Implied question: According to the opinion that Shelichus Yad does not depend on Chisaron (one who makes authorized use of a deposit is liable like a thief, even if there is no loss to the object) [he should be Mo'el just for taking it]!

Answer: Here is different, for whenever they are [in the Gizbar's Reshus], it is as if they are in the King's treasury.

Explanation: Only the value of a Perutah [of benefit that he received] becomes Chulin.

Support #1: The text in Erchin (21a) says "once he was Mo'el, the rental becomes Chulin!

Also Rashi explained that only the rental [becomes Chulin], but not the entire house.

Support #2: Also the Ri explained the case of one who lent a Hekdesh ax to his friend, and he chopped with it, and than another friend chopped with it, all of them were Mo'el.

Question: What is the case? A Mishnah says that there is Me'ilah after Me'ilah only regarding an animal [Korban] or a Kli Shares!

Answer: Rather, surely we discuss a Gizbar authorized over Hekdesh axes. He intends to [transfer ownership to his friend, which would] make them Chulin only for the amount of chopping. Therefore, [the ax remains Hekdesh, and] all of them were Mo'el.

Reference: I explained this in Kidushin (55a) and Menachos (101a).

Implied question: R. Yochanan holds that [even] if one was Shogeg about a Chiyuv Misas [Beis Din], he is exempt from paying [for his actions at the time. How can he establish our Mishnah, which says that some Dinim are not written?]

Answer: He establishes it for another Drashah. A Beraisa expounds "Ayin Tachas Ayin" [to mean a monetary payment. R. Yochanan] does not argue with our Stam Mishnah here.

Implied question: Why don't we establish the verse to discuss Holachah, like the simple meaning?

Answer #1 (Rashi): This is written after Shechitah. Kabalah was immediately [after Shechitah]. It is the first Avodah.

Question #1: Likewise, "v'Zarku" is written after [v'Hikrivu], and Holachah is immediately before Zerikah;

This excludes Kabalah, for Holachah is in between!

Question #2 (Ri): It says in Zevachim (13a) that "v'Hikrivu" refers to Kabalah;

Citation (13a) Suggestion: Perhaps it is not Kabalah, rather, it is Zerikah!

Citation (cont.) Rejection: V'Zarku teaches about Zerikah.

Inference: We would have established it to discuss Zerikah if not for a verse, even though it is not [right] after Shechitah!

Answer #2: We can say that we did not want to establish the verse to discuss Holachah, for it is not an important Avodah, since one can be Mevatel it, through slaughtering on top of the Mizbe'ach. (Then there is no need for Holachah.)

Suggestion: We could have said [that our Mishnah alludes to the need for a Nidah to immerse to become permitted] to her husband, which is not written [explicitly]?

Bahag explained that we learn this only from a Kal va'Chomer. Regarding Taharos, it is written "v'Rachatz" (a Ba'al Keri must immerse before touching Taharos. To permit a Nidah) to her husband, all the more so [Tevilah is needed]!

Rejection: We cannot learn from this Kal va'Chomer, for there is a challenge against it;

In Chulin (31a) it says that there are several things that are a Chatzitzah for Taharos, and intent is needed for Taharos, but not for [Heter to] her husband.

Source: Rather, we learn from a verse "veha'Davah Nidasah" - she is Nidah until she enters water, like R. Akiva expounds in Shabbos (64b).

Support: Also R. Tam says that we learn Tevilas Nidah from there. Therefore, it is as if it is written.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There is a Patach [under the Beis] to teach that it refers to special (known) water. This excludes Mayim She'uvim (water that was in a Kli. It is Pasul for a Mikveh.)

Rebuttal #1: We do not learn [the Pesul of] Mayim She'uvim from here, rather, from "Ach Mayan u'Bor Mikveh Mayim...";

We expound in Toras Kohanim "just like a spring is b'Yedei Shamayim, also a Mikveh."

Rebuttal #2: How does "Mikveh" connote to exclude She'uvim? The verse would connote She'uvim, if it were not written adjacent to a spring, like I explained!

Explanation #2: Rather, "Mei Mikveh" refers to gathered water, like we say that a spring Mikveh is Metaher when the water flows, and a Mikveh is Metaher when the water is gathered (Shabbos 65b).

Explanation: A person occupies the thickness of an Amah, with his clothes.

Support #1: This is clear from the Sugya of cavities for coffins (Bava Basra 101a). [A body] with the thickness of [the walls of] the coffin occupies only one Amah.

Support #2: Now it is not difficult how [a person, who is] an Amah thick can immerse in [a Mikveh, which is] an Amah wide.

Implied question: A person's height occupies three Amos. This is clear from the Sugya of cavities for coffins!

The length of a coffin is four Amos. A person's height is three Amos, excluding the head. He can bend his head to the side.

Implied question: Why does it say that the cavities for coffins are four Amos long? (This is more than three Amos and the head!)

Answer: [Extra room is allowed for the thickness of the side (top and bottom) walls of the coffin.

Implied question: We find (Bava Basra 2b) that the Shi'ur for [a wall to prevent] Hezek Re'iyah (invasion of privacy) is four Amos!

Answer: That is because one can lift himself on tiptoes, until he is able to see [at a height until] four Amos.

Support: This is clear from the episode with Bnei Haman in the Targum of Megilas Esther;

It is arranged according to the Midrash that their height was three Amos without the head, for it calculates up to the height of 50 Amos based on the hanging of all 10, and they were already killed before the hanging;

The verses say so. "B'Shushan ha'Birah Hargu ha'Yehudim v'Ibed Chamesh Me'os Ish v'Es Aseres Bnei Haman." This connotes that they were among those killed.

Also the Payat, in the Selichah "Adam b'Kusim" (that Ashkenazim say on Ta'anis Esther, wrote) "[each] man occupied three Amos, and the fourth Amah was exposed air."

Explanation: Which [amount] of them is like [an entire one of] them. (Ka'Adashah is like an entire slug (a snail without a shell), at the beginning of its formation.)

Question (R. Eliezer mi'Mitz): Here we establish the entire verse in one way. In Nidah (56a), it says 'it is written "Bahem" - in all of them, and it is written "Mehem" - in part of them!

The Gemara answers "this is when it is wet (even part is Metamei), and this is when it is dry (only a full Sheretz is Metamei)." This shows that we establish the verse in two ways!

Answer #1: Perhaps we learn both of these from the verse.

Answer #2 (my Rebbi): There are two verses [that say Bahem, and two that say Mehem]. It says "Kol ha'Noge'a Bahem b'Mosam"; "Mehem b'Mosam"; "Asher Yipol Mehem El Tocho", and "v'Al Tetam'u Bahem."

Explanation: In Yevamos (97a), we say that "Ervas Bas Bincha [Lo Segaleh]" connotes that one is permitted to her (a woman whom he raped [or enticed]) son's daughter;

The other verse, "[Ervas] Ishah u'Bitah Lo Segaleh" discusses [through] marriage (your wife's granddaughter), for it mentions She'er (kinship).

Observation: There were two [Chachamim named Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi]. I explained this in Yevamos (3a) and Chulin (110a).

Explanation (return): This is Hash-m's 42-letter name, which comes from Bereishis and the next verse.

Inference: This connotes that "what is Lifnim and Le'achor" is what is in back of the Kipah (dome of Shamayim) to the east and we say that, and likewise [one may not ask about] what is to the north and south.

Contradiction: Below (16a), it connotes that it is what was before the world was created, and what will be afterwards, for it says "granted, what is above and below, and what is Le'achor [one should not ask about them];

Citation (16a) Question: However, what is wrong with asking what is Lifnim? What was, was!

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): There is a parable for this. A king built his palace on a wasteheap...

Strengthening of contradiction: A Tosefta teaches "what was, and what will be in the future"!

Answer: We can say this way, or that way. (Both are included in the Isur to ask about them.)