Implied question: They already put Na'aseh before Nishma (they accepted to fulfill the Torah. Why did Hash-m need to coerce them?!)

Answer: Perhaps they would retract when they will see the great fire. Their Neshamos left them (and Hash-m needed to revive them).

Implied question: It says in Avodah Zarah (2b, that in the future the Nochrim will say) "did You bend the mountain on us like a barrel?!"

Inference: Had He bent it on them, they would not have had an answer. Here we say that [the coercion] is a great Moda'a (invalidation of Yisrael's acceptance) of Torah!

Answer: [The Nochrim complained "did You bend the mountain on us to coerce us to accept the Torah, like You did to Yisrael?!" Had He done so], they would not have had an answer] why they did not accept it. However, they would have an answer for not fulfilling it (because their acceptance was coerced)!

Implied question: It says in Nedarim (25a) that Moshe made a Bris with Yisrael about Torah and Mitzvos, and made them swear about it. (Yisrael accepted willingly. This nullifies the Moda'a!)

And in Sotah (37b) it says that they accepted the entire Torah in Har Grizim and Har Eival!

Answer (R. Tam): [Both of those] were based on Hash-m's command. It is as if they were coerced.

Distinction: However, in the days of Achashverosh, they willingly accepted [Torah] due to love of the miracle.

Implied question: Yehoshua made a Bris [with Yisrael] to serve Hash-m!

Answer: There, they accepted only not to serve idolatry, like it says "Chalilah Lanu me'Azov Es Hash-m." The entire matter connotes like this.

Question (Ri): In Megilah (7a), regarding [sources that Megilas] Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel "had I been there, I would have said that my [source] is better than theirs. "Kiymu v'Kiblu ha'Yehudim" - they accepted above (in Shamayim) what [Yisrael] accepted below;

Rava said that all of the sources can be challenged, except for Shmuel's. Now there is a challenge also to Shmuel's, for Rava himself establishes the verse for a different Drashah!

In Chagigah (10a) regarding "Hataras Nedarim floats in the air" (there is no solid source from verses), it says that all of the sources [given] can be challenged, it considers a challenge this that a verse is needed for a different Drashah!

Answer #1: If the text there says Rabah, this is fine. (Rava would challenge Shmuel's source.)

Answer #2: In Megilah it means as follows. All of them can be challenged. The reasoning of the other Tana'im is difficult, like it says there, but Shmuel is not so difficult, just the verse is needed for a different Drashah.

Explanation: They were of Hod (glory. Rashi - they were from the radiance of the Shechinah). Therefore, when Moshe took them, the skin of his face radiated.

Explanation: Since it says "va'Yisnatzlu" (and not va'Yinatzlu), he expounds two times (two angels for each person).

Support: Some texts say explicitly 'it does not say "va'Yinatzlu", rather, "va'Yisnatzlu".'

Implied question: The attribute of good (reward) is greater than the attribute of punishment!

Answer: Also here, it was greater. [Each] good angel tied two crowns, and [each] damaging angel had power to remove only one.

Question (R. Tam): We see that [apple trees] grow like other trees (the leaves precede the fruit)!

Answer (R. Tam): "Tapu'ach" is Esrog. The Targum of "v'Rei'ach Apech ka'Tapuchim" is k'Reicha d'Esroga;

The fruit of Esrog precedes the leaves, for it dwells on the tree from year to year, and after one year the leaves from last year fall off, and new ones grow. The fruit precedes the [new] leaves!

Question: Why does [the Gemara] bring the verse "k'Sapu'ach ba'Atzei ha'Ya'ar"? This verse does not compare Yisrael to apples, rather, Hash-m [is compared to apples], like it says "Ken Dodi Bein ha'Banim"!

It should have brought the verse "v'Rei'ach Apech ka'Tapuchim"!

Implied question: It should not have written a derogatory expression!

Answer: Rather, it means that [we infer from the fact that it did not write "it abandoned its smell', which (is not an offensive expression, but it) connotes that it stank. Rather, it wrote "it gave (its smell)", an expression of endearment.

Question (Rashbam): The verse connotes that the hammer shatters the rock, since it did not write 'veha'Patish Yefotzetzenu Sela';

Strengthening of question: Also, we see that the hammer shatters rocks!

Suggestion: Perhaps the text says "just like a rock shatters into many pieces..."

Strengthening of question: Also, we see that the hammer shatters rocks!

Suggestion: [We can answer like] Rashi explained - just like a hammer, through it a rock is divided..."

Rejection: The Dibur (which is compared to a hammer) itself is divided. It is not a full comparison.

Answer (R. Tam): The verse discusses a rock that shatters iron.

Source (Midrash Chazis): A case occurred in which someone bought sapphire, and came to test it. He put it on an anvil and hit it with a sledgehammer. The sledgehammer shattered and the anvil broke, and the sapphire did not budge from its place. This illustrates "uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sela."

Implied question: It is not written 'Yefotzetzenu Sela'!

Answer: There are many verses like this - [e.g.] "Avanim Sachaku Mayim", i.e. water ground (bored a hole through) [the rocks].

Support: [Now] it is fine what Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael said in Kidushin (30b). 'My son, if this disgusting one encounters you, drag him to the Beis Midrash. If he is a rock, he will melt, for it says "Avanim Sachaku Mayim"', i.e. water ground [the rocks]. 'If he is iron, he will be shattered';

Explanation: If the Yetzer ha'Ra is overpowering you, he will be shattered like iron, for it says "uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sela."

Implied question: There it compares the Yetzer ha'Ra to a hammer, and here it compares Divrei Torah to a hammer!

Answer: This is not difficult. One verse can be explained in many ways!