Question #1: Why is Sha'atnez not also forbidden, seeing as the Torah writes in the same Pasuk "Beged Kil'ayim Sha'atnez Lo Ya'aleh Alecha"?

Question #2: Furthermore, why do we need "es Chukosai in the firs place? Why will the fact that the Torah writes "Lemineihu" at the creation not suffice?

Precedent: After all, the Gemara in 'Eilu T'reifos' implies that, had the Torah written "Lemineihu" by the grasses, we would have thought that the B'nei No'ach are forbidden to graft two kind of herbs one with the other?

Question #3: And what's more, at the end of Perek ha'Parah, the Gemara learns the Din prohibiting the interbreeding of two species of sea-creatures from "Lemineihu" written by the land-animals. Why does it not learn it from "Lemineihu" that is written by them?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that, on the one hand, if the Torah had not written "es Chukosai", we would not have learned the aspect of Isur from "Lemineihu"; whilst on the other, were it not for "Lemineihu", we would have interpreted "es Chukosai" to mean 'the Chukim that I taught you at Marah' (and at the creation).

Implied Question: Then why does the Gemara ask from "u'Shemartem es Chukosai", even though we only establish the Pasuk by the B'nei No'ach due to the fact that it writes "Lemineihu" at the creation?

Answer: The Gemara's query is nevertheless justified, because it is asking is that perhaps, just as the latter does not pertain to the B'nei No'ach (in spite of "Lemineihu"), neither is the former?

Question: Since the Rabbanan do not incorporate the B'nei No'ach in the Isur of either interbreeding or grafting, they clearly do not Darshen "Lemineihu". In that case, the Sugyos in 'ha'Parah' and 'Eilu T'reifos' (which do) do not go like them?

Answer #1: Even though the Rabbanan do not Darshen "Lemineihu" with regard to the B'nei No'ach, since it is not written in connection with the command to Adam, they do Darshen it with regard to Yisrael, who are commanded on Kil'ayim.

Ramifications #1: And the reason that the Torah writes "Lemineihu" is in order to incorporate fish (which Yisrael are not specifically commanded) in the Isur, from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Lemineihu" "Lemineihu".

Ramifications #2 (Part 1): Alternatively (if not for "Lemineihu" of the creation) we would not have forbidden the Isur of Harkavah (grafting trees) by a Yisrael, from the Torah's comparison to Beheimah ...

Ramifications #2 (Part 2): So as not to clash with the simple meaning of "Lo Sizra", which implies planting seeds (and not either kinds of Kil'ayim).

Conclusion: It is now clear as to why Shmuel's statement "Chukosai" 'she'Chakakti l'cha K'var' is cited also in Kidushin, seeing as it goes even like the Rabbanan (see Tosfos ha'Rosh [with regard to a Yisrael]).

Conclusion (Part 1): And consequently, the She'eilah of 'grafting two species of herbs', discussed in 'Eilu T'reifos' goes according to the Rabbanan, Even though the basic prohibition of plating two kinds of vegetable is a Mishnah in the first Perek of Kil'ayim ...

Conclusion (Part 2): The Gemara nevertheless asks whether 'herbs' are considered as if the Torah had written by them "Lemineihu", bearing in mind that Hash-m agreed with the land (when it produced vegetation, species by species.

Clarification: (What) Rashi asks from the Pasuk regarding Sh'mitah and Yovel (where it also says) "es Mishpatai Ta'asu ve'es Chukosai Tishmoru" ...

Implied Question (Part 1): Is not accurate, seeing as that is not what the Torah actually writes/ Only in Parshas Behar, it writes "Va'asisem es Chukosai ve'es Mishpatai Tishmoru"?

Implied Question (Part 2): Whereas the Pasuk that Rashi quotes is written in Parshas Acharei-Mos with regard to Arayos ...

Implied Question (Part 3): And as far as Arayos is concerned, it is indeed appropriate to extrapolate "Chukim she'Chakakti l'cha K'var', since the B'nei Noach are indeed commanded on Arayos.

Query: And even though the Pasuk from which the Gemara asks "u'Shemartem es Chukosai" is written there (in Acharei-Mos) too?

Refutation: Nevertheless, it is logical to say that that Pasuk covers the whole Torah (and not just Arayos), since it concludes there "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam va'Chai bahem".

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in the second Perek of Mo'ed Katan learns that Keri'ah must be performed standing from the Pasuk "And Iyov arose and rent his garments" (see Maharsha).

Question (Part 2): Why does it not also learn there that Keri'ah may not be sewn from the D'rashah here?

Question (Part 1): On what grounds were they permitted to repeat to the king what they heard ...

Question (Part 2): Seeing as we have learned in the Mishnah earlier that they only used a Kinuy when questioning the witnesses?

Clarification (Part 1): Rashi explains that there is no problem with Mekabel (receiving the blood) and Molich (taking it to the Mizbe'ach), seeing as we do not find them being referred to as an Avodah with regard to Avodah-Zarah, as we find with regard to Nisuch "Yishtu Yein Nesicham".

Clarification (Part 2): And this goes like R. Yehudah, who Darshens in the Sifri the Pasuk "Yishtu Yein Nesicham" with regard to Nochrim. Whereas R. Nechemyah establishes it by a Yisrael.

Observation: Even according to R. Nechemyah however, we find a Pasuk in Navi "And he brought sacrifices to Ba'al and he poured out drink-offerings (Nisuch) to other gods.

Clarification (Part 1): Rashi explains that this implies even Avodah which is not ke'Darkah, since the Torah does not write "Oved la'Elohim bi'Zevichah Yochoram".

Implied Question: He could not have explained that it must be talking about 'she'Lo ke'Darkah, because we already know ke'Darkah from "Va'yeilech Va'ya'avod" ...

Answer: Because we would have established it by ke'Darkah, and it comes to qualify the general rule, to teach us that even ke'Darkah is only Chayav by Avodas P'nim (an Avodah that is performed in the Beis-Hamikdash).

Question: The Gemara will shortly learn from the fact that the Torah specifically mentions 'Zevichah' - that the Isur extends to the entire K'lal?

Answer: If not for "Bilti la'Hashem Levado", we would have thought that we only include Avodos to do with the blood, like Zevichah itself, but not Mekater and Menasech.

Question: Why do we not learn it from the Pasuk in Sh'mos, which compares it to Zevichah "Va'yishtachavu lo Va'yizb'chu lo" ...

Precedent: Like the Gemara will later learn the Isur of declaring 'Eili Atah' from the Pasuk there "Va'yomru "Eileh Elohecha Yisrael!"?

Answer: Because the latter case was ke'Darkah, since it was normal to worship that calf by way of Zevichah (but not by way of Hishtachavayah).

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara learns 'Eili Atah' from there is ...

Answer: because 'Eili Atah' is considered ke'Darkah by all forms of idolatry.

Question: Why can we not learn it from "Lo Sa'avdem", the same source as we learn the warning against Megafef and Menashek (embracing and kissing), as Rashi explained in our Mishnah?

Answer: If it came as a warning against Hishtachavayah, we would not then be able to learn Megafef and Menashek from it.