Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah mention the afternoon Tamid?

Answer: Perhaps it is because it was mentioned already in the Reisha in R. Akiva's words.

Implied question: Why doesn't it teach to light the Neros, which was in the afternoon? Hatavah (putting in fresh oil and wicks) was in the morning!

Answer: Perhaps this Mishnah was taught in the days of Shimon ha'Tzadik, and also the Mishnah in Tamid (33a);

Citation (33a - Mishnah): The one who merited Dishun ha'Menorah entered and found the two eastern Neros burning. He was Medashen the others and left these.

It was like this in the days of Shimon ha'Tzadik;

If he found that they extinguished, e.g. after Shimon ha'Tzadik died, he is Medashen it (the Menorah)...

If so, in the days of Shimon ha'Tzadik, the two eastern Neros burned until the afternoon, and first he needed to fix them, and afterwards light them.

This is why the Mishnah says Leheitiv Es ha'Neros, and not Lehadlik Es ha'Neros, because he fixed them first, like I explained.

Reference: Above (32a DH v'Iy) I explained this.

Observation: The Gemara did not suggest that it is Kanvus (hemp), which also comes up in stalks [without branches].

Inference (R. Efrayim): What we call hemp is flax, and one may not sew it in wool garments.

Rebuttal (R. Chaim Kohen): The Gemara did not suggest that it is hemp because it says "Begadim", and all Stam Begadim in the Torah are wool or linen.

Question (Ritzva): This is like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who holds like this;

According to Rabanan who disagree, and obligate all garments (i.e. of all materials), how can we answer?

Suggestion: All hold like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael [that Stam Begadim are wool or linen]. Only regarding Tzitzis, [Rabanan] obligate all garments from "ka'Kanaf" - (put on Tzitzis of) the same material as the corner.

Rejection: If so, what was the question (Yevamos 4b) that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael holds unlike Rava? What is the source to say so?

Suggestion: It is because [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] says in Shabbos (26b) "also every [Stam Beged in the Torah] is wool or linen." We conclude there that this is needed to teach about Tzitzis (i.e. other materials are exempt. Since Rava obligates other materials, he has no use for this Klal!)

Rejection: We can say that he needs "also every [Stam Beged] is wool or linen" to include Kil'ayim!

Implied question: It explicitly says regarding Kil'ayim "Tzemer u'Pishtim"! (We do not need the Klal.)

Answer: We can say that "also every..." makes "Tzemer u'Pishtim" free (so we can expound the Semichus to Tzitzis to teach that the Mitzvah of Techeiles overrides the Isur of Kil'ayim). At that step, we still did not know that it is free due to a Gezeirah Shavah from "Sha'atnez-Sha'atnez", until the conclusion.

Note: This defends the rejection of the suggestion. Rava could use the Klal to make Tzemer u'Pishtim regarding Kil'ayim free.

Explanation (of the question in Yevamos): Rather, we must say that "ha'Kanaf" means the garment. It is as if it wrote "ha'Beged". Therefore, we ask that Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael must hold unlike Rava;

Explanation (continued): If it were true that he (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) obligates all garments in Tzitzis due to "ha'Kanaf", which is extra, why does it say that the Torah taught explicitly regarding one of them Tzemer u'Pishtim, also all of them are Tzemer u'Pishtim?

Rather than learning from Tzara'as that [a Stam Beged] is wool or linen, we should learn Tzitzis, regarding which it says "ha'Kanaf", which is as if it wrote "ha'Beged", and it applies even to other Begadim!

Implied question: Perhaps this is like "Oh Beged." We include other garments from the extra "Oh" written regarding Sheratzim, even according to Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael in Shabbos.

Even so, we didn't ask why Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns from Tzara'as, and not from Sheratzim to include even other garments! (Likewise, we didn't ask why Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learns from Tzara'as, and not from Tzitzis to include even other garments.)

Answer: There, regarding Sheratzim, "Beged" connotes only Tzemer u'Pishtim. We include other garments due to "Oh". Therefore, we cannot learn from Sheratzim to Stam Begadim written in the Torah, and say that all garments are included.

However, here, ha'Kanaf is like ha'Beged. If [Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael] agrees to Rava's Drashah, he should learn from ha'Kanaf that whenever it says Beged Stam, all garments are included.

Answer: According to what we explained in Zevachim, that from every flax seed one stalk comes up, but not two stalks from one seed, this is good;

We could not have asked "perhaps it is hemp", for the Gemara knew that several [hemp] stalks come from one seed. Riva derived all this.

Implied question: Just the contrary, we should learn as follows. Just like there (the Paroches), each string is six-fold, also here (the Rimonim), so there are 18 in all (since there are three materials) and no more!

Answer #1: We learn Mashzar from Mashzar there. Just like there, the Shezirah (twining together) is 24 [strings], also here it is 24.

Answer #2: If there were only 18 [in the Rimonim], why would we need an extra "Shesh" for the Me'il, about which it does not say Shesh, to teach that each string is six-fold?

We can learn this from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Techeiles-Techeiles" from the Paroches. Just like there, there are six Techeiles threads, also the Me'il, which is totally Techeiles, each string is six-fold.

Implied question: We could have asked like we ask below (72a), just the contrary, we should learn from the bottom (Rimonim, which have eight-fold strings of each kind)!

Answer: We could not ask, for [in this Hava Amina], each string [each kind in the Rimonim] is only six-fold.