1) The Gemara here tells us that in fact one cannot learn one law from two verses. The reason is that every verse in the Torah is there for a special reason. On the contrary, we often learn more than one Halachah from the same verse, but it is not possible to say the other way around, that we need two verses to derive the same Halachah, because this would mean that one of these verses is superfluous.

2) This teaching has a special relevance now, as we are observing the Fast of Asarah b'Teves. Chazal say that one of the reasons that Asarah b'Teves is a fast day is because it is when the Torah was translated into Greek. The tragedy of this is that once the Torah is translated into a different langauge, a tremendous amount is lost. To derive several Halachos from the same verse is something that can be done only if the Torah remains in Hebrew. Then it is possible sometimes even to learn something different from every letter, but this is all lost in translations of the Torah.

3) There is another fascinating thing we can learn from our Gemara. The Pnei Yehoshua (Kidushin, end of 30a, DH Sham Gemara) cites the well-known teaching that there are 600,000 letters in the Torah, corresponding to the 600,000 souls who received the Torah on Har Sinai. The problem is that when we count the letters of the Torah, the total comes only to around 310,000.

The Pnei Yehoshua resolves this discrepancy by saying that every letter of the Torah possesses two aspects: the way it was written in the Torah by Hash-m, and the way it was said by Hash-m to Moshe Rabeinu. This is what the verse in Tehilim 62:12, cited by our Gemara, means: "Hash-m spoke one thing, I heard two things." The Torah is comprised of writing and speaking. This is why we only count 310,000 letters in our Sifrei Torah, because these are only the written letters. There are another 290,000 letters which are only said and are not written down. The Pnei Yehoshua writes that, for example, there are a lot of "Vav" and "Alef" letters which are said in the middle of words, but are not written down. There is more in the Torah than is actually written down, and this is how one gets to 600,000 letters in the Torah. (See more on this topic in Insights to the Daf to Kidushin 30.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) The Gemara (Temurah 29a) explains that three verses are needed to teach that a Tereifah cannot be a Korban because three different scenarios of a Tereifah are being discussed. Rashi (DH Itzricha) summarizes the Sugya.

2a) From the verse "mi'Mashkeh Yisrael" (Yechezkel 45:15), we would know that if the animal was born as a Tereifah, it is invalid as a Korban. However, we would not know from this verse that if the animal became a Tereifah after it was born, that it is also disqualified.

b) This is why we require the verse (Vayikra 27:32), "... every animal which passes under the rod," to exclude a Tereifah as a Korban, because it is incapable of passing under the rod (since its legs have been amputated from the knee up; see Rashi DH she'Einah). This verse teaches that if the animal became a Tereifah after it was born, and then the owner was "Makdish" it, it is also invalid as a Korban.

c) The third verse, "And from the cattle" (Vayikra 1:3), teaches that if someone was Makdish an animal and afterwards it became a Tereifah, this is also invalid.

Accordingly, Temurah 29a is not an example of one Din being derived from more than one verse, because each of the three verses tell us about a different way that the animal became a Tereifah.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) My first thought is that when Sanhedrin 34a states that we learn a few things from one verse, this means that from different letters in the same verse we can derive different Halachos. But the Gemara in Zevachim 37a knows that there were no extra or superfluous letters in the verse, "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech," so we cannot learn more than one Din from here.

2) I saw something useful in Piskei Ri'az (by Rabeinu Yeshayah Zaken or Acharon, the grandson of the Tosfos Rid, the "first" Rabeinu Yeshayah) on Sanhedrin 34a. He writes:

"From our Gemara, the Chachamim found support to make Derashos everywhere that they could, and they said, 'Make a Derashah and receive reward for it' (see Sanhedrin 71a and many other places). Chazal said that it is possible that the verse comes to hint at what they said."

I think we see from this that it is possible for Chazal to make a few Derashos from one verse, but they do not have to do so. Therefore, we do not have a question every time that the Gemara did not learn a few things from the same verse, why did they not do so? Rather, our Gemara works the other way around: if we see that Chazal do learn out a few things from the same verse, we should not be amazed at how they have the power to do this.

3) Reb Chaim, I have found a contemporary writer (in Otzar ha'Chochmah) who writes something which would answer your question.

a) The Sefer Or Tzvi (by Rav Tzvi Gombo of Bnei Brak), on Maseches Shabbos, Shabbos 88a, at the end of Tosfos DH Amar, writes that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 34a -- which says that we can learn several things from one verse --- applies only to Agadeta but not to Halachah. His proof for this is that we find in many places in Shas that the Gemara asks, "but we need that verse for a different Derashah!" This is exactly the same as your question, Reb Chaim, from Zevachim 37a, and he answers by saying that the Gemara in Sanhedrin 34a does not apply to Halachah, only to Agadeta.

b) However, I do not understand what he writes because our Gemara is referring to Halachah, where the judges in the Sanhedrin say the same Din from two different verses and we say that they cannot both be correct. Then the Gemara proceeds to say that if they would say two Halachos from one verse, they might be correct. If the first part of the Gemara is referring to Halachah, then presumably the second part of the Gemara is also referring to Halachah, so how can the Or Tzvi be correct? I hope to return to this issue soon.

4) I found, bs'd, in the Shiltei Giborim (in the name of the Ri'az; so this is the same Rishon that we saw in my earlier reply) on the Rif, near the end of the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (6a of the pages of the Rif), that he explains the Gemara in Sanhedrin 34a. The Shiltei Giborim elaborates there at length on the way Chazal expound verses.

He writes that in some of the Midrashim, the intention of the Chachamim is to expound the verses in any way that they can. He writes that they relied on the verse (Tehilim 62:12), "Elokim spoke once; I heard two things," and they learned from this that one verse can teach multiple things, as Sanhedrin 34a states.

5) The Ri'az writes, "The intention of the Chachamim is to expound the verses in any way they can." One is inevitably reminded of the Gemara in Pesachim 24b, Pesachim 77b, and Chulin 118b, that "wherever it is possible to make a Derashah, we make a Derashah." However, there is also a flip side to this rule -- namely, the rule that "wherever one cannot make a Derashah, we do not make a Derashah." I found that the Tosfos Yom Tov in Menachos 4:4 (in parentheses, DH Amar R'S) states this negative rule. Therefore, I suggest that this is why the Gemara in Zevachim 37a did not make different Derashost from the verse, "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" -- because the Gemara did not know of Derashos that can be made on this verse.

Yasher Ko'ach Gadol,

Dovid Bloom