Question: How do we know that? Maybe the crops had not ripened, but the fruit of the tree and the Tekufah were both as they should be, and as we have already learned 'One does not declare a leap-year on account of one of them?

Answer: We can assume that if in Ba'al Shalishah, the first of the areas to ripen, only one species had ripened, the fruit of the tree had not grown either.

Question: Perhaps it was only in Yehudah that the crops had not grown, but in Eiver ha'Yarden and the Galil, they had.

Answer: Here too, we can assume from Ba'al Shalisha that it had not (just as we answered the previous question).

Question: From where do we know that Elisha did nor declare a leap-year?

Answer: Because if he had, it would have been inconceivable for them not to have found some species that had grown after the Omer was brought!

Reason: But no other month, because the Pasuk writes in Megilas Esther (3:13) " ... the twelth month which is the month of Adar". Now, if one was to declare any other month a leap-year, then Adar would no longer be the twelfth month.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one does not declare a leap-year, a year that does not need to be declared a leap-year, in order to rectify the following year.

Question: The Lashon does not however, imply this.

Explanation #2: What the Gemara must therefore mean is that one is not permitted to even discuss making the following year a leap-year, even though they do not actually announce it; nevertheless, one may not make a Chishuv that is final on one year for the next.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means three consecutive years, so that Nisan and Pesach should not fall in the middle of summer.

Question #1: Then why does the Tana say 'three'? Why not even 'two'?

Question #2: Furthermore, when R. Shimon cited an episode of R. Akiva who declared three consecutive years leap-years, and the Rabbanan replied that Beis-Din sat and fixed one at a time, Rashi comments 'They were not consecutive'. This is not what the Gemara's Lashon implies?

Explanation #2: Rashi's second explanation is therefore the correct one - That one is not permitted to fix three leap-years (in their due times) simultaneously.

Retraction: according to this explanation however, what Tosfos wrote earlier to explain the Reisha 'mi'Shanah la'Chavertah' is not correct (see Maharsha).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is even Metamei be'Ohel.

Question: But does the Mishnah not state in Ohalos (2:3) that a piece of earth that comes from Chutz la'Aretz is Metamei be'Maga and be'Masa, but not be'Ohel??

Implied Answer: ... and when the Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (15b & 16a) and in Nazir (54b and 55a) which implies that it is Metanei be'Ohel as well ...

Refutation: ... is speaking specifically when the earth is still in Chutz la'Aretz, but not once it has been transported to Eretz Yisrael.

Explanation #2: WE must therefore explain that, when the Gemara here is concerned about the clod of earth (that came from Chutz la'Aretz) it is referring to Maga and Masa, but not to Ohel.

Clarification: Rashi explains that they became Tamei on account of Avodah-Zarah, which is Metamei like a Meis, as we learned in Perek R. Akiva (Daf 82a).

Implied Question: And even though the Tum'ah of Avodah-Zarah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Answer: ... perhaps they had already decreed at that time, since the Gemara there Darshens it from Pesukim in Nach.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi however explains that they found the skull of Aravmah ha'Yevusi underneath the Mizbe'ach.

Question: The problem with that is that the fifteen days between Rosh Chodesh Nisan and Pesach was ample time to become Tahor (seeing as all that would have been needed was the sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah on the third and the seventh days), so why did they need to declare a leap-year, on account of that?

Implied Answer: And we cannot answer that they did not have a Parah Adumah ...

Refutation: Seeing as throughout the period of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash they used the Parah Adumah that Moshe prepared, as we learned in the Mishnah in Parah (3:5 - and the second one was prepared by Ezra).

Answer: Perhaps for some reason, the ashes were not available at that moment.

Implied Question: Why did R. Shimon not prove his point from other Korbanos (assuming that the Kohen Gadol did not wear the Tzitz when he was not bringing a Korban [see Maharam]).

Answer: Because in fact the Tzitz was on his forehead constantly, as is evident from the Gemara in Perek ha'Omer (Kidushin 66a) - 'Make them stand up with the Tzitz between your eyes!', implying that the Kohen Gadol wore it even when he was not performing the Avodah.

Clarification #1: The criterion is not really 'Korban Tzibur' (despite the fact that the word 'Tzibur' is used), like the Gemara states in Perek Hotzi'u Lo (Yoma, 50a). For we see that, on the one hand, the bull of Yom Kipur, the daily Korban Minchah of the Kohen Gadol and the Korban Pesach, which are Korb'nos Yachid, override both Shabbos and Tum'ah; whereas, on the other, the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, the Se'irei Avodah-Zarah and the Chagigah which are Korbenos Tzibur, are not!

Clarification #2: The rule to remember is that any Korban whose time is fixed overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah; whereas one whose time is not fixed, does not.

Question (Part 1): In Perek Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim, 79a and 79b), Rav and R. Kahana argue in a case where half of Yisrael were Tahor and half were Tamei - whether each group brings the Pesach Rishon individually (Rav) or whether only the Tehorim bring the Pesach Rishon, and the Teme'in, the Pesach Sheini (R. Kahana); whereas according to the second Lashon of R. Kahana, the Tehorim bring the Pesach Rishon, and the Teme'in bring neither the Pesach Rishon nor the Pesach Sheini.

Question (Part 2): The question now arises like whom does our Sugya hold? according to Rav and the second Lashon of R. Kahana, why do the women need to make up half of the Tehorim? As long as they made up the majority, it would have sufficed (to make the Teme'im bring the Pesach Sheini she'Lo ke'Din); Whereas according to the first Lashon of Rav Kahana, it would have sufficed had they made up half?

Answer: The reason that R. Ashi mentioned both 'Mashlimos' and 'Odfos' is because now, Chizkiyah erred according to all the Leshonos. And that is why he Davened for mercy.

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not answer that Chizkiyah finally concluded that Nashim ba'Rishon Chovah, ba'Sheini R'shus, and that he Davened for himself for having brought the Pesach Sheini not according to the Halachah..

Answer: The reason why it did not do so is because this Sugya specifically mentions R. Shimon, who specifically holds in Perek ha'Ishah (ibid. 91b) that 'Nashim ba'Rishon R'shus'.

Alternative Question: The Gemara might just as well have asked on the Mishnah in Iduyos (cited in Perek ha'Nechnakin - later on 87a & 87b) where they testified that it is permitted to declare a leap-year during the entire month of Adar.