Explanation: Because the Simchah was comparable to that of Sinai - where the Torah was given with fire.

Precedent: And a similar thing occurred in the Medrash - concerning the incident with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, when they were siting at a Se'udah, and a fire burned around them (Refer to Mesores ha'Shas, notes ע & ס ,נ.

Clarification of Text (here): The text reads 'Hilch'sa' - in the singular, since it is only one case that is Halachah, an no more.

Clarification of Text (in Nidah): Whereas at the beginning of 'N'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 32a) in connection with 'I only know a woman', it mentions the plural ...

Reason: Because the Gemara's initial doubt is which of the two cases there is Halachah.

Question #1: In the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 4b) where it says 'We only know if a man is Ma'arich, but from where do we know if a woman is Ma'adich?'

Question #2: And in Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 66a) in connection with 'Someone who curses his father and mother', where the Gemara needs to come on to "Ish Ish" to include a woman ...

Question #2 (cont.): Since it Darshens it from the fact that the Torah repeats the word "Ish", since 'One Miy'ut after another comes to include'.

Question #3: And similarly in Perek Nigmar ha;Din (Sanhedrin, Daf 46b) - which precludes a woman from the Din of hanging, since the Torah writes "Ish" ...

Conclusion: And (in all these cases) we do not say 'Hishveh ha'Kasuv Ishah le;Ish'?

Answer: It is only concerning a Parshah that is written in the masculine that we apply 'Hashveh ha'Kasuv Ishah le'Ish', since it is in that context that the Gemara quotes it at the beginning of Temurah and here in connection with 'Ezrach'.

Answer (cont.): But whene the Torah writes "Ish" it comes to preclude a woman.

Question: In Perek Shor she'Nagach Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Bava Kama, Daf 44b) the Gemara states that 'Shor, Shor Shiv'ah' comes to include an ox belonging to a woman in the Din of asn ox that kills' ...

Question (cont.): Even though the Pasuk there does not write "Shor Ish", only "ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas"

Answer #1: Perhaps there is an extra word there from which we would have precluded the ox of a woman, were it not for the fact that the Torah includes it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since we Darshen in Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Ibid., Daf 44a) 'Negichah le'Misah, Negichah le'Nizakin', we would have learned Misah from Nizakin, where the Torah writes "Ki Yigach Shor Ish", in this regard too (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Clarification: Because the Gemara thinks that "Yisrael" would otherwise preclude Geirim.

Precedent #1: And similarly, we find in Perek Kol ha'Menachos (Menachos, Daf 61b & 62) in connection with 'Tenufah', when the Gemara says 'We only know B'nei Yisrael", from where do we know Geirim and Avadim Meshuchrarim (who have been set free)? Therefore the Torah writes "ha'Makriv" ...

Precedent #2: And in Perek ha'Areil (Yevamos, Daf 44b & 45a), and at the end of the first Perek of Kerisus (7b) "Speak to the B'nei Yisrael, a woman who becomes pregnant ... ".

Precedent #2 (cont.): We only know B'nei Yisrael; from where do we know a Giyores and a Shifchah Meshuchreres? Therefore the Torah writes "Ishah".

Question #1: In Perek Eilu hein ha'Nechenakin (Sanhedrin, Daf 86a & 86b) in connection with 'Someone who kidnaps', the Gemara Darshens "B'nei Yisrael" to preclude someone who is half an Eved and half free, but not an Eved who is fully Meshuchrar?

Question #2: And similarly, in Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 34a) 'B'nei Yisrael who are Zavim render Tamei, but not Nochrim - but it does not preclude Geirim and Meshuchrarim?

Question #3: And likewise in Perek Sh'tei Midos (Menachos, Daf 93a & 93b) 'B'nei Yisrael perform Semichah (on their Korban), but not Nochrim' - but Geirim and Meshuchrarim do? ...

Question #4: And in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 5b) 'B'nei Yisrael Ma'arichin ve'Ein ha'NOchrim Ma'arichin'?

Answer: Presumably, in all these cases there is some Ribuy that comes to include Geirim and Meshuchrarim.

Clarification: A child who no longer needs his mother ...

Implied Question: Even though the Mishnah specifically states that ...

Answer: It is the way of the Gemara to nevertheless ask and answer in this way.

Precedent #1: Similarly, in the first Perek of Chagigah (on Daf 4a & 4b), the Gemara Darshens "Kol Zechurcha" to include Ketanim, and on the Kashya from the Mishnah 'Chutz me'Chashu, it answers that the Beraisa is referring to a Katan who has reached the age of Chinuch ...

Precedent #1 (cont.): Which is equivalent to the Mishnah there 'Whoever is not capable of holding his father's hand and going up to Yerushalayim to the Har ha'Bayis' and whoever is, is considered as having reached the age of Chinuch ...

Precedent #1 (concl.): Because the Makshan thought that the Beraisa is coming to include every Katan, because, since the Pasuk speaks S'tam ("Kol Zechurcha"), it includes them all.

Precedent #2: And likewise at the beginning of 'B'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 32a & 32b), where, if not for the Halachah that a three-year old girl is subject to Bi'ah, we would have included even one who is one day old, since the Torah writes S'tam "Ishah".

Conclusion: It transpires that 'reached the age of Chinuch' that is mentioned everywhere is different in each instance, all depending on the context ...

Example #1: Because here it means that the Katan no longer needs his mother ...

Examples #2 - #5: Whereas by Chagigah it means that he is able to go up (to the Har ha'Bayis); at the end of Lulav ha'Gazul (later, Daf 42a) in connection with Lulav - that he knows how to shake it; by Tzitzis - that he knows how to wrap himself in them, and by Torah (study) - when he knows how to speak.

Clarification: Rava too, who gives a different reason, in connection with 'People who stand guard at gardens, cited earlier (on Daf 26a), does not argue with this Beraisa, as Tosfos explained there (DH 'Pirtzah ... ').

Clarification: To explain the reason of th Mishnayos - which is called Gemara. And the Gemara queries this from (Rava's statement) 'Explaining the Mishnah - outside the Sukah', since it requires thought and a more spacious/airy enviroment?

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara replies that one can learn Gemara without 'Iyun' (depth), such as 'Such a thing is Asur or Mutar', whereas delving into the reasons is preferably done outside the Sukah.