Question: Why does the Gemara say Stam that there are five afflictions? Below, we ask that the Mishnah says that there are six!

Answer: The Stam Gemara did not ask question "what do the five afflictions correspond to." Rather, this is all part of Rav Chisda's words.

Support #1: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (22b). The Gemara asked "how much [must Peros be scattered to permit the finder to keep them]"? R. Yitzchak said "a Kav in four Amos." Afterwards, it asks "if it looks like it fell, even if it is more [dense, the finder should be allowed to keep them]!

Question: If so, what was the question from the beginning "how much?" We can say that it looks like they fell, and there is no limit!

Answer: Rather, R. Yitzchak asked "how much"?

Support #2: We should explain like this also in Bava Basra (22b) regarding "how much [must one distance a window from a wall, lest it block light]? Rav Yeiva answered, the width of the window. (The Gemara later asks that the Mishnah says that he must distance four Amos. If so, why did it initially ask how much? Rather, Rav Yeiva asked.)

Question: This is the text in most Seforim. This is very astounding that we do not bring the verses in the order they are written in the Torah. Rather, they are totally backwards!

Uv'Asor is in Parshas Pinchas, Ach be'Asor...; Shabbos Shaboson is in Parshas Emor, and Shabbos Shaboson...; v'Haysah Lachem is in Acharei Mos, but v'Haysah Lachem is written first (before Shabbos Shaboson)!

Answer: The Gemara brings uv'Asor first, for from it (74b) we learn what is Inuy;

Citation (74b) Suggestion: Perhaps one should sit in the sun, or the cold, and be pained!

Citation (cont.): The Torah says "Kol Melachah Lo Sa'asu..."

This is the verse uv'Asor, which says "v'Inisem Es Nafshoseichem Kol Melachah Lo Sa'asu." Since it is written last, the Gemara brings all the verses in reverse order.

Alternate text: The text in some Seforim is "Shabbos Shaboson Ach be'Asor uv'Asor v'Haysah Lachem." No one can give a reason for this.

Question: Also in the verses, six afflictions are written - two in Acharei Mos, three in Emor, and one in Pinchas!

Answer: We do not count "Kol ha'Nefesh Asher Lo Se'uneh." We count only commands "Ta'anu" and "v'Inisem." Kol ha'Nefesh... is not a command. (It merely tells the punishment.)

Question: In a Beraisa (Kerisus 13b), R. Yehudah does not learn the Gezeirah Shavah. What is his source that drinking is included in eating?

Answer #1: He knows it from logic, like it says in Shevu'os 22b;

Citation: We can learn from a verse, or we can learn from reasoning. We can learn from reasoning, like people say "let's taste something", and they go and eat and drink.

Answer #2: Even though regarding Bi'as Mikdash, he does not learn Shechar Shechar from Nazir, in order to obligate for other intoxicants, regarding Ma'aser Sheni he learns the Gezeirah Shavah;

There, there is a great reason not to learn the Gezeirah Shavah. Regarding Shtuyei Yayin (one who drank wine), it is disgraceful to enter [Hash-m's place] while drunk. People do not do so in front of a mortal king, and all the more so in front of the King, the King of kings, ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu!

Therefore, there is no difference whether he is drunk due to wine, or due to other intoxicants;

Normally, he agrees that we learn from Nazir.

Support #1: Here, according to the opinion that one who ate [intoxicating] figs of Ke'ilis and entered the Mikdash is liable, i.e. R. Yehudah, we conclude that he learns Shechar-Shechar from Nazir;

Inference: R. Yehudah admits here, like I explained.

Support #2: This resolves why we learn from Nazir, and not from the Mikdash, i.e. even other intoxicants!

Rather, we do not learn the Mikdash from elsewhere, nor elsewhere from the Mikdash, for the reason I explained (it is disgraceful), which does not apply elsewhere.

Question #1: Here we conclude that one may not buy Deveilah Ke'ilis with Kesef Ma'aser;

Citation (Eruvin 27b): "B'Yayin" to include buying wine along with the bottle, and b'Shechar to permit buying Temed (water in which grape pits and/or peels were soaked) that fermented;

Citation (ibid.): Both of these are needed. Had the Torah written only b'Shechar, one might have thought [to include only] Deveilah Ke'ilis. (The Torah wrote wine along with the bottle, and all the more so Deveilah Ke'ilis. B'Shechar is extra to teach about Temed that fermented.

Question #2: What is the source there to expound all of these Drashos, i.e. "b'Yayin" to permit buying wine along with the bottle, b'Shechar to permit buying Temed that fermented, b'Bakar [to permit buying cattle] along with the hide, and b'Tzon [to permit buying sheep or goats] along with the shearings?

We need to expound from them Kelalim and Peratim! At the very least, two of them are needed, one to teach about living beings, and one for things that are not living;

Had the Torah written only Yayin v'Shechar, one might have thought that one may buy only things that truly grow from the ground;

Had the Torah written only Bakar v'Tzon, one might have thought that one may buy only living beings, like it says in Kidushin (17a) regarding gifts that one gives to an Eved Ivri when he goes free.

Answer: There, we do not expound from b'Yayin v'Shechar uv'Bakar uv'Tzon, rather, from the prefix 'Beis' of these words. The Torah could have written Yayin v'Shechar Bakar v'Tzon.

Support: This explains our Sugya. Deveilah Ke'ilis is not included in Shechar. (However, since we learn from the Beis, this is not difficult.)

Question: Why do we need [a Beis] to include Deveilah Ke'ilis? We should include it because it is like the Prat, i.e. it is a Pri (something that reproduces) from a Pri, and grows from the ground!

Answer: Perhaps it is not proper to eat, so it is not considered Pri so much.

Question: Here we ask that perhaps [Shechar] is Deveilah Ke'ilis. We should answer that we already know this from wine, which one may buy along with the bottle, like it says in Eruvin 27b!

Answer: The question was proper. If we learn from wine, which one may buy along with the bottle, we should say that one may not buy Deveilah Ke'ilis by itself from Kesef Ma'aser, only if it is bought b'Havla'ah (with something else that one may buy with Kesef Ma'aser), similar to wine with its bottle.

Support: Eruvin 27b connotes that everything we include through expounding "Beis"im may not be bought by itself, rather, only b'Havla'ah.

The Gemara asked [here] "perhaps Shechar itself refers to Deveilah Ke'ilis, and one may buy it by itself, without Havla'ah."

Question: Why don't we learn that drinking is included in eating from the fact that it says "b'Shechar", and we expound from this Temed that fermented, and the Torah says "v'Achalta"?

Answer #1: One eats it through Anigron (which is a food).

Answer #2: V'Achalta applies only to the verse itself, but not what we include due to expounding the "Beis"im.

Support: Eating does not apply to wine along with its bottle, cattle with its hide, or Tzon with its shearings.

Question: When we learn Shechar-Shechar from Nazir, that Shechar is wine, what is the source that drinking is included in eating? Perhaps it discusses congealed wine that comes from Senir, therefore it says v'Achalta!

Strengthening of Question: Sukah (12a) asks like this regarding the general rule [of what is Kosher for Schach. Perhaps Yekev refers to congealed wine of Senir!]

Answer #1: Perhaps it is not proper to eat. Rather, one must soak it in water and drink it.

Answer #2: Also, [if so] what is the Chidush of the verse? (It already permits wine!)

Answer #3: We learn from Nazir. Just like there, all kinds of wine are forbidden, for it says "mi'Kol Asher Ye'aseh mi'Gefen...", the same applies to Shechar here.