Correction (Ri): The text should not say "veha'Tanya". Why would [the Gemara ask from a Beraisa, and] not ask from our Mishnah!?

Rebuttal: We can say that our Mishnah is not difficult, since it taught "and he wrote two Zayinin", and it did not say two other letters which do not require crowns. This connotes that [our Mishnah] exempts due to [lack of] crowns;

However, the Beraisa taught Stam. It is a proper question from it.

Question: If this is a Beraisa from which the Gemara asks, why does it say "he intended to write one letter, and he wrote two?" Even if he intended for the two letters that he wrote, and he wrote them without crowns, he is exempt, since we establish it that they need crowns!

The Beraisa did not teach "and he wrote two Zayinin", that we can say that it comes to teach that had he written two other letters that do not require crowns, he would be liable, like I explained in our Mishnah (104b DH Niskaven)!

Conclusion: We ask from our Mishnah. The text says "veha'Tanan".

Explanation: It seems that R. Gamliel's reason is because it says "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso" - knowledge of a [Chiyuv] Chatas is called Yedi'ah, but knowledge of [what is] not [a Chiyuv] Chatas is not called Yedi'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It mentioned one letter in the morning and one in the afternoon, for since there was time in between to find out, it is considered two Helamos.

Objection #1: If so, it should have specified the amount of time (after which it is considered two Helamos)!

Objection #2: Above (104b), it says that if he wrote one letter in Tzipori and one letter in Tiverya, he is liable, even though presumably, there is enough time in between (while going from one city to the other) to find out!

Explanation #2: We discuss when he found out in between. It mentioned one letter in the morning and one in the afternoon for a bigger Chidush. Even though with the Yedi'ah there was a great time delay in between, R. Gamliel obligates.

Assertion (Ri): The text says "and Chachamim say, whether at the beginning or at the end." It does not say "whether in the middle or at the end", for this would connote the very end of the garment, and there Rabanan agree that he is liable even for one, like we said above (104b)!

However, if the text does not say "in the middle", it is fine, for "at the end" does not mean the very end.

Explanation (Rashba): Even if he is not his Rebbi, he is obligated, like we say (Mo'ed Katan 25a) "did it teach 'his Rebbi died'?! It taught 'a Chacham who died'!"

Consequence: This that it says in Bava Metzi'a (33a) that Rava tore due to [the death of] a man who explained to him Zuhama Listron (a ladle to push aside the froth), this was a tear that may not be sewn back, like the law of a Talmid [who tore] for his Rebbi, like it teaches in Mo'ed Katan (26a).

Explanation: The Gemara understands that this is even if he is not a proper person.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This answer also answers the contradiction about his Mes. It did not say "Ela" because no Amora was mentioned above.

Question (Ri): You are forced to say that both of them discuss his Mes, and not a Stam Mes, like the Beraisa taught above "he fulfilled tearing." If so, it is Melachah she'Tzerichah l'Gufah, since he needs it for the Mitzvah, like is proven below!

Explanation #2 (Ri): This answers only the contradiction about [tearing amidst] his anger, but they do not argue about his Mes. He is exempt for a Stam Mes, for this is Mekalkel, but for his Mes, which is a Mitzvah, this is considered fixing.

Implied question: Below (106a) it connotes that R. Shimon does not consider for the need of a Mitzvah to be fixing, for he learns from Bris Milah and burning a Bas Kohen (who was Mezanah) that Mekalkel b'Chaburah or b'Hav'arah (he destructively wounds or burns) is liable!

Answer #1: There, it is totally Mekalkel, for there is no other need, except for the need of the Mitzvah;

However, tearing is a Tikun of the garment through tearing, for now he can wear it at any time, and there is fury (that is calmed through tearing).

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There, the Tikun comes at the end. At the time of wounding and burning, there is no Hechsher Mitzvah until the finish (until the foreskin is cut, and the molten lead is poured down her throat);

However, here the Tikun comes at the time of tearing, and it is not considered Mekalkel.

Implied question: Now he could have established both of them like R. Yehudah, and our Mishnah is when he did not [tear] in order to instill fear, for even without this, below (106a) we establish [our Mishnah] like R. Yehudah, who exempts Mekalkel b'Chaburah!

Answer: He prefers to establish our Mishnah when he [tore] in order to instill fear, for if it was due to anger, obviously he is exempt!

Explanation: This is because we do not find it written that they cried over [Yehoshua] for 30 days, like it is written about Moshe and Aharon. This is from Tosfos Shantz (Maharshal).