Clarification: Some commentaries explain that they did not hear the actual Voice that came from Heaven, but another voice that emanated from the original Voice (just like, sometimes happens when one bangs hard, and hears an echo in the distance). That is the Voice that they heard` and that explains why they called it 'Bas Kol'.

Implied Question #1: Why does the Tana not include the three Simanim that we will learn shortly (on Amud Beis) in this list?

Answer: Because it is only on two of them that one declares a leap-year, whereas any one of the current list will suffice.

Implied Question #2: And why does the Beraisa that the Gemara will discuss shortly not include them together with 'Gedayim, u'Telayim ve'Gozlos she'Lo Pirchu'?

Answer: Because even on two of the items mentioned there Beis-Din cannot declare a leap-year; all they can do is use any one of them as a second Si'man to combine with any one of three of the other Simanim.

Clarification: Those who live in Eretz Yisrael do not require a leap-year, because even the one who lives the furthest away from Yerushalayim is able to arrive from Rosh Chodesh Nisan until the fourteenth (in time to bring his Korban Pesach) ...

Proof: ... as we learned in the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 10a), with regard to asking for rain 'Fifteen days after Sukos, sufficient time for the last one in Yisrael to reach the River P'ras (the Euphrates [on the extreme north of Eretz Yisrael])'.

Two Inferences: It is implied here, as well as in Perek ha'Madir (Kesuvos, 71a - regarding the statement 'Chodesh Malei ve'Chodesh Chaser Ika Beinaihu') that a regular month is Chaser (twenty-nine days).

Question #1: At the end of 'ha'Choletz' (Yevamos, 48a & 48b) however, the Gemara states 'Yerach is thirty days (a Chodesh Malei [a full month]) and "Yamim" is another thirty days', implying that a regular month is Malei?

Question #2: Likewise, in the first Perek of Nazir (5a and 5b), where the Gemara asks "Perhaps it is thirty days, as the Pasuk writes "until a month of days" '?

Answer #1: The Lashon used by the Torah (Malei) is one thing; and the Lashon used by the Chachamim (Chaser) is another.

Answer #2: Alternatively, here and in 'ha'Madir', where the Tana Kama said 'thirty days', clearly indicates that the Tana who argues with him holds that Chodesh is Chaser (Otherwise, it will always be Malei) - See also Tosfos in Kesuvos, 71a DH 'Rebbi'.

Questions on Rashi: The questions from here on Rashi at the end of Perek Kirah (Shabbos, 47 DH 'bi'Gelila') and in Perek ha'Motzi Yayin, (ibid., 78a) Tosfos dealt with there.

Discrepancy: R. Gamliel here appears to clash with the Mishnah in the last Perek of Ma'aser Sheini (Mishnah 8), where R. Yehudah related how initially, they used to warn the Ba'alei-Batim in the provinces to hurry and rectify their fruit before the time of Biy'ur arrived, until R. Akiva came and taught that any fruit that has not yet reached the stage of Ma'asros is not subject to Biy'ur?

Answer: R. Gamliel in our Sugya preceded R. Akiva.

Clarification: And he had a colleague, R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who was a Nasi together with him - which explains why he inserted the words 'in front of my colleague' (see Ya'avatz on the Gemara).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains because 'Tekufah' is d'Oraysa - as the Torah writes in Ki Sissa (Sh'mos, 34) "Chag ha'Asif Tekufas ha'Shanah".

Question: But Aviv too, is d'Oraysa, as the Torah writes in Re'ei "Sh'mor es Chodesh ha'Aviv".

Explanation #2: The reason (that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel may have meant) Me'abrin on) 'Tekufah' is because it is impossible to err (since it depends on Cheshbon [Tosfos ha'Rosh]), as one might with regard to 'Peiros ha'Ilan' and 'Aviv'.

Implied Question: And although R. Akiva declared a leap-year in Neherda'a - at the beginning of 'ha'Ishah Shalom (Yevamos, 115a and 115b) - and Neherda'a is in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Answer #1: ... R. Akiva was different, since he did not leave anyone who could compare with him in Eretz Yisrael, as the Gemara states at the end of B'rachos (Daf 63a).

Question: But the Gemara relates in 'Zeh Borer (later, on Daf 26a and 26b) how R. Chiya bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak went to declare a leap-year in Asya (which is considered Chutz la'Aretz, as is evident in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Bava Basra, 46a andd 46b), where the Gemara states that wherever Hash-m pointed out to Moshe is subject to Ma'aser, to preclude Ardaskim, Asya and Aspamya?

Implied Answer: Nor can we answer that they (R. Chiya bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak) left behind in Eretz Yisrael nobody that could compare with them...

Refutation: ... Seeing as Resh Lakish (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) called them cow-hands' (a derogatory title)?

Anwwer #1: The 'Ibur' there was not the actual Ibur, but just as assessment (just like the Gemara says here later in the Perek (on Daf 12a) ' ... and he [R. Akiva] was Me'aber three consecutive years); and they made the actual declaration after they returned to Eretz Yisrael.

Proof: In any case, that must have been what they did, since it was a leap-year, and we will learn later in a Beraisa that one cannot declare a leap-year during the Sh'mitah.

Suggested Answer #2: We cannot however, answer the original question on R. Akiva in the same way (that he too, only made the assessment in Neherda'a, only on R. Akiva, who left behind in Eretz Yisrael nobody that could compare with they relied, but on R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak they did not rely (so they repeated the assessment in Eretz Yisrael) ...

Refutation: ... because in B'rachos (Daf 63a) it is implied from the episode with Chananyah, that it (the Ibur of R. Akiva) was a proper Ibur.

Proof: In fact, it is explicitly implied in the Yerushalmi that where it is impossible to perform the actual Ibur in Eretz Yisrael, one may perform it in Chutz la'Aretz. The Yerushalmi describes how Yirmiyah, Yechezkel and Baruch ben Neri'ah all performed Ibur Shanah in Chutz la'Aretz, and then it cites the episode of Chananyah.

Question: The Gemara in B'rachos (63b) learns the Din that Ibur Shanah must be performed in Eretz Yisrael from the Pasuk (in Yeshayah) "Ki mi'Tziyon Teitzei Torah", whereas in our Sugya it cites the Pasuk (in Re'ei) "le'Shichno Sidr'shu u'Va'sa Shamah"?