Implied Question: The Torah never states, "If you slept," but rather only states, "If you did not sleep." (Note: How, then, can our Gemara say that the Pasuk, "If you slept" is on the tablet upon which is written the Parshah of Sotah?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara is referring to the Pasuk afterwards, "And you, that you went away (from your husband to someone else)."

Question: This is difficult. The Pasuk states, "And he took the Sefer ha'Bris, and he read it in the ears of the people." Rashi explains in his commentary on Chumash that this is referring to Breishis until what was currently written in the Torah. (Note: This clearly shows that the Torah was given over in sections!)

Answer: It appears that "it was given sealed" does not mean it was not written until the end (when it was all written at once). Rather, it was written in order. There are some Parshiyos that were said before those that are written before them. These were not written before the Parshiyos that were written before them were recorded (even though they were stated first), and only then were the next Parshiyos recorded.

This is why the Gemara quotes from Rebbi Levi, as the Parshiyos he mentions were not said in order.

Implied Question: The Gemara also could have proved this from many Pesukim where it is clear that there is not necessarily chronological order in the Torah's order of Parshiyos. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara do so?)

Answer: However, because there is a statement of Rebbi Levi that communicates this, it brought his statement.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam has the text, "Rebbi Levi says," indicating that Rebbi Levi is not being quoted in (direct) connection to our Gemara. (Note: This is in contrast with our Gemara that clearly connects Rebbi Levi's statement to our discussion.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the Gemara is referring to the people who were impure (and wanted to bring a Korban Pesach, leading to the Parshah if Pesach Sheini).

Question#1: There is a difficulty with his opinion. The Gemara in Pesachim (6a) says that one asks about the laws of Pesach thirty days before Pesach. This is apparent from the fact that the prophet (Moshe Rabeinu) stood up by the first Pesach, and warned about the laws of Pesach Sheini (by saying this Parshah). Accordingly, the Gemara should have said that one should inquire one and a half months beforehand, as Moshe was saying this on Rosh Chodesh Nisan (as stated in our Gemara).

Question#2: Additionally, this cannot be correct according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who says that the people referred to in this Parshah carried the coffin of Yosef. It also cannot be correct according to Rebbi Yitzchak who says that they became impure to a Mes Mitzvah, and their seventh days was on Erev Pesach. (Note: There is much discussion in the Acharonim regarding what exactly Tosfos is asking on Rashi, as this seems to be an argument based within the Gemara (in Sukah 25a-b) itself.)

Opinion#2: It appears that the Parshah discussed here is the Parshah of "va'Yinazru" (Vayikra 22:2) which states the impurity of Sheratzim, animals improperly slaughtered, and required knowledge regarding people who make the Mikdash and its Kodshim impure.

Question: The Bereishis Rabah (Parshah 44) quotes an argument regarding the definition of "Achar" -- "After" these things, Hash-m's word came to Avram" (Bereishis 15:1). One opinion says that the word "Achar" means immediately afterwards, while "Acharei" means a long time after. Another opinion states that the opposite is true. This first opinion is clearly difficult, as according to our Gemara it was said on the same day as the sons of Aharon died (using the word "Acharei Mos Shnei Bnei Aharon").

Answer: Perhaps it was stated after all of these (seven) other Parshiyos (stated on this day). This is why a term meaning "after awhile" was used.

Explanation: The Medrash (Shemos Rabah in Parshas Ki Sisa, Parshah 47) explains the Pasuk, "Like a stranger they were considered" in the following manner. The Nochrim copied the Torah. If everything was written for Bnei Yisrael, the Nochrim would copy all of it. This is why the Torah says, "Will I write for him most of My Torah? What I did write for them, like a stranger they were considered" meaning that Nochrim copied what I did write.

Rashi explains the Gemara differently.

Question#1: Rashi's opinion that they used to blow the Shofar on Erev Shabbos is difficult. In Shabbos (35b), the Gemara implies that the caretaker of the synagogue would put it on top of the roof. (Note: Our Gemara says they would put in the house of an important Rabbi.)

Question#2: Additionally, Rav Yehudah was in Pumbedisa and Rava in Mechuza. (Note: Why would the Shofar of one city be in a house of someone, no matter how great, who lived in a different city?)

Answer: Rather, it appears that the correct explanation is the second explanation quoted by Rashi. This explanation is that "shofar" refers to a (charity) box where people placed donations for the (Yeshiva) students.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that this was in order that people should not say that because they suspect him of stealing the bread of the Eiruv, the bread is not placed there. However, there was no suspicion when the charity box was moved, as it is known that it is put by the Rosh Yeshiva in order that he can distribute the monies contributed to the students.

Explanation: Even if the river is a small river, and its waters eventually stop, anyone who wants may take water from it, as the river runs naturally (as opposed to when a dam is made).

Answer#1: (Note: Tosfos is bothered why the rule that the law is like Shmuel in monetary matters is not used in this case.) Rav Huna does not hold of this rule stated in Bechoros (49b) that the law follows Shmuel in monetary matters and Rav in matters of prohibition.

Answer#2: Alternatively, (though he does hold of this rule) Rav's reasoning is very compelling in this case, even though his explanation of the Mishnah is somewhat forced.

Explanation: (Note: Tosfos is bothered by Rav Simi's actions. How could he have justified doing this?) He (Rav Simi) held that because the law is that whoever is stronger wins, he is allowed to trick them.

His application of this here was incorrect. In any event, the people by the middle of the stream clearly do not have first rights. The ruling that, "whoever is stronger wins," is regarding the people at the top and bottom of the stream.

Explanation: This was to show that Rav Simi did what he did without Abaye's consent.

Perhaps he sold them, as there is no real theft here. The matter is merely one of maintaining the peace.

Opinion#1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that Abaye told this to the people at the top, that they cannot protest because the law is that whoever is stronger wins.

There is a slight implication that this is true, as he was talking to them. (Note: Tosfos means that the natural give and take in the Gemara implies he was talking to them.)

Opinion#2: However, it still appears that Rashi is correct, and that Abaye was talking to the people of Chermeich. He was telling them to close their diversion. This case would (according to Rashi) not be like Rav and Shmuel's case at all.

Implied Question: This is unlike the law that one must distance his fishing nets from someone else's fishing area, as stated in Bava Basra (21b). (Note: How is our Mishna different from that law?)

Answer: The Gemara there is talking about a case where the other person is a fisherman for a living. Another person therefore must distance himself from his fishing area, as he could otherwise tell them that they are ruining his livelihood. However, the Mishnah here is talking about a case where nobody involved does this for a living. It is therefore only stealing due to the need to maintain peace.