Explanation #1: This refers to from Talmud Yerushalmi to Talmud Bavli, like Rashi explained.

Support #1 (Yerushalmi): "B'Machashakim Hoshivani k'Mesei Olam" refers to the Talmud Bavli.

Support #2: R. Zeira fasted [to be a merit in order to] forget Talmud Bavli [so he would be able to learn Talmud Yerushalmi clearly].

Explanation #2: However, we can say even oppositely (from Talmud Bavli to Yerushalmi), i.e. he separated from this (Bavli) and still does not understand this (Yerushalmi). Amidst this, he does not attain clear Halachah.

Inference: This is considered a challenge, because we need the verse for another Drashah.

Implied question: In Megilah (7a), regarding [Megilas] Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, Shmuel said that we learn from "Kiymu v'Kiblu" - they fulfilled above what they accepted below;

The Gemara said that there is no challenge to this.

In Shabbos (88a), we explained that they fulfilled what they accepted below. They accepted the Torah willingly in the days of Achashverosh!

Answer (Ri): This is not difficult. There, we learn from the change of wording. It could have said 'Kiymu v'Kiymu' or 'Kiblu v'Kiblu' [to teach only the latter Drashah];

Rather, surely [it wrote Kiymu v'Kiblu] to teach both Drashos.

Question (R. Elchanan): You are forced to say that the verse is expounded like this, since it is written "Nishbati v'Api Im Yevo'un El Menuchasi";

We expound this regarding the generation of the Midbar, who did not come to Eretz Yisrael.

Answer (Ri): The verse does not discuss coming to Eretz Yisrael, rather, to a share in the world to come;

We find a Tana in Sanhedrin (110b) who says that Dor ha'Midbar has share in the world to come. If so, we can expound "and I retracted"!

Explanation: This is not because Shmuel disagrees with "one who resolved in his heart", for a verse teaches [that it can take effect]!

Rather, he establishes it to discuss Kodshim. This verse is in [Divrei ha'Yamim, which was written partially through] Ezra (based on Si'ach Yitzchak). Regarding Kodshim it says "v'Chol Nediv Lev Olos."

Shmuel agrees to this. We challenge Shmuel from this verse, and answer in Shevuos (26b).

Suggestion: We should learn from it to other places!

Answer: Terumah, i.e. Terumah of Meleches ha'Mishkan, about which it says Kol Nediv Libo, and Kodshim, are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something which could have been learned from the other). They do not teach [to other matters].

Explanation: One must mention Hash-m's name to make himself zealous.

Implied question: We expound in Nedarim (16b) he can annul for Hash-m's desires!

Answer: There, we expound "Devaro". (Shmuel expounds "Yachel".)

Implied question: We could have said that other Mekalkelim are exempt. (These are the Halachos of Shabbos that dangle from a hair.)

Answer: He teaches a Chidush. Even though he needs the earth, he is exempt because he does not need the hole.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah for this kind of Melachah. He wanted that this Binyan would not be in the world.

Rejection #1: If so, also for all Melachos, e.g. destroying in order to build in its place, why is he liable? He would prefer that there was never this Binyan!

Rejection #2: Also regarding tearing a curtain in which a worm came, in order to sew it. He would prefer that it never came!

Rejection #3: Also sewing a torn garment, also there in which a worm came, in order to sew it. He would prefer that the tear never came!

One who tears due to mourning or distraction, or tears in anger to instill fear [should not be liable]!

Explanation #2 (Ri): He does not need the primary root of the Isur. E.g. here, he does not need the hole, which is the Melachah.

The same applies to taking a Mes [out to Reshus ha'Rabim] on a bed, and others listed in Shabbos (93b).

These are unlike Melachah of the Mishkan, in which the primary Melachah was needed, e.g. extinguishing for the sake of wicks, trapping Tachashim (animals whose skins were used for the Mishkan) and Chilazon (whose blood was used to make Techeiles), and all similar to them.

Explanation: Some say that this word is related to Mecholos (dances), like "Yachugu v'Yanu'u ka'Shikor."

Implied question: Also when we establish the verse to discuss Chagigah, one can ask "is only Chagigah forbidden to leave overnight, but this is permitted for all other Korbanos?!"

It says "Kol ha'Laylah Ad ha'Boker", and we establish this to discuss everything that goes on the Mizbe'ach!

Answer: We would have established that verse to discuss only Olah, which is totally consumed [on the Mizbe'ach];

It would not discuss Korbanos such as Shelamim and Chagigos, which are not totally consumed.

Implied question #1: In Pesachim (71a) we establish the verse to discuss Chagigah, which is eaten for two days and one night! (How can we learn from it a Lav for leaving Chelev overnight the entire year?)

Implied question #2: The verse says "Basar", which connotes human consumption!

Answer: In any case, we learn both of them from it, since it wrote "ba'Yom ha'Rishon la'Boker", and did not write 'ba'Yom ha'Shelishi.'

Implied question: In general, we say that whenever we can expound [a new law], we do not establish a verse to teach about extra Lavin!

Answer: Here is different, for we should not establish it to discuss a new Korban that we do not find like it in the Torah.

Support: We find like this in Yevamos (4a). [Rabanan] establish Lo Yigaleh to discuss the Shomeres Yavam of one's father for an extra Lav, and do not establish it to discuss a woman that his father raped [or enticed].

Explanation: "V'Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi" comes to teach about the Gezeirah Shavah, that it applies to Chagigah, and not to other Korbanos. (Rashash - i.e. it applies only to Shalmei Chagigah, in which only the Chelev is offered, but not to Olos.)

Explanation #1: Rashi connotes that this is the explanation of "hanging from a hair", that there are many Halachos dependent on a hint from sparse verses, like a mountain hanging from a hair of the head.

Question (my Rebbi): What was the Gemara's question "Me'ilos are written!"? Surely they are written, but there are many Halachos, i.e. sparse verses and many Halachos!

Answer: Based on what Rashi explained, that they depend on a hint, this connotes that he holds that they are not written explicitly.

Question #1: Regarding Shabbos, he explained [the Gemara's question] "it is written!", i.e. many warnings are written regarding Shabbos. Why does the Mishnah say that there are sparse verses?

Here, I cannot explain [like this the Gemara's question] about Me'ilos.

Question #2: The Gemara connotes that it says that they are are written explicitly.

Explanation #2 (R. Elchanan): This is an independent matter. "Sparse verses" refers to laws of Ohel. There are sparse verses, but there are many Halachos.

Note: An old text of the Mishnah says "Mikra Mu'at", without the word "she'Hen." It seems that this was Tosfos' text (Dikdukei Sofrim).

In several Seforim there is a space between "sparse verses" and above. This connotes that it is an independent matter.

Implied question: However, the Tosefta teaches "sparse verses and many Halachos, like mountains hanging from a hair, and they do not have what to rely on";

From here, R. Yehoshua said "Tzavchar b'Tzavchar", i.e. sparse verses and it depends on a small hint.

This connotes like Rashi!

He (R. Elchanan) explained like Rashi regarding this that it says sparse verses that were given through a hint.

Implied question: This is like one who gave it to a grocer. He was not Mo'el!

Answer: There, he was Mezid, and the Hekdesh is not profaned;

The grocer is not Mo'el until he spends it because he did not do an action.

Question: Sure, this is very different! Since he gave it to his friend, he should be Mo'el due to Tovas Hana'ah (the benefit) of the loan, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (99a)!

Citation (99a): One who lends a Hekdesh axe was Mo'el for the amount of Tovas Hana'ah of his friend (the borrower), and his friend may cut with it l'Chatchilah.

However, when he did not give it, he mid'Oraisa benefit from it at all yet!

Answer: Here we discuss when he intended to remove it from Hekdesh's Reshus. I explained in Menachos.