Clarification: Initially, the Tana assumed that Rebbi holds 'Yesh Eim la'Mesores', which is why he added 've'Od', to teach us that Rebbi maintains his view even if he holds 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra'.

Question: But that's not correct! Rebbi's initial reason was not because of 'Yesh Eim la'Mesores', but because the Pasuk writes "min ha'Eitz (and not me'Atzo')?

Answer: Rav Yosef B'chor Shor explains that the two are really one and the same. Because what Rebbi really meant was that the Pasuk does not write "ve'Nashal Barzel me'Atzo", because if it had, it would have been appropriate to learn 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra', and to read the word "ve'Nashal" (like the Rabbanan do). But now that the Torah writes "min ha'Eitz", we can no longer read "ve'Nashal" as it stands, since the two would then clash. Clearly then, "min ha'Eitz" indicates that Rebbi must hold 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores', and "ve'Nashal" must be translated as 've'Nishal' (or 've'Hishil'). Consequently, "min ha'Eitz" refers to the wood that is being chopped. In any event, 've'Od' fits in perfectly.

A Precedent: We have a similar format in Sanhedrin, where the Torah writes in Re'ei (in connection with the Mitzvah of Aliyas Regel) "Yera'eh Zechurcha es P'nei Hash-m". There too, we go after the Mesores, to translate it as "one shall see the Face of Hash-m" (as if it had written 'Yir'eh'), because if it was meant to be translated as "one shall be seen" (according to the Mikra), the Torah ought to have then written 'Lifnei ha'Adon Hashem'.

Clarification: Our case (where the clod of earth that the Mazik threw hit a cluster of dates, which fell on a person and killed him) is not comparable to 'Eitz ha'Misbake'a. That is because, whereas the chip of wood actually touches the ax that he is wielding at the time when it flies from the tree, in our case, where the clod of earth had already left his hand when it struck the dates, it resembles 'Ko'ach Kocho', and he ought to be Patur.

Clarification: According to this, it is no longer necessary to establish the Mishnah where he is demolishing his wall, but where he is deliberately throwing the stones directly from his property on to the trash-heap.

Clarification: The Gemara now speaks by day and where one tends to throw stones into the trash-heap (and not to where the owner is demolishing his wall).

Question: ... In that case, why can the Mishnah not be speaking at night, by a trash-heap which is not generally used for relieving oneself?

Answer: Because then he would be an Oneis, since he could not be expected to assume that maybe somebody was using it. Whereas now that it is used during the night, it ought to have occurred to him that somebody may be using it by day for the same purpose.

Question: The Kashya remains however, from the case of Shali'ach Beis-Din, where the sinner has already received his punishment, and to give him more lashes does not constitute a Mitzvah?

Answer: Nevertheless, the case of chopping wood for a Succah cannot be compared to that of a Shali'ach Beis-Din, seeing as the latter was originally a Mitzvah, whereas the former, where there is no Mitzvah at all to chop wood (seeing if one had wood to begin with, it is dispensible).

Implied Question: Why can we not by the same token, say that seeing as if he had not sinned, it would not be necessary to give him lashes, the Mitzvah of Malkos too, is dispensible?

Answer: The fact is that, had he not sinned, then the man giving the lashes would not be a Shali'ach Beis-Din, and can therefore not be compared to a Rebbe and a father, whose respective titles exist, whether the Talmid and the son sins or not.

Question: Why do we need this Pasuk, bearing in mind that we already have the Pasuk "ve'Hu Lo Sonei lo ... "? This needs to be looked into!

Answer: Perhaps we can answer that (based on the principle that in Seifer Devarim, the Torah does not mind repeating a Halachah, as long as we can learn something new from it), the Torah repeats it because of something new that we learn from "Ya'ar"; Indeed, the Torah repeats a number of Parshiyos in this connection there (see Maharsha).

Implied Question: One cannot however, ask from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Oyev lo" written in Mas'ei.

Answer: ... because we need that Pasuk to teach us that witnesses and judges who hate the accused, are invalidated from testifying and judging (as we learned in Sanhedrin). So it seems to 'Mashi'ach'.

Question: Let the Pasuk omit the word "Asher", and it will not be necessary to insert "Yih'yeh"?

Answer: The Pasuk cannot omit "Asher", since it is the way of the pasuk to insert it.

Question: Whereas 'Katzir' is written in the Pasuk in B'har ("Eis Sefi'ach Ketzircha Lo Siktzor"), 'Charish' is not. So how can R. Akiva mention it together with Katzir as if it was?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps we can answer that we learn all the other Avodos Karka from the Pesukim that are written in B'har.

Refutation: That is not correct however, seeing as according to one opinion in Mo'ed Katan, one is Chayav only for those Avodos that are written explicitly there. Moreover, the Gemara specifically presents Charishah as an example of one those that is not.

Answer: Nevertheless, since according to R. Akiva, "Katzir" comes to forbid Tosefes Shevi'is, so does "Charish" (see Chochmas Shlomoh).

Question: Let the Torah omit "Tishbos", and plowing for a Mitzvah would have been forbidden anyway, seeing as, without a specific Pasuk to permit it, why would we have thought that it is permitted?

Answer: Currently, we are only concerned with refuting the D'rashah of 'Mah Charish R'shus', and to demonstrate that it comes to teach us a different D'rashah.

Question: But surely, asks the Ri, that is only if he strikes him to chastise him, but if he is going in the forest and his father kills him, why should he not go into Galus?

Answer: The questioner understood that the Mishnah must be speaking in all cases, even where the father is hitting his son to chastise him; otherwise, why mention specifically a son, and not anybody else?