1)

(a)Having established 'Shevu'os' by Malkos, we can assume that the entire Mishnah speaks by Malkos. Based on the Pasuk "Hishamer be'Nega Tzara'as", Malkos will apply to 'Mar'os Nega'im' - if one cuts off the affected spot ...

(b)... thereby transgressing the La'av "Hishamer be'Nega Tzara'as" (in Ki Seitzei).

(c)This Pasuk is a La'av, based on the principle stated by Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Yochanan that - 'Wherever the Torah uses an expression of "Hishamer", "Pen" or "Al", it is a Lo Sa'aseh.

2)

(a)The problem with establishing the source of Malkos by 'Yetzi'as ha'Shabbos' as "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah" is that - this a 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' (the La'av acts as a warning for Misah, and cannot therefore lead to Malkos, in the way that regular La'avin do).

(b)A reminder that the author of our Mishnah is currently Rebbi Yishmael will solve the problem however - because Rebbi Yishmael holds 'La'av she'Nitan le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din, Lokin alav' (as we learned in Makos).

3)

(a)Bearing in mind that, according to Rebbi Yishmael, we just established our Mishnah by Malkos, the problem this creates with the earlier statement that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Akiva, because he holds that one is not Chayav a Korban on 'He'elam Mikdash' is - why we cannot then establish it by Malkos according to him too, by changing 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' to 'Hasra'os di'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' (which we anyway need to do, even according to Rebbi Yishmael).

(b)And we would prefer to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva if we could - because Rebbi Akiva is 'the father' of all S'tam Mishnahs and major S'tam Beraisos.

(c)The problem with the Lashon 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' (even according to Rebbi Yishmael) is that - this implies Shogeg, whereas for Malkos, the Tana ought to have said 'Hasra'os Yedi'as ha'Tum'ah'.

(d)We try to solve the problem - by amending our Mishnah accordingly.

4)

(a)The problem this amendment will now create regarding the Lashon ...

1. ... 'Shetayim she'Hein Arba' is that - in fact, there are only two cases (and not four), since for Hasra'ah (for Malkos), the sinner needs to be aware of both Tum'ah and Mikdash.

2. ... 'es she'Yesh bah Yedi'ah bi'Techilah ... ve'He'elam be'Emtza' is that - if there is a He'elam, then the sinner cannot receive Malkos.

(b)The third problem with the continuation of the Mishnah is - the statement 'Harei Zeh be'Olah ve'Yored', which refutes outright the contention that the Tana is speaking about Malkos and not Korban.

(c)So we re-establish the Mishnah with regard to Korban. To answer our original Kashya (that 'Shevu'os' does not go like Rebbi Yishmael, nor 'Yedi'os', like Rebbi Akiva) - Rav Yosef finally establishes Rebbi as the author of our Mishnah.

(d)When Rav Ashi told Rav Kahana Rav Yosef's conclusion - the latter added that one should not think that Rebbi learned the Mishnah this way only in order to establish it correctly, but that in fact, this is how he actually rules.

5)

(a)To prove his point, Rav Kahana cites a Beraisa, which discusses the two Pesukim "Ve'ne'elam mimenu ve'Hu Tamei" and "Ve'ne'elam mimenu ve'Hu Yada". From ...

1. ... the first Pasuk Rebbi Akiva learns that - one is only Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for He'elam Tum'ah, but not for He'elam Mikdash.

2. ... the second Pasuk, he learns that - one requires a Ha'alamah between two Yedi'os in order to be Chayav.

(b)Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Akiva's second D'rashah. He considers the second Pasuk unnecessary to teach us that - since it is obvious to him that once there has been a Ha'alamah, there must also be a second Yedi'ah. Otherwise, why would the sinner bring a Korban?

(c)He therefore learns from it - that one is Chayav for He'elam Mikdash too, a proof that he holds like Rebbi Yishmael in this point.

6)

(a)By the same token, we assume that Rebbi holds like Rebbi Akiva with regard to 'Shevu'os le'she'Avar'. The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael whether to include 'Shevu'os le'she'Avar' or not is - whether we Darshen the Torah by means of 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' (Rebbi Yishmael) or 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' (Rebbi Akiva).

(b)Had the Torah just written "O Nefesh ki Sishava Levatei bi'Sefasayim Le'hara O Le'heitiv" - Rebbi Akiva would have included whatever is similar to the P'rat ("Le'hara O Le'heitiv").

(c)From the second Ribuy ("le'Chol asher Yevatei ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah") - he now includes Shevu'os le'sha'Avar.

(d)Rebbi Yishmael Darshens the last K'lal to include whatever is similar to "Le'hara O Le'heitiv" (but only in the future, like "Le'hara O Le'heitiv"). Had the Torah only written "O Nefesh ki Sishava Levatei bi'Sefasayim Le'hara O Le'heitiv" - he would have precluded anything that is not 'Le'hara O Le'heitiv', as well as any Shevu'ah in the past.

7)

(a)Bearing in mind that Rebbi holds like Rebbi Akiva with regard to 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy', he Darshens ...

1. ... the Miy'ut ve'Ribuy in the Pasuk in Korach (in connection with what to use when redeeming a B'chor) " ... be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes Shekalim ... Tifdeh" - to include everything.

2. ... the first Ribuy "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh" - to preclude Sh'taros (which have no intrinsic purchasing power).

(b)The Rabbanan Darshen the Pasuk (in the form of a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal') - to preclude from "be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes Shekalim" whatever is not similar to money ...

(c)... incorporating (besides Sh'taros) - 'Karka' (which cannot be transported) and Avadim, who are compared to Karka.

8)

(a)In similar vein, the Pasuk "Ve'lakachta ... es ha'Martze'a ... Ve'nasata be'Ozno" lends itself to the above two interpretations.

1. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah includes a sharp piece of wood, a thorn, a needle, an awl and a style - from the 'Ribuy' of "Ve'lakachta".

2. ... Rebbi precludes anything that is not metal - from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' (since an awl in biblical times was made of wood).

(b)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah precludes from "Martze'a" - things like ointment, which do not pierce by means of a drilling action.

(c)We reconcile the fact that Rebbi Darshens 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' as we just concluded, with ...

1. ... the previous Beraisa, where he Darshened "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh Tifdeh, be'Erk'cha Kesef Chameishes Shekalim" as a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - by citing Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that whenever the two K'lalim are next to each other (like they are here 1. "u'Feduyav mi'ben Chodesh 2. Tifdeh", they are transformed from a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Klal' into a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy'.

2. ... Rebbi himself, who established 'Shevu'os in our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, only because he Darshens 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - by modifying Rav Kahana's statement (that Rebbi actually holds like the two opinions in the Mishnah), confining it to 'Yedi'os ha'Tum'ah' where Rebbi holds like Rebbi Yishmael. He does not however, hold like Rebbi Akiva as regards 'Shevu'os', even though he establishes our Mishnah like him.

(d)Ravina informs us that the Rabbanan who argue with Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael interpret two K'lalim that are next to each other - as an ordinary 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal (like they said in Eretz Yisrael).