Implied question: Why don't we obligate women [in Re'iyah, since they are obligated in Hakhel]?

Answer: Below, we exclude them from Zechurcha.

Support - Citation (below) Question: Why do we need a verse [to exempt women]? I already know this, for it is Mitzvas Aseh sheha'Zeman Gerama!

Citation (cont.) Answer: One might have thought to learn Re'iyah from Hakhel. Just like there, women are obligated...

Implied question: Why don't we obligate children [in Re'iyah], like they are obligated in Hakhel, to bring reward to those who bring them, like there (Hakhel)?

Answer: A Kal va'Chomer exempts them, like I explained above. Women are exempt from Hakhel. All the more so, children are exempt!

Implied question: Below (4a), we include a minor who reached the age of Chinuch, since it says "Kol", and we do not learn from Hakhel!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta, like it concludes. From this Kal va'Chomer, also [such a minor] is exempt [mid'Oraisa].

Implied question: When the Gemara asks (4a) "[he is obligated only] mid'Rabanan!", we could have asked "why do we need a verse? We should learn from Hakhel!"

Note: R. Akiva Eiger asks that we do not learn from Hakhel, due to the Kal va'Chomer, like Tosfos said!

Answer: We asked better than this.

Explanation: The simple meaning of the verse connotes "hearken and understand", that he understands what they teach him;

Therefore, it does not help that he will hear. Since he does not learn, we properly exclude him.

Explanation: Even though he cannot speak, he learns. Therefore, we cannot exclude him from Lema'an Yishme'u.

Explanation (cont.): Similarly, one who speaks but cannot hear, even if he heard until now, and he can teach others, since he cannot learn through going now, why should he go?!

Since he does not hear, he does not learn from now and onwards. Even though he teaches others, now he does not go, since going would not help him;

The verse said to gather everyone only so they will hear the king read and understand from now, and come to fear the Rock (Hash-m), like the end of the verse says "va'Yir'u Es Hash-m";

The Gemara did not bother to bring it (the end of the verse), for it is obvious that the verse discusses such people.

Distinction: We could not learn from Lema'an Yilmedu without "Yishme'u", for we would not exclude one who speaks but cannot hear, since he heard beforehand. He can teach even others, and understand why they gathered now;

We need also "Lema'an Yishme'u" [for R. Tanchum's teaching], like we say below.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question (R. Yochanan): If one is deaf in one ear, what is the law?

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Yosi bar Bun): R. Yosi and Rabanan argue about this;

Citation (cont.) (Beraisa - R. Yosi): "Veli'Vnei Aharon Ta'aseh Kutanos" - Rabanan say, two tunics for each [Kohen];

Citation (cont.): R. Yosi says, even one tunic for each [Kohen fulfills this].

Citation (cont.): Also here, Rabanan say that "b'Azneihem" connotes [hearing with] two ears for each one, and R. Yosi says that it is even one ear for each.

Explanation: This is because they were far away. If they were deaf, we exclude them from b'Azneihem.

Implied question: Below, we say that "Regalim" excludes one with a false foot!

Answer: That is a mere Asmachta. We learn from Pe'amim.

Implied question - Citation (Yevamos 103a, Erchin 19b) Contradiction (Beraisa): "Regalim" excludes one with a false foot! (This shows that above the foot is not called "Regel".)

Answer: We answer from the fact that the Asmachta was made on "Regalim", but not because it is a real Drashah.

Explanation: He was commanded about Bris Milah more than all those before him.

Citation (Yerushalmi): This is unlike Ben Azai, who says that one is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter.

Assertion: This is the source to bring children to the Beis ha'Keneses.

Citation (Midrash): There are three who testify about each other - Yisrael, Shabbos and ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu;

Yisrael and ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu testify about Shabbos, that it is a day of rest;

Yisrael and Shabbos testify about ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, that He is one;

Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu and Shabbos testify about Yisrael, that they are unique among the nations.

Assertion: We rely on this (that Shabbos testifies that Hash-m is one) to say "Atah Echad" in Minchah on Shabbos, even though it does not discuss Shabbos, the way Tefilas Ma'ariv and Shacharis [of Shabbos discuss Shabbos].

Explanation: Based on the order of the years, they should separate Ma'aser Sheni;

This is because it (Shevi'is) is the first year (after the six years in which the Torah specified the tithes), and there was Ma'aser Oni in the sixth year, and we never find two consecutive years of Ma'aser Oni;

Rather, they enacted [Ma'aser Oni] so the poor can rely on it in Shemitah.

Implied question: [If it is for the poor,] we should not have enacted Terumah Gedolah. It should all be Ma'aser Oni!

Answer: Chachamim did not want to make it so different from other years.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Amon and Mo'av] refers to the land [that Yisrael conquered from] Sichon and Og;

This is like it says in Chulin (60b), that Amon and Mo'av were purified through Sichon. I.e. through Sichon and Og's conquest, it was permitted for Yisrael to conquer it.

Question (R. Tam): It says in Pesachim (52b) that there are three lands regarding Bi'ur - Yehudah, Ever ha'Yarden and Galil;

Ever ha'Yarden is the land of Sichon and Og!

Suggestion: The first Kedushah [of Eretz Yisrael] was not permanent. (Therefore, Shemitah did not apply there in Bayis Sheni.)

Rejection: If so, we would be able to resolve that according to R. Eliezer, it was not [permanently] made Kadosh;

Why was it a question in Megilah (10a) and Shevu'os (16a) whether R. Eliezer holds that it was made Kadosh, or not?

Answer #1 (and Explanation #2 - R. Tam): Here we discuss Amon and Mo'av that Sichon and Og did not conquer. It did not get Kedushas ha'Aretz at all.

Answer #2: Ever ha'Yarden received Kedushah, i.e. only Sichon's own land. What he conquered from Amon was not made Kadosh.

Question: Perhaps [through one thing done crazily] he is established for lunacy only for that matter, and we require three to establish him to be a lunatic for everything!

This is like an animal that gored an ox, donkey and camel. It becomes Mu'ad (an established gorer) for all [species]!

Answer: Here is different. Here, since he is a lunatic in one way, surely we should establish him to be a lunatic for everything!

Citation (Yerushalmi Terumos): Simanim of a lunatic are going out at night, spending the night in a cemetery, tearing one's garment, and losing what one gives to him.

Citation (cont. - Rav Huna): This is if he has all [of the Simanim]. If not, I say that he went out at night because Gandrifas (an evil spirit, or overheating) seized him. He lodges in a cemetery for Shedim (to get Ru'ach ha'Tum'ah). He tears his garment - I say that he has depression. He loses what one gives to him - he is a diceplayer;

Citation (cont. - R. Yochanan): Even one of them [establishes him to be a lunatic].

Citation (cont. - R. Avin): Presumably, R. Yochanan is correct, only regarding losing what one gives to him. Even the greatest lunatic does not lose what one gives to him! (He must be a real lunatic.)

A diceplayer does not have any of these.

Explanation: He is not established through doing one of these three times, for we attribute it to what the Gemara said - he has depression, or one of the other [excuses].