Clarification: And this speaks specifically where she clarified (what she wanted) at the time of Shechitah; otherwise she may eat neither from the one nor from the other.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas in the Reisha, even S'tam she is permitted to eat from her husband's Korban.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that all women are generally 'chased' (feels an urge) to go and tell their father's family when they are fully accepted at their in-laws..

Explanation #1: And we now establish our Mishnah where she is not 'chased', where on the first Yom-Tov after the wedding, she did not go home to her father's house.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Mishnah speaks during the second Yom-Tov after her wedding, which is the first Yom-Tov after the one that one generally goes, but she did not.

Conclusion: Consequently, since she is not 'chased', it is a Safek, that perhaps she will not go home on this Yom-Tov either, in which case she needs to clarify (from whose Korban she intends to eat).

Explanation #2: Alternatively, our Mishnah speaks about the first Yom-Tov (after her wedding), and she is not chased, because it speaks where she already describe her praises to her father's family before Yom-Tov.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Which explains why there is a Safek even on the first Yom-Tov; whereas the Reisha, which rules that she eats from her husband's Korban speaks during the second Yom-Tov after having gone there, since she had been in her father's house on the preceding Yom-Tov.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Beraisa on the other hand, speaks where she was 'chased' on the first Yom-Tov after her wedding and of her going (i.e. when she was supposed to go), where for sure her intention is to eat from her father's Korban Pesach, since she is 'chased' to go and tell her father her praise, that she has been accepted in her in-law's home.

Explanation #2 (cont.): When the Tana says 'and from then onwards', he means - the second Yom-Tov, when it is a Safek.

Explanation #1: And when the Mishnah says 'Halchah', it is La'v Davka, because if it is Davka, she will have already revealed her intention, to eat of her father's Korban.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it means even if she went, as long as shed has not clarified (her intention) it is a Safek.

Text: In any event, we do not have the text, 'Halchah La'asos', and if we do, 'La'asos is La'v Davka.

Conclusion #1: Now the Gemara's text 'as it is written "Az Hayisi be'Einav Mutza'as Shalom".

Conclusion #2: And we also have the text 'And Rebbi Yochanan said ... '

Reason: Since it is bringing a proof that S'tam a Kalah is 'chased' to go and tell her praises.

Clarification: Just as there it refers to blood, so too here, there is the blood of Nidus.

Clarification: Four prophets prophesied.

Implied Question: Even though in connection with Michah the Pasuk does not mention "Uziyhu", only "In the days of Yosam, Achaz and Yechizkiyahu" ...

Answer: Nevertheless, since the Pasuk writes S'tam, one can explain that he prophesied at the beginning of Yosam's reign, and at that time, Uziyahu was still alive, only he had Tzara'as, and his son Yosam was reigning in his place still during his lifetime.

Clarification: The Gemara Darshens from the fact that Hash-m ordered him to take a prostitute, because most probably, this is what He said, and this is what he answered.

Clarification: On account of the future - that they were destined to be scattered in Galus.

Implied Question: And that what the Gemara says in Gitin (on Daf 17.) 'Either hide us in your shade or in the shade of the sons of Eisav!'

Answer: That speaks after the Chavri came to Bavel.