Substantiating Text #1: This is the correct text.

Clarifying Current Text: And that makes up the forty years from the btime that they asked for a king - and the tenth year of Shmuel when they asked or a king is included in the forty years.

The Duration of Shmuel's Leadership (Question): From where do we know that Shmuel led the people for thirteen years?

The Duration of Shmuel's Leadership (Answer): Because when Eli died, the Aron was captured - as the Pasuk writes "And it was when he (the messenger) mentioned the Aron of G-d ... ", and Shmuel was then appointed following the death of Eli ...

Answer (cont.): And the Pasuk writes "And it was when the Aron of Hash-m had been in the field of the P'lishtim for seven months, they brought it to Kiryas Ye'arim, and when David reigned over Yisrael he took it from there and brought it to Yerushalayim, as the Pasuk writes "And David continued further ... " ...

Answer (cont.): And "From the day that the Aron came to rest in Kirya Ye'arim, much time passed, till it turned into twenty years" ...

Answer (cont.): Deduct seven years during which David reigned in Chevron, leaving thirteen years of Shmuel and Shaul, from the time that Eli died and the Aron was captured up until Shaul died and David was crowned in Chevron.

Answer (cont.): Of these Shmuel 'reigned' on his own for ten years, and one of which Shmuel and Shaul reigned e

Answer (cont.): Because the year that Shmuel crowned him did not belong entirely to Shaul, since some of it belonged to Shmuel who was a prince in Yisrael - plus two years during which Shaul reigned alone, during which Shmuel was still alive ...

Proof: Since SHmuel died only four months before Shaul ...

Proof (cont.): Because so it specifically states in Seifer Shmuel - "And Shmuel died ... and it writes "And David said 'In one day I will be caught by Shaul ... '; So he fled to Achish until Shmuel died" ...

Proof (cont.): And then it writes "And the time-period that David remained in the field of the P'lishtim was for months" ...

The Duration of Shmuel's Leadership (cont.): We now have thirteen years of Shmuel and Shaul - from the death of Eli, and thirty-six years when Avshalom rebelled, totaling forty-nine ...

The Duration of Shmuel's Leadership (cont.): Deduct the nine years before they asked for a king, seeing as they only asked in the tenth year - an add the tenth of the forty years, making a total of forty years from the time that they asked for a king up to Avshalom's rebellion - 'up to' and including ....

The Duration of Shmuel's Leadership (concl.): The twelve years that Shmuel reigned on is own plus the one year that Shaul and Shmuel reigned together, the two years that Shaul reigned on his own and the thirty-six years that David reigned.

Question: According to that, the Beraisa in Seider Olam which states that David ha'Melech reigned five years after the rebellion - three years of famine, as the Pasuk writes on Shmuel (2:21) "And there was a famine for three consecutive years" ...

Question (cont.): Plus the year of 'scattering', as it writes there (Ibid. 24) "And they scattered throughout the land and they came at the end of nine months ... " ...

Question (concl.): and another year when he initiated the Mishmaros (the groups of Kohanim in the Beis-Hamikdash), as the Pasuk writes in Divrei Hayamim (1, 26) "In the fortieth year of David, they searched ... " poses a Kashya.

Answer: We must therefore say that the year of the rebellion was also the first year of the famine (See Hagahos ha'G'ra).

Alternatively: Other Sefarim have the text 'The thirty-seven years that David ruled ...

Alternatively (cont.): In which case the famine must have begun a year prior to the rebellion.

Answer (cont.): We must also say that the tenth year of Shmuel, when they asked for a king, is not included in the forty years, and we only need to count the three years of Shaul plus the thirty-seven of David - which make forty.

Text #3: Whereas the Beraisa in Seider Olam, quoting Rebbi Nehora'I, states that the rebellion took place in the thirty-fifth year of David's reign.

Implied Question: And according to that, we will not find forty years from the time that asked for a king until Avshalom rebelled (See footnote).

Alternative Explanation: Regarding the thirteen years of Shmuel's leadership others explain that ...

Alternative Explanation (cont.): All the years of Shmuel's life were firty-two ...

Proof: Because when he was weaned, Chanah brought him to Yerushalayim, at which point presumably he was two, as is the way of feeding mothers ...

Proof (cont.): And the Pasuk writes "And he shall reside there forever" - meaning fifty years, which is the 'Olam' of Yovel ...

Alternative Explanation (cont.): Chanah's Tefilah took place on the day that Eli was appointed - and we take on that he led Yisrael for forty years ...

Alternative Explanation (concl.): Deduct from them the year of the pregnancy of Shmuel, leaving us with thirty-nine years of Eli's leadership - and thirteen of Shmuel's ...

Reason: Because Shmuel was appointment immediately following Eli's death

Source: Since Mar said (in Kidushin, Daf 72b) "The sun will shine and the sun will set" - 'Before the sun of Eli set, the sun of Shmuel rose'.

Conclusion: It now transpires that the leadership of Shmuel began when he was thirty-nine and lasted thirteen years.

Quandary: Rashi does not know to what 'ke'Yotzei bo' refers.

Answer to Quandary: However, this is what the Tana writes in the Toras Kohanim in connection with the Pasuk (in Vayikra 5), written with reference to the Levi'im "And a second bull you shall take as a Chatas" - 'second to the Olah; just as the Olah is not eaten, so too, is this Chatas not eaten ...

Answer to Quandary (cont.): And this Beraisa refers to that one.

Clarification: This conforms to the opinion that holds 'With regard to the Avodah Zarah of a Tzibur, each tribe must bring a Par and a Sa'ir'.

Clarification (cont.): That explains why they bring twelve goats as Chata'os - for the twelve tribes

Question: The Rashba queries the connection between this and 'Meisu Ba'alehah' ...

Question (cont.): Which throughout Shas, speaks where the owner designated a Chatas and then died, whereas here they did not designate anything ...

Question (cont.): So we could say that the Halachah was not said in such a case?

Answer: Rabeinu Nesanel says that since, even though one did not designate he can bring it, we see that there is a Kaparah for Meisim ...

Answer (cont.): In which case, how much more so where one designates an animal and dies afterwards, that it is fit to be sacrificed.

Proof: And this is also implied in the first Perek of Horiyos (Daf 6a), where after saying that there is no Kaparah for Meisim, it cites our Sugya ...

Proof (cont.): Implying that if there would be a Kaparah for Meisim, the children would be obligated to bring the Korban on their behalf - how much more so there where the owner designated the Korban and then died!

Question: The Gemara can also ask according to the opinion that holds 'Tir'eh' - since nobody holds that it can be brought on the Mizbe'ach?

Answer: Since it is not sent to die, it is certainly fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Proof: And so we find in Perek Ho'tzi'u Lo (Yoma, Daf 50a) in connection with what it says about a Par 'Even its blood', on which the Gemara asks 'But it is a Chatas whose owner died? ...

Proof (cont.): And it answers 'Since it also comes to atone for the Tzibur, it is not - Meisu Ba'alehah' - What is the Gemara's answer, seeing as in any event, it requires Re'iyah? ...

Proof (concl.): So we see that if it is not sent to die, it is fit even to go on the Mizbe'ach.

Introduction to Question: Since the Gemara thinks that whoever holds that a Chatas whose owner already attained a Kaparah must die, also holds that a Chatas whose owner died must also die ...

Question (cont.): We can ask on our Mishnah, since nobody argues with the fact that 'A Chatas whose owner dies' speaks specifically about a Yachid and not a Tzibur, yet they still argue over where the owner has been atoned for?

Answer: They are not comparable, because our Mishnah takes for granted that 'A Chatas she'Meisu Ba'alehah does not apply to a Tzibur' only speaks where all the owners died, and not one remains alive ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here the Gemara thinks that some of the owners are still alive, which is why it says that it must be sacrificed.

Clarification: Since they did not have a heart to retrieve what they forgot, and that is what they argued about.

Clarification: What remained and they did not forget they studied diligently like Moshe.