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 one declares a leap-year, whereas any one of the current list will suffice.

Implied Question #2: And why does he not include them together with 'Gedayim, u'Telayim ve'Gozlos she'Lo Pirchu that follows immediately?

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 the three.

Clarification: Those who live in Eretz Yisrael do not require a leap-year, because even the 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, with regard to asking for rain 'Fifteen days after Succos, 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 (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 however, the Gemara says ' "Yerach" is thirty days (a Chodesh Malei [a full month]) and "Yamim" is another thirty days', implying that a regular is Malei?

Question #2: Likewise, in the first Perek of Nazir, 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 is always Malei).

Questions on Rashi: The questions from here on Rashi in Perek Kirah and in Perek ha'Motzi Yayin, Tosfos has presented there.

Discrepancy: R. Gamliel here appears to clash with the conclusion of the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, 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'Oarysa - as the Torah writes in Ki Sissa "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' therefore seems to be 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:

Answer #1:

Question: But the Gemara relates in 'Zeh Borer how R. Chiya bar Zarnuki and R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak went to declare a leap-year in Asaya (which is considered Chutz la'Aretz, as is evident in 'Chezkas ha'Batim', 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 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 ' ... 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 in 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 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 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"?