Alternate text: Some say that Hash-m planted them.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, according to the first text): Hash-m put their Neshamos in Gehinom, and they were not created.

Question: Did He pass sentence without a judgment?! What was their sin for which they are in Gehinom?!

Explanation #2: Rather, "Tardan" means that they were not created together, rather, only a few in every generation, lest they destroy the world.

The two versions mean the same, just the wording is different, therefore the Gemara was not particular to teach "some say another version...", since only one word is different.

Explanation: He (R. Shmuel) says that angels are created from Hash-m's speech, and not from the Dinor river.

Explanation: His deeds were greater than those of anyone in his generation.

Explanation: We do not say so because he was not important above. Rather, it is because others in his generation had deeds like him.

Explanation: The text does not say "Malach ha'Maves." The Yerushalmi brings the verse "Az Yeranenu Atzei ha'Ya'ar."

The Yerushalmi's text: In the Yerushalmi it says "Simchas Chasan." It means the same.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At least he expounded in front of someone who expounded. I.e. Chananya ben Chakinai expounded in front of R. Akiva, who expounded in front of R. Yehoshua. It is considered as if they expounded in front of him (Chananya);

This excludes R. Elazar ben Arach, who expounded in front of R. Yochanan ben Zakai, who did not expound in front of anyone.

Objection #1: I totally disagree. What is his source that it is considered as if they expounded in front of him, i.e. because he expounded in front of someone who expounded, it is as if they expounded in front of him?

Objection #2: Also, this is unlike his answer above, that we list only those who expounded and they expounded in front of him;

If we retracted now, the Gemara should have said "rather, since he expounded [...it is as if they expounded in front of him]"!

Explanation #2: Rashi explained in the name of Rabbeinu ha'Levi, that the words connote that someone else expounded in front of Chananya.

Objection #1: This cannot be, for if so there are four who expounded! (We must count also the one (Ploni) who expounded in front of Chananya, since Chananya expounded. This is difficult according to Rashi. Seemingly, Rabbeinu ha'Levi does not say "... it is as if they expounded in front of him", therefore we do not count Ploni - PF.)

Objection #2: What is his source that someone else expounded in front of Chananya? It is not explicit in any Beraisa.

Explanation #3 (Ri, and Sefer ha'Yashar): We say "he expounded and they expounded in front of him" [only] about one who succeeded so much to expound in front of his Rebbi.

E.g. R. Yehoshua [expounded] in front of his Rebbi R. Yochanan ben Zakai, and R. Akiva in front of R. Yehoshua, who was his Rebbi, and R. Chananya in front of his Rebbi R. Akiva.

It counts three who expounded like this, to exclude R. Elazar ben Arach, for they did not expound in front of him. Even though he expounded, he did not expound in front of one who expounded.

Initially, he answered everything, but the Makshan did not understand all his words, and asked him "since they did not expound in front of Chananya, he should have taught R. Elazar ben Arach, just like Chananyah."

He answered that he expounded in front of one who expounded. (I.e. he meant that either others expounded in front of the expounder, or his Rebbi, in front of whom he expounded, expounded.)

[Chananya] expounded in front of his Rebbi R. Akiva, who succeeded in front of R. Yehoshua. We apply to R. Akiva "he expounded, and they expounded in front of him."

This excludes R. Elazar ben Arach, for they did not expound in front of him, and even his Rebbi R. Yochanan ben Zakai, we do not find that he expounded. Therefore, he is not like this list [of people who expounded].

Defense of Explanation #1: If we are precise, we can resolve Rashi. "At least he expounded in front of one who expounded" means that [even though] others did not expound in front of him, at least he expounded in front of one who expounded.

Due to R. Akiva, we needed to list him (Chananya, to show that R. Akiva) expounded, and they expounded in front of him;

However, there is no reason to include R. Elazar ben Arach, for they did not expound in front of him, and he did not expound in front of one who expounded.

Explanation: This was through a name [of Hash-m]. They did not really ascend, just it seemed to them that they ascended. The Aruch explained like this.

Explanation: They asked about it more than about other [animals], because even what it is traded for is forbidden for a Korban. Also Rashi explained so.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She says "I am a Besulah." If people like Shmuel are not common, she is believed [to say that she became pregnant through semen in a bathhouse].

Question (Ri): In Kesuvos (13a), a Mishnah says that if we asked a pregnant woman about the fetus, and she said "it is from Ploni, and he is a Kohen (has proper lineage)"... R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her... [we assume that she had Bi'ah with a Pasul].

Our Gemara connotes that we ask according to everyone!

Answer: Perhaps here, that the Isur [for a Kohen Gadol to marry her] pertains even to her, like it says "v'Hu Ishah bi'Vsuleha Yikach", and we read this "Yaki'ach" (she will cause herself to be taken, she is believed.

Explanation #2 (Ri): We strive to check her through a barrel of wine, like it says in Kesuvos (10b. If a Be'ulah sits on an open barrel, one can smell the wine through her mouth.) If people like Shmuel are not common, we do not bother, and we establish her b'Chezkas Be'ulah.

Note: According to R. Elazar and R. Shimon (Yevamos 59a), Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah disqualifies to a Kohen Gadol, even though her Besulim are intact. All the more so Bi'ah k'Darkah with Hatiyah should disqualify! Even if people like Shmuel are common, she is forbidden! Rather, we ask according to R. Meir, who says that Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah does not disqualify. Above, the Ri said that we ask according to everyone! Perhaps we can say that the questioner and Ben Zoma held like R. Meir, and were not concerned for [or did not know about] dissenting opinions, but we cannot say that they were not concerned for the opinion of R. Yehoshua, who was Ben Zoma's Rebbi (below, 15a).

Explanation #3 (Ri): Alternatively, we ask about one who was checked through a barrel [and found to be a Besulah]. Are we concerned lest she was not checked well, for people like Shmuel are not common?

We conclude like this in Nidah (64b) that Shmuel was extraordinary.

Question (Ri): In Kesuvos (6b), in the Sugya of Dam [Besulim] is deposited (we do not say that the first Bi'ah makes a wound causes bleeding) we conclude that most men are expert about Hatiyah (they can have Bi'ah without breaking the Besulim)!

Answer: Surely, most men are expert at the beginning of Bi'ah in practice, but a full Bi'ah, from which she can become pregnant, only Shmuel [or a tiny minority like him] can do [through Hatiyah].