Implied Question: And the reason the Torah writes in Devarim, 17:7 "The hands of the witnesses shall be the first to kill him" is ...

Answer: ... because we would otherwise have thought that that only applies as long as the original stone is still available, but not if it got lost or fell into the sea.

Implied Question: The reason Rav Huna does not include in his list the wick with which the culprit was burned is ...

Answer: ... because he made his statement with reference to the Beraisa later 'All of them are buried with him', which cannot include the wick, since it was thrown into the culprit's mouth and was no longer available.

Observation: Despite the fact that at the time of the distribution of the land, they had the Urim ve'Tumim.

Implied Question: The reason the Gemara not learn from this Pasuk that he took from many Charamim (similar to the D'rashah in the second Perek (Daf 21a) that it learned from "Kaheinah ve'Chaheinah") is ...

Answer: ... because they did not fight so many battles in the desert for him to have contravened so many Charamim.

Statement: This is the text in most Sefarim.

Question: If not for the dots, we would have thought that they would not be subject to punishment even after they crossed the Yarden - since so the simple P'shat in the Pasuk implies "The hidden things are for Hash-m", and we will not be punished for them at all. The dots therefore teach us that once they crossed the Yarden, they became punishable.

Answer: This explains why Rashi changes the text to 'This teaches us that Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu would punish them on the hidden things once they crossed'.

Carification: And as for the dot on the 'Ayin' of "Ad", Rashi explains, that comes to teach us that this had not always been the case, only after they crossed the Yardein.

Question: Without the dot on the 'Ayin' we could not have said this, because the Torah ought then to have written 'The hidden things and the revealed things are incumbent upon us and our children forever'? And since it adds "for Hash-m our G-d" (after "the hidden things") and also the dot, it is clear that we Darshen them both independently (see Tosfos ha'Rosh & Maharam)?

Answer (alternative explanation): According to Rashi's explanation, we therefore need to say that the 'Ayin' of "ad" is dotted in order to dot eleven letters corresponding to the eleven letters in the two Names of Hash-m. This is to teach us that in reality, the dots really belong on the 'Shem', to preclude from the 'Shem' - that from now on, also the hidden things will belong to us. Only it is not correct to dot the Name of Hash-m.

R. Nechemyah's opinion: R. Nechamyah asked him whether Hash-m punishes others on the hidden things forever, seeing as the Torah writes "ad Olam"?

Clarification #1: This refers to the P'tur of the hidden sins, which, R. Nechemyah, explains, applies forever, since it is not needed for the Chiyuv of the revealed ones, seeing as it is obvious that the punishment that applies now will apply forever.

Clarification #2: Consequently, the dot comes to teach that the Chiyuv of the revealed sins only applies from now on (but did not apply prior to their crossing the Yarden) ...

Clarification #3: .. and the reason that there are eleven dots corresponding to the eleven letters of Hash-m's Name is to teach us that also the revealed sins belonged to Hash-m until they crossed the Yarden and accepted 'Arvus' (responsibility for one another).

Statement: Rabeinu Tam However, retains the original text.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): In his opinion, "The hidden things belong to Hash-m your G-d is not a statement. It is not referring to punishment at all. What the Pasuk means is that the hidden things, about which nobody but Hash-m knows, plus the revealed one, both of these are "for us and our children" to accept punishment'. And the dots on "Lanu u'le'Vaneinu" teach us that this does not take effect immediately, only after they cross the Yarden, but not before.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Now if the entire word "Ad" was dotted or was not dotted, we would have thought that the current D'rashah applied both to the Nistaros and to the Niglos; therefore the Torah placed a dot on the 'Ayin' only, halving the word, to teach us that one half applies immediately, and the other half only after crossing the Yarden - and logically, it is the Nistaros that apply only after crossing the Yarden, and the Niglos, immediately.

R. Nechemyah's opinion (Part 1): R. Nechamyah asked him whether Hash-m punishes others on the hidden things, seeing as it says "forever" ? And if "Ad Olom" would refer to the Nistaros, then we would need to compare them (the Nistaros and the Niglos) - seeing as it refers to the Nistoros just like it refers to the Niglos (because presumably, if it refers to both of them, then it refers to both of them in the same way).

R. Nechemyah's opinion (Part 2): Therefore, we must say that it does not refer to the Nistaros at all, since logic dictates that others should not be punished for one's hidden sins. And the only reason that the Torah mentions the Nistaros is in order to compare the Niglos to them, to teach us just as Hash-m did not punish on the former before they crossed the Yarden, so too, did he not punish on the latter ...

R. Nechemyah's opinion (Part 4): ... and the reason that the Torah adds the comparison and the dots is, because were it only for the comparison, we would have thought that, even though Hash-m did not punish (on the Niglos before crossing the Yarden), he did punish them slightly for not rebuking the perpetrators. Therefore the dots teach us that He did not punish them at all.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's explanation however, the reason for the dot on the 'Ayin' of "Ad", according to R. Nechemyah is unclear.