When Rav Acha mi'Difti asked 've'Livrich ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', he meant that - according to Rav Yehudah, who gives the final time for Kidush Levanah as seven days, why not recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' from seven to fifteen days (whilst the moon is still growing)?

Ravina answered him - that since we don't recite 'Baruch Dayan ha'Emes' from the time the moon begins to wane until the end of the month, it is not appropriate to recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' when it grows.

And the reason that we don't recite both B'rachos at the appropriate times is - because the growth and waning of the moon are natural occurrences, and as such, the one does not benefit us, neither does the other cause us a loss.

Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh lachem" (in Parshas Bo, in connection with Kidush ha'Chodesh') and "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" (in Beshalach, in the Shirah) that - when someone recites Kidush Levanah in its right time, it is as if he had greeted the Shechinah.

Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael says about Kidush Levanah that - if the only Mitzvah that Yisrael kept was to greet their Father in Heaven once a month, it would be worthwhile.

We recite it standing - in honor of the Shechinah.

Mereimar and Mar Zutra used to recite 'Kidush Levanah' - carried on the shoulders of their Talmidim.

When Rav Acha told Rav Ashi that in Eretz Yisrael, they recite 'Baruch Mechadesh Chodashim' for Kidush Levanah, the latter commented - that even their wives were conversant with that text (meaning that the full text was far more complicated than that).

The full text, exactly as we say it, is presented by Rav Yehudah. 'Po'alei Emes, she'Pe'ulasan Emes' refers to the sun and moon, which never change their prescribed function. The alternative wording (which in fact, we say) is - 'Po'el Emes, she'Pe'ulaso Emes' (and it refers to Hash-m, whose reduction of the size of the moon we are justifying [see Tosfos DH 'Po'alei Emes']).

Kidush Levanah is a good sign for Yisrael - because, as we actually mention in the wording itself, just as the moon will one day regain its original strength, so too, will K'lal Yisrael regain their freedom.

The Pasuk in Mishlei "Ki be'Tachbulos Ta'aseh l'cha Milachamah" advises us to use strategy in the battle with the Yeitzer-ha'Ra. Based on a play of words ('Chavilos' [bundles] instead of "Tachbulos" [strategy]), Rebbi Acha bar Chanina ... Amar Rebbi Yochanan advises us to win the battle of Torah-study - by learning bundles of Mishnayos (presumably incorporating B'raisos), which is the key to understanding Gemara.

When Rav Yosef applied the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Rav Tevu'os be'Ko'ach Shor" to himself, he meant that - like Yosef ha'Tzadik (whose name he bore), he had accumulated vast storehouses of wheat (many Mishnayos and Beraisos), making him wanted by everybody (like Yosef). Nor was this a vain boast, for as we learned in Horiy'os, Rav Yosef was known as 'Sinai' for that very reason.

With reference to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who confines our Mishnah, which validates the testimony, in a case where one witness says two hours and the one, three, to that case; but were one of them to declare that the event took place 'before Hanetz ha'Chamah' (sunrise), and the other one, 'after it', he explains, the testimony would be invalid - we comment 'P'shita' (But that is obvious)?

We therefore amend his statement to read (not, 'one before Hanetz and one, after it', but) 'one before Hanetz and one, during Hanetz' (as the sun begins to appear on the horizon).

Again we ask 'P'shita?' And we answer that - we might otherwise have thought that they both witnessed the occurrence before Hanetz, only the second witness mistook the brilliant pre-sun horizon for the sun.

According to our Mishnah, a Talmid who raised a point in favor of the accused, was seated together with the Sanhedrin where he would remain for the rest of the day. To concur with the Beraisa 'Im Yesh Mamash bi'Devarav, Lo Hayah Yored mi'Sham Le'olam', we establish our Mishnah - with regard to a point that he raised but which turned out to be without substance (as the Beraisa goes on to state).

Rav Acha bar Chanina interprets the Pasuk "u'le'Roznim O Ei Sheichar" to mean that - when the Sanhedrin are involved in the secrets of the world (a reference to Dinei Nefashos [since the Neshamah of man is beyond our comprehension]), they may not drink wine. From which we can infer that they are permitted to drink wine when judging Dinei Mamonos. (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Oskim').

Whereas the Sugya in Eruvin 'Shasah Revi'is Yayin, Al Yoreh' - refers to matters of Isur ve'Heter.

We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the Dayanim says 'Eini Yode'a', we bring in two more Dayanim, up to seventy-one. And we learned that if they end up thirty-six, thirty-five against the accused, they continue discussing the issue until one person relents. If nobody relents - they free the accused.

Rav Papa asked Abaye why they did not free the accused without entering into the final discussion. To which he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as having answered that they did not want to do that - since it is a disgrace for Beis-Din to close the proceedings without having arrived at a decision.

In the second Lashon, Rav Papa asked Abaye why they even needed to bring in extra Dayanim, why when they took the count and discovered that it was twelve-eleven against the accused, they did not send him home. To which he replied that - this was indeed the opinion of Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, who rules that a Sanhedrin Ketanah may comprise twenty-three Dayanim, and no more.

The Beraisa states 'Omer be'Dinei Mamonos Nizdaken ha'Din, Aval Lo be'Dinei Nefashos. It is wrong to interpret 'Nizdaken ha'Din' to mean that the Din is a venerable one that requires much attention (as things stand) - because then, the Tana should have reversed the statements (seeing as Dinei Nefashos require more scrutiny than Dinei Mamonos.

So Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika accepts the above interpretation - explaining the Beraisa by simply switching Dinei Mamonos and Dinei Nefashos.

Rav Ashi leaves the text as it is, only he interprets 'Nizdaken ha'Din' to mean that - the the Din is wise, and the matter is closed (which is not the case by Dinei Nefashos (le'Chovah), which will always be re-opened should they find something to say in favor of the accused.

The Beraisa places the onus of announcing 'Nizdaken ha'Din' on the senior Dayan. This makes sense according to Rav Ashi. But even according to Rav Huna bar Mano'ach, in spite of its derogatory connotations, it is the senior Dayan who must suffer the degradation - because as we learned in Ta'anis, self-degradation is less painful than degradation at the hand of others.

The second Lashon takes this answer for granted, and queries Rav Ashi from the Pasuk in Mishlei - "Yehalelcha Zar ve'Lo Picha" (Let somebody praise you and not your own mouth), in which case it would have seemed more correct for someone else to make the announcement.

We answer that nonetheless - the principle that places matters concerning the Beis-Din under the jurisdiction of the senior Dayan overrides the consideration of "Yehalelcha Zar ve'Lo Picha!".

This principle is based on the Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer' - 'Gamru es ha'Davar, Hayu Machnisin Osan. Gadol she'be'Dayanin Omer "Ish P'loni Atah Zakai ... " '.

Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Emor "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" - that the Beis-ha'Sekilah must be outside Beis-Din some distance away from it.

A man stands outside Beis-Din holding a bundle of cloths and another man in the distance sitting astride a horse - just within view of the former.

In the event that one of the judges or even a Talmid claims that he has something to say in defense of the accused - the one waves the bundle of cloths, and the other then rides post-haste after the guilty man and brings him back to Beis-Din for reassessment.

The guilty man himself is permitted to return to court with a point to raise in his own self-defense - even four or five times, provided he has something of substance to say (as we have already learned).

Our Mishnah implies that the Beis-ha'Sekilah is situated just outside Beis-Din. The Beraisa however, explains that it must be outside the three camps, which in Yerushalayim comprise - Machaneh Shechinah (the Ezras Yisrael, within the Sha'ar Nikanor), Machaneh Leviyah (the five hundred Amos by five hundred Amos that comprise the Har ha'Bayis), and Machaneh Yisrael (from there until the walls of Yerushalayim).

The equivalent to this with regard to other towns, which do not comprise three camps is - outside the city-walls.

In view of this Beraisa, we establish our Mishnah - where the Beis-Din have moved to outside the city-walls.

The reason for distancing the Beis-ha'Sekilah from the town might be so as not to convey the impression that Beis-Din is a murderous institution. Alternatively, it might be - to give the accused more time to arrive there, leaving themselves more time to save him.

The Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (in the above Pasuk in Emor) "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (in Vayikra, in connection with the Parim ha'Nisrafin) that - the Mekalel in the desert was taken outside all three camps before being stoned.

'Parim ha'Nisrafin' incorporates - the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.

The Beraisa learns from the Gezeirah Shavah "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the Mekalel) from "Chutz la'Nachaneh" (by Parim ha'Nisrafin) that - the Mekalel had to be stoned outside all three camps (and not just outside one).

"ve'Hotzi es h'Par el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (in Vayikra, in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) implies one camp. However, we learn from the superfluous phrase "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" ...

... by the Par He'elam Davar (by which it has already written 'ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon) that - they must be burned outside two camps (outside Machaneh Leviyah).

... by the Shefech ha'Deshen (ibid. [by which it has already written "el Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref"]) - to include a third camp (outside Machaneh Yisrael).

To be Chayav for 'Shechutei Chutz' - one need only Shecht Kodshim outside the Ezras Yisrael in the Machaneh Leviyah.

We list four reasons to explain why it is preferable to learn the taking out of the Mekalel from the taking out of the Parim ha'Nisrafin (three camps) rather than from Shechutei-Chutz (one camp).

The four reasons are a. & b. The fact that the Torah writes "Hotzei" and "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" by both (but not by Shechutei Chutz) ...

c. Machshir, meaning - that they are both performing the Mitzvah (unlike Shechutei Chutz, which is a sin, and ...

... d. Mechaper, meaning - that they both atone for a sin (unlike Shechutei Chutz, which is itself a sin).

As against the above however, we list four points in which Mekalel is similar to Shechutei Chutz (and not to Parim ha'Nisrafin): a. Both refer to a person (and not to an animal); b. Both sinned (unlike Parim ha'Nisrafin) ...

... c. Neshamah, meaning - either that both of them entail killing (unlike Parim ha'Nisrafin, which entails burning an animal that is already dead), or that in both cases, the person dies (since Shechutei Chutz is subject to Kareis), and ...

... d. Pigul, meaning - that in neither case does one contravene the laws of Pigul (Shechting Kodshim out of context), whereas Parim ha'Nisrafin can lead to Pigul, should the Shochet have in mind to burn the limbs outside too.

Ultimately, we learn the Mekalel from Parim ha'Nisrafin rather than from Shechutei Chutz - because learning 'Machshir from Machshir' is the most significant of all the above eight comparisons.

Rav Papa learns all three camps by the Mekalel (and by every Beis ha'Sekilah) from the Pesukim in Emor. The Pasuk "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" must be speaking about sending out of the Machaneh Leviyah (and not from the Machaneh Shechinah, as we learned until now) - because Moshe Rabeinu, who was speaking, was standing in the Machaneh Leviyah.

And he then explains the Pasuk "va'Yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - to add the Machaneh Yisrael.

This latter Pasuk is not needed to teach us that they carried out Hash-m's command to the letter - because we already know that from the Pasuk "u'Venei Yisrael Asu ka'asher Tzivah Hash-m es Moshe".