From Point by Point Outlines:
(h) Answer #1 (to both questions): The Tana expounds "uv'Shachbecha uv'Kumecha." Therefore, he first asks about the time of Shechivah (going to sleep).
(i) Answer #2 (to Question #2): He learns from creation of the world that night comes first, like it says "va'Yhi Erev va'Yhi Voker Yom Echad."
whenever there are more than one answer to a question-
1) is there something missing in the first answer?
2) is there a nafko mino (halachic ramification) in the two answers? i.e. in the case above.
thank you.
Aurel Littmann, Brooklyn, NY
1) The Migdal Oz (Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik 4:1) writes that we have received a tradition from our sages, the Rishonim, in their rules of Psak, that the phrase "Iba'is Eima" indicates that this opinion is the main one, and that the Halachah follows this answer.
This suggests that something indeed is lacking in the first answer, which is why the Halachah follows the "Iba'is Eima" answer.
2) I do not know if there is a Halachic ramification between the two answers in this case, but I did find that Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz writes that the words of the Mishnah are more consistent with the second answer, because according to the first answer it is not clear why the Mishnah uses the word "evening" and not "Shechivah," as used in the verse ("uv'Shachbecha") mentioned in this answer. In contrast, according to the second answer, which mentions the verse of "va'Yehi Erev," it is easier to understand why the Mishnah reads "Arvin."
We see from Rabeinu Peretz that even though there may not necessarily be a Halachic Nafka Minah between the two answers, there is still a linguistic advantage for the second answer.
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
I found a Halachic ramification between the first and second answer. This is given in Sefer Liflagos Reuven, written by Rav Zelig Reuven Bengis zt'l (the head of the Beis Din of the Eidah Charedis in Yerushalayim about 60 years ago, and a teacher of Rav Elyashiv zt'l). It is found in his Siyum on Maseches Nidah and opening to Maseches Berachos, page 265.
1. Liflagos Reuven writes that according to the first answer, the obligation to recite Shema every night and morning is mid'Oraisa, while according to the second answer the obligation is d'Rabanan. Therefore, according to the first answer, the law of our Mishnah is derived from a Torah verse, while according to the second answer it cannot be derived from a verse because the obligation is only mid'Rabanan, so this is why it must be learned from the logical Sevara (that this is the way the world was created).
2. The opinion that the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shema is only mid'Rabanan is mentioned in the Gemara later, on 21a, where Rav Yehudah states that if one is in doubt about whether or not he said Shema, he need not say it again, since Keri'as Shema is only a mid'Rabanan (and Safek d'Rabanan l'Kula).
3. However, the Halachah is that Keri'as Shema is mid'Oraisa; see Sha'agas Aryeh #1 and Mishneh Berurah 67:2. According to this, we will have to say that the Halachah follows the first answer of the Gemara, which contradicts what we cited in our first answer earlier, in the name of the Migdal Oz, that the Halachah follows the "Iba'is Eima."
4. To answer this contradiction, we may suggest that Liflagos Reuven agrees with what the Tiferes Yisrael (in Boaz) writes at beginning of chapter 3 of Mishnayos Eruvin, that everywhere the first answer is always the main one. Therefore, since the first answer of the Gemara maintains that Keri'as Shema is d'Oraisa, it follows that this is the Halachah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom