. it is a Chatas, and b. it requires Matanos on all four Keranos?

Question #2: This Kashya extends to Beis Hillel, as the Sugya there implies that even according to them, the Matanos would be crucial, if we did not learn from Chatas (where they are not crucial, as we explained) to the contrary?

Answer #1: It therefore seems that, since we learn the Matanos on the Keranos from "Saviv" (i.e. two Matanos which are placed on the two diagonally opposite corners), they are both considered like one Matanah (which is crucial).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is because the Torah writes "Saviv" a number of times, and we would learn from the repetition that each Matanah is crucial. There we need a pasuk to teach us that it is not, both according to Beis Shamai and according to Beis Hillel.

Question: The Gemara ought to have said 'three are crucial' - because even if the Torah had written only four (Keranos), we would have known that one Matanah is crucial, since there is no such thing as a 'free Kaparah', like Beis Hillel said; in which case two will still remain two include two additional Matanos?

Answer #1: Beis Shamai do not agree with Beis Hillel's S'vara.

Answer #2: Alternatively, they hold that since the blood is poured on to the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach, it cannot be called a 'free Kaparah'.

Question #1: Why do we require a Pasuk for this? Why should it be any different than two half-k'Zeisim from two Meisim, which are Metamei?

Question #2: Similarly, in 'Beheimah ha'Makshah, why does R. Yishmael require a Pasuk to teach us that a Revi'is of blood that comes from one Meis is Metamei? Bearing on mind the Gemara in 'ha'Motzi Yayin' and in 'ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim', which declares Tamei a Revi'is of blood of a Neveilah, seeing as it can congeal and become a k'Zayis just like flesh (indicating that blood is considered flesh), why should a Revi'is of blood from a Meis be any different than flesh from a Meis?

Answer: A Meis is different, in that even flesh from a Meis would not be Metamei if not for the fact that it turns into scabs (based on the Gemara in Nidah which requires the original part of the body not to re-grow should it be removed, in order to be Tamei. Consequently, blood, which is re-placed when removed, would not be Tamei if the Pasuk did not specifically include it.

Comment: The reason that the Gemara discusses a Revi'is of blood from two Meisim, is not because it assumes that blood that comes from one Meis is Tamei without the Pasuk. Because if the blood of one Meis was Tamei, then the blood of two Meisim would be Tamei too.

Proof: Since we learned in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach that whatever shares the same Tum'ah and the same Shi'ur, will combine to make up the Shi'ur.

The Rabbanan Disagree with R. Akiva: Not because they disagree with what we just explained, but because the Pasuk, which writes "Nafshos" without a 'Vav', precludes a Revi'is that comes from two Meisim.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach, require a Pasuk to teach us that the blood of a Sheretz is Tamei, despite the fact that it is considered Basar?

Answer: Nevertheless, a Pasuk is needed to teach us that liquid blood is Metamei with the Shi'ur of a k'Adashah (a lentil), even though if it congeals it shrinks to less than that.

Proof #1: That explains why the Mishnah there that the blood of a Sheretz and its flesh combine, since they both have the same Shi'ur (of' k'Adashah), but not the blood and the flesh of a Neveilah.

Proof #2: And this is also evident in the Yerushalmi in Shabbos, which states that the blood of a Neveilah is not Machshir, though it is Metamei. And so we learned in the Mishnah 'A Sheretz and its flesh combine, and that there is no parallel for this'.

Question: In Perek Kol Sha'ah, the Gemara does not answer the Kashya on blood (why it is Mutar be'Hana'ah) that when the Torah permits Neveilah, it permitted blood too (like it answers with regard to Cheilev and Gid ha'Nasheh), implying that Dam is not considered Basar?

Revised Explanation: We must therefore explain that there is some Pasuk or other that includes the blood of a Neveilah; following which we give it the Shi'ur of a Revi'is, since, it when it congeals, it measures the Shi'ur k'Zayis (see Tosfos Pesachim 22a, DH 've'Harei Dam ... ).

Question: In that case, the blood of a Sheretz too, which we learn from a Ribuy, should also require so much blood that when it congeals it is the size of a k'Adashah? (Ibid.)

Question: Later in the Sugya, R. Yishmael will hold 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', conforming with the Rabbanan who Darshen "Nafshos" (without a 'Vav'). That being the case, we have a problem from Perek Beheimah ha'Makshah, where R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue over a Revi'is of blood, where R. Yishmael learns from "ha'Noge'a be'Meis be'Nefesh that a Revi'is of blood is Metamei, whereas R. Akiva 'follows his reasoning' and is Metamei even a Revi'is from two Meisim. Why does R. Yishmael need another Pasuk from which to learn that the blood of a Meis is Metamei?

Question: The Gemara in 'Beis Shamai' do not even learn 'P'nim' from 'P'nim' (i.e. Par Kohen Mashi'ach, Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur and Se'irei Avodah-Zarah) from one another, even though they are all Chata'os; How can one then possibly learn Chata'os Chitzoniyos from Chata'os Penimiyos?

Answer: Precisely because we ultimately found a Pasuk that did not distinguish the Chata'os Penimiyos, we can safely assume that it does differentiate between Chitzoniyos and Penimiyos either.

Question: But not one of the words contains a 'Vav' between the 'Pey' and the 'Tav' (so how does R. Yishmael arrive at four Parshiyos)?

Answer: Some commentaries therefore explain that, since the Torah adds a 'Vav' at the beginning of the last one ('u'le'Totafos'), we take off ('Gor'in) that 'Vav' and place it at the end of the word (between the 'Pey' and the 'Tav') and

Proof #1: Like we find in the second Perek in Zevachim), where the Gemara explains "ve'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par" as 'Dam me'ha'Par Yekablenu'.

Proof #2: And in Perek Yesh Nochlin, where the Gemara explains "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'eiro" as 'Nachalas She'eiro lo'.

Question: At the beginning of 'Yesh Nochlin', the Gemara (in connection with Hekdesh), explains that even if one takes the 'Vav' from "ve'Yasaf" and places it at the end of the word, it will still read 've'Chamishiso' (in the singular), declining to place it between the 'Tav' and the 'Yud', to read 've'Chamishisav' (in the plural - implying that we do not move a letter to the middle of a word (only to the end)?

Counter-Argument: We do however, find in the Mishnah in Perek Mumin Eilu, with regard to "Mero'ach Ashech", that R. Chanina ben Antiognos switches the letters from the two words to read 'she'Mar'av Chashuchin' (even though it means switching letters even to the middle of the words?

Machlokes: However, in the Yerushalmi there is a Machlokes, between R. Ami Amar R. Yochanan, who Darshens 'Gor'in' from the beginning of a word to the end, and R. Yirmiyah Amar R. Yochanan, who permits moving it even to the middle of the word.

Alternative Explanation: According to Rabeinu Tam, it is the extra 'Vav' at the beginning of the third "u'le'Totafos" that R.Yishmael is explaining , and the correct text is therefore "le'Totafos, le'Totafos 'u'le'Totafos" - that makes four'.

Implied Question: But R. Yishmael does not Darshen 'Vavin'?

Answer: He does however, Darshen 'Vav Lamed' (as is the case here).

Explanation #1: In one word the Torah hints four Batim between the two languages Kaspi and Afriki; and seeing as the Torah hints all of them in one word, we are not able to include more Parshiyos.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, we do not include more Parshiyos, because there are no other Parshiyos in the Torah that mention Tefilin.

Explanation #3: According to others, R. Akiva takes one "le'Totafos" for itself, and from the other two, he Darshens four Parshiyos, two from "Tut" and two from "Pas".

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that just as G-d comes to see you (complete with two eyes, Kevayachol), so must you come to be seen by him (with both eyes intact).

Clarification: According to this explanation, the first "Yir'eh" refers to "Hash-m", and the second "Yera'eh" to "your males".

Question: This is not however, what the Pasuk seems to be saying, but rather that both words refer to 'your males'.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains the other way round - 'The same way that your males come to be seen before the Shechinah (i.e. that Hash-m sees him with both eyes), so too, should your males see Him with both his eyes.

Proof: According to this explanation, the word 'comes' fits nicely, seeing as the Shechinah is always in the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Clarification: And meat with Cheilev is not called cooking, but frying, as Rashi explains.

Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara (in connection with the Korban Pesach) in Perek Kol Sha'ah refer to pot-roast as 'cooked'?

Answer: That is different, since the Torah writes there "u'Vashel Mevushal" (implying - however it is cooked [even where it is not generally called cooking]).

Alternative Explanation: Others explain 'Derech Bishul Asrah Torah' - that the Pasuk here comes to forbid there where, it was not cooked, it would be permitted, and it is only through cooking that it becomes forbidden - to preclude 'Cheilev', which is forbidden anyway.

Question: This is difficult however, from the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Basar', which forbids Cheilev and Neveilah together with milk (according to those who hold 'Isur Chal al Isur'), and the Gemara concludes there that Cheilev and Neveilah do not require a Pasuk (see Maharam).