Question: Why does this disqualify it? If it were missing these three words, this would not disqualify it; (Maharsha - the Beraisa discusses also Mikra written in Targum, e.g. "Yakov called it Gal'ed." Even if Gal'ed, Yegar and Sahadusa were all omitted, it would be Kosher.)

Citation (Gitin 60a): One may not read in a Sefer Torah missing a column.

Inference: This is only if it is missing a column, but not if it is missing [only] one verse!

(Poor) Answer #1 (Rashi): When it is written Targum, this is worse than when it is not written at all.

Answer #2: [The Beraisa] comes to teach only that if there is a mistake, one must fix it.

Note: The Turei Even questioned this. Even 85 letters of a Sefer Torah are Metamei hands! Rather, such words (improperly written Targum or Mikra) do not join towards 85 letters. Alternatively, such words join to the number of mistakes to disqualify a Sefer (Sefas Emes, based on the Ritva).

Question: Like whom is this Beraisa? It is unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and unlike Rabanan!

If it were like Rabanan, the Mishnah should have taught Megilah along with Tefilin and Mezuzos, which are written only Ashuris;

Note: Tif'eres l'Moshe challenges this. The Mishnah did not teach Megilah, for it is Kosher in other languages for those who understand them, but it is not Metamei the hands, like Tosfos (8b) said!

We cannot establish it like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for he permits even Yevanis!

Suggestion: Perhaps R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits even Yevanis only for other Seforim, but he agrees that Megilah must be Ashuris.

Rejection: Below (18a) Rav and Shmuel say that La'az (the foreign language of) Yevanis is Kosher for everyone;

We conclude that they said so according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Chidush is that they say so even about Megilah;

Answer: We must say that the Tartzan (who answered in our Sugya) holds that R. Shimon ben Gamliel does not hold like Rav and Shmuel below. (Therefore, the suggestion above is a proper answer);

Rather, the Tartzan holds that R. Shimon ben Gamliel permits Megilah only in Ashuris, for it says about it "ki'Chsavam uchi'Lshonam";

Below, Rav and Shmuel hold like Rav Ashi's answer below [that the Beraisa discusses other Seforim].

Question: In Shabbos (115b), Rav Ashi said (i.e. cited our Beraisa) that the only difference between Seforim and Megilah is that Seforim are written in any language, and Megilah must be in Ashuris, in a Sefer with ink;

Inference: Other Seforim do not require Ashuris, a Sefer and ink.

If so, what is Rav Ashi's source to say that R. Yehudah is stringent and requires all this? We do not find there any Tana who argues with him (the Tana of our Beraisa)!

Answer: In Shabbos, we discuss only saving from a fire.

He (Rav Ashi explains that the Beraisa) means that we save other Seforim even if they are written in other languages, for there are many Kodesh names;

However, Hash-m's name is not in the Megilah. Therefore, we save it only if it is written k'Halachah;

Here we discuss to be Machshir to read in them.

Rashi's opinion: Had they written "Bereishis Bara", they (the Yevanim) would have said that Bereishis is a name (of a power that created Elokim), and there are two Divinities;

Question #1: Bereishis is not a name at all. It means "at the beginning"!

Question #2: They wrote for him (Tolemy) in Yevanis "at the beginning"!

Answer: Rather, the Yevanim knew that one should mention the Creator at the beginning.

If so, had they written Bereishis before [Elokim], he would have said that there are two Divinities. The first word is one creator, and Elokim is the second.

Therefore (lest he make this mistake), they switched the order.

Explanation: [They were concerned] lest he say "did Moshe your Rebbi not have a horse or camel for them to ride on?!"

Question: Why didn't they write for him [the translation of] "va'Yishlach Es Atzilei Bnei Yisrael" like it says below [about the same people], which is an expression of greatness?

Answer: They did not want to lie, therefore they wrote Zatutei in place of Na'arei and in place of Atzilei;

[Zatutei] connotes an expression of greatness, like Zuto Shel Yam (Bava Metzi'a 21b);

[Zatutei] also connotes an expression of lowliness, like it says there "ha'Omer l'Tzulo Charbi" - this is Bavel, which is like Zuto Shel Olam, i.e. the depth, bottom and lowest of all the lands;

We say also in Shabbos (113b) therefore it is called Shin'ar, for all who died in the flood Nin'aru (were shaken) to there.

Explanation: This refers to the bull of a Kohen Mashi'ach who sinned b'Shogeg. He transgressed a Lav punishable by Kares for one who was Mezid;

Note: He erred about the Halachah. If he erred only about the case, e.g. he forgot that today is Shabbos and did Melachah, he is exempt.

We do not discuss Par Helam Davar Shel Tzibur, about which it says "ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach."

Proof: Toras Kohanim teaches that even a Kohen Hedyot may offer it, and all the more so Merubah Begadim.

Question: Why does it say l'Kohen she'Avar? Even on the day that the Kohen ha'Meshamesh became Pasul, and a new Kohen serves in place of him, this distinction applies!

The bull comes from the Meshamesh, even if he does not serve, like it says in the Yerushalmi!

If so, it should have said "[the only difference between] Kohen ha'Meshamesh and Kohen she'Ya'avor (the one who will [serve and] pass [cease to be Kohen Gadol])"!

Answer: Had it said "the one who will pass", this would connote that there are many differences [between the serving Kohen] and the one who already passed, during the entire year;

Therefore, it said "the one who passed", to teach that even regarding him [and the serving Kohen], there is only this difference.

Question: According to what I explained, that the bull is from the one who became Pasul, even though he is not serving, why does it say in Shevu'os (14b) '"Asher Lo", and not from his brothers the Kohanim'?

Just the contrary! It should have said "and not from the one who serves in place of him." This is a bigger Chidush!

Answer: Perhaps because it is a matter that is not common, we abandoned it, and discussed something common that applies every year.

Implied question: In Menachos (19a), it says that the Torah revealed that the owner must do Shechitah. How can he (the replacement Kohen) slaughter [the bull of the disqualified Kohen]?

Answer: Since the Torah merited [the replacement Kohen to offer the bull of the disqualified Kohen], it is as if he was Makdish his own animal.

Question: Why do we need this reason?

We already know [that he cannot serve like a Kohen Hedyot], for since he is proper to serve like a Kohen Gadol, if not for concern for enmity, therefore he cannot serve in the four garments, for he is Mechushar Begadim! (I.e. mid'Oraisa he is a Kohen Gadol. Mid'Rabanan we do not let him serve like a Kohen Gadol.)

Answer: Due to this reason we would not be particular, since it is according to Beis Din [that he cannot serve like a Kohen Hedyot], if not for the reason that we [only] ascend [in Kedushah, and do not descend].

Assertion: Since we establish the Mishnah like R. Shimon, if so also the Seifa is like him;

It says "the Klal is, anything offered due to a Neder or Nedavah may be offered on a Bamah."

Question: Nezirus is due to a Neder or Nedavah, like it says in Temurah (14b);

Even so, R. Shimon holds (Zevachim 117a) that Menachos and [Korbanos] Nezirus may not be offered even on a Bamah Gedolah (i.e. of the Tzibur)!

Answer: We explain our Mishnah as follows. The Klal is, anything due to a Neder or Nedavah, which is offered on a Bamah Gedolah, like Olah and Shelamim, [may be offered] for an individual on a Bamah Ketanah;

Anything not due to a Neder or Nedavah, even if it is offered on a Bamah Gedolah, is not offered on a Bamah Ketanah;

However, he agrees that there is something due to a Neder or Nedavah that is not offered on a Bamah Gedolah, and not on a Bamah Ketanah.