Clarification #1: He does not learn this from a Pasuk, seeing as, bearing in mind that we need "Oso" to teach us that a man is stoned without clothes, there is no Pasuk to learn it from ...

Clarification #2: ... but either to the lewd thoughts to which this would bring or to the shame of the woman (as he explains).

Implied Question: Although the Gemara states at the end of the first Perek of Megilah, Daf 15a, that 'Whoever says 'Rachav Rachav" immediately has an emission ...

Answer: The Gemara there specifically establishes that this teaching applies only to one who knew her and was personally familiar with her.

Explanation #1: Some commentaries explain that this is because the Pasuk "Ve'ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha" is not applicable during one's lifetime, because as long as a person is alive, we Darshen 'Chayecha Kodmin' (that one's own needs always take precedence over somebody else's.

Explanation #2: Whereas others attribute it to the beginning of the Pasuk "Lo Sikom ve'Lo Sitor"; and "Lo Sikom" has connotations of death, as we Darshen in Perek Arba Misos, Daf 52b, with regard to "Nakom Yinakem", which the Gemara links to the Pasuk "Veheivesi aleichem Cherev Nokemes N'kam B'ris".

Question: Why does the Gemara ask from 'Shor' on to 'Adam'?

Answer: Because there too, we Darshen "Shor", 've'Lo Adam'.

Explanation #1: In Bava Kama, Daf 50b, Rashi explains that S'tam Bor is ten Tefachim deep.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, inasmuch a as a S'tam Bor is more than ten Tefachim deep, like we find by Yosef and Yirmiyahu, who were thrown into a pit that was very musch deeper than that, and in connection with Yishmael ben Nesanyah, who filled a pit with corpses?

Explanation #2: But here Rashi explains, that a S'tam pit is not less than ten Tefachim.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara at the beginning of Bava Kama (Daf 3a & 3b) queries the suggestion that an Av Nezikin (regarding Bor) is ten Tefachim and a Toldah, nine, in that neither ten, nor nine are specifically mentioned in the Torah?

Question (Part 2): And it answers a. with the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo", and b. with the fact tradition that a pit of ten Tefachim can cause death, whereas one of nine can cause damage, but not death.

Question (Part 3): So we see, that the source for a pit of ten is the Pasuk in Mishpatim?

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that a S'tam Bor is more than ten Tefachim, and that both sources are needed. Because if we were to learn from "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo", we would have thought that one is Chayav even by a pit that is less than ten Tefachim - That is why the Torah writes "Bor". And had it written just "Bor", we would have thought that one is only Chayav in the case of a pit that is so deep that it is impossible for the animal that falls into it to survive - That is why the Torah writes "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo", imnplying a pit that is fit to kill (one that is ten Tefachim deep).

Question: And when the Gemara asks there that, when's all said and done, the one is an Av for ten, and the other, for nine, despite the fact that the Torah mentions neither ten nor nine?

Answer #1: It is logical to say that, just as ten Tefachim is an Av for Miysah (seeing as it is deep enough to kill), so too, is a pit of nine an Av for damages, seeing as it is deep enough to cause damage).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is because the Torah writes "Bor" twice ("Ki Yiftach Ish Bor, O ki Yichreh Ish Bor"); One serves as an Av for Misah, the other, for Nizakin.

Implied Question: Sekilah is actually mentioned first in the Pasuk (so why do we invert the order)?

Answer: The reason that we nevertheless apply it last is because of the Pasuk in Shoftim which juxtaposes stoning to death - "and you shall stone him with stones and he shall die".

Implied Question: The need to include Doros here applies even according to Rav, who learns Doros from Sha'ah (at the beginning of 'ha'Kometz Rabah', Menachos, 19b & 20a) ...

Answer: ... because we would otherwise have thought that Sinai is different.

Implied Question: But why (in Perek T'vul-Yom, Zevachim, 10a) do we then quote Aharon as saying to Moshe 'Perhaps you only heard that Aninus was permitted only by Kodshei Sha'ah and not by Kodshei Doros?'

Answer: What he meant was that perhaps Hash-m told im so explicitly.

Question (Part 1): There is a Kashya on those who at the beginning of 'ha'Kometz Rabbah' do not learn Doros from Sha'ah ...

Question (Part 2): ... that the Gemara in Zevachim (in Perek Kodshei Kodshim, Daf 60a) rules that 'If the Mizbe'ach becomes chipped, the Kohanim are not permitted to eat the remains of Menachos on account of it, as the Torah writes "And you shall eat it as Matzos beside the Mizbe'ach". Since Menachos are not eaten specifically beside the Mizbe'ach, what the Pasuk must mean is that one may only eat Menachos as long as the Mizbe'ach is complete, but not when it is incomplete'. And the Pasuk in question is speaking about the Milu'im (which is Kodshei Sha'ah)?

Answer: The Gemara there actually learns it from the fact that we have a similar precedent by a regular Korban - since the Gemara there a little earlier, issues a ruling that all Kodshim that are Shechted beside a Mizbe'ach that is chipped are Pasul, as the Torah writes "And you shall Shecht on it all your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings". And seeing as one does not Shecht Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach, what the Pasuk must mean is that one may only Shecht Kodshim as long as the Mizbe'ach is complete (like the Gemara Darshened in the previous case of Sha'ah) and this D'rashah refers to regular Korbanos (Doros), and not just to Sha'ah.

Clarification: According to the opinion that holds 'Melamdin', there is the additional case of 'Ir ha'Nidachas', which we Darshen in Perek 'Eilu Metzi'os' (Bava Metzi'a, 31b) from "Hakeh Sakeh", as well as that of 'Niskalin', which we learn in Perek Arba Misos (later, Daf 53b) from "Mos Yumsu Demeihem Bam".

Inference: The Mishnah in Perek Eilu ha'Nisrafin (later, Daf 79b) states that if Chayvei Misos got mixed up, they receive the lighter sentence. And the Gemara extrapolates from there that somebody who is warned for a more stringent offence is automatically warned for a more lenient one.

Question: But how can we learn there from that case, which is different inasmuch as Chayvei Misos are subject to any Misah that one can mete out, seeing as he is anyway, Chayav Misah?

Answer #1: The inference is actually from the Lashon 'Kol Chayvei Miysos', implying even those Miysos where we do not Darshen it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one cannot ask from a Borei'ach (a Chayav Misah who has run away) who is different (See Maharam).

Clarification: The Gemara is speaking where the Metzora's hand was cut off after he became Tamei. Otherwise, even Shmuel, who requires the Pasuk as it is written, will concede in the case of witnesses who had no hands to begin with, as he learned earlier.

Question: How can we learn from here that we need the Pasuk as it is written? Perhaps here is different, since the Torah writes "Tih'yeh" ("Zos Tih'yeh Toras ha'Metzora"), which implies that every detail is crucial?

Observation: The opinions in this Mishnah are cited the other way round at the end of Perek 'Sheloshah Minim' (Nazir, 46b).

Precedents #1: And there are many such cases - in that same Sugya regarding the Machlokes between Beis-Shamai and Beis Hillel in connection with 'Nazir Memurat', which is learned in the reverse in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Yoma, Daf 61b and 62a).

Precedents #2: Similarly, in the same Perek in Nazir, Daf 38b, regarding the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava 'Zag ve'Chartzan' is learned the other way round in Pesachim, 41b, and regarding the Machlokes in connection with 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos', whose opinions are reversed in the first Perek of Nedarim, Daf 5b, and the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda in the first Perek in Bechoros, Daf 3a and 3b, and the Machlokes between Rabah and Rav Chisda, in connection with 'Tereifah Einah Chayah', which is reversed in the first Perek of Temurah in the first Perek of Temurah, Daf 11b and 12a.