Text #1: Rashi changes the text to 'Lehavi Karka Beis Olamim'.

Text #1 (cont.): And he eradicates the words 'Shiloh, Nov and Giv'on' since in Nov and Giv'on Sotos were not given to drink, because their Minchah is a Minchas Yachid which does not have a fixed time (which is not brought on a Bamas Tzibur).

Question: It is difficult to understand why he eradicated those words for this reason ...

Question (cont.): Since Isi ben yehudah may well hold like Rebbi Yehudah, who says in the last Perek of Shechitas Kodshim (Zevachim, Daf 117.) that 'Whatever the Tzibur and a Yachid brought in the Ohel Mo'ed in the desert was brought in the Ohel Mo'ed in Gilgal, the only difference being on a Bamas Yachid on their roofs.

Conclusion: In which case it would be necessary to include Nov and Giv'on, because they were Bamos (Tzibur).

Question: We ask why it is necessary to include the Beis ha'Mikdash, bearing in mind the Gemara in Shevu'os (Daf 16:) that 'Mishkan is called Mikdash and Mikdash, Mishkan', and that, had the Torah written only "es Mishkan Hash-m Timei", Mikdash would automatically be included ...

Question (cont.): So why not say the same here?

Support: Also at the beginning of Masehes Eruvin (Daf 2.), the Gemara learns that 'Shelamim that are Shechted before the doors of the heichal have been opened are Pasul in the Beis ha'Mikdash, because Mikdash is called Mishkan' ...

Support (cont.): Even though "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed" is written in connection with the Mishkan.

Answer #1: According to the text in our Gemaros, we can answer the question in that the we need the Pasuk basically to include Nov and Giv'on, and it only mentions the Beis ha'Mikdash by the way.

Answer #2: Tosfos' Rebbe however, explains that we need to include the Beis ha'Mikdash here, because the Torah writes "Karka", implying specifically where there is earth ...

Answer #2 (cont.): To preclude the Beis ha'Mikdash which has a floor.

Refutation: This is not logical however, since it is from the extra word "Karka" that we include the Beis ha'Mikdash, and had the Torah not written "Karka", we would not have included the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Refutation (cont.): So according to his explanation, it should simply have omitted "Karka" altogether.

Question: One can also ask from Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma, Daf 44.) which quotes a Beraisa which says "And no man shall be in the Ohel Mo'ed", 'We only know about the Ohel Mo'ed in the desert, from where will we know Shiloh and the Beis ha'Mikdash'?

Question (cont.): So we see that neither Shiloh nor the Beis ha'Mikdash are included in 'Ohel Mo'ed'?

Support #1: And similarly the Gemara in Perek Hotzi'u lo (Yoma, Daf 53.) cites Rav Sheishes, who asks that 'We only know the Ohel Mo'd in the desert. From where do we know Shiloh and the Beis ha'Mikdash?' And he answers from "ve'Chisah".

Question: Whereas the Gemara in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 2.) says that 'The Beis ha'Mikdash is included in "Ohel Mo'ed" (of "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed") because the Mikdash is called Mishkan'?

Question: How can one resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yishmael, who holds like Beis Shamai that Eifer is not called Afar.

Question: (cont.): When the She'eilah does not go according to Beis Shamai, but according to Beis Hillel, in which case Eifer would indeed be included in Afar, had the Torah not written "Karka" here?

Question: And if one asks how the Gemara can say 'Tana ve'Shiyer', seeing as the Tana says 'three' ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 16:) in connection with Ha'anakah (providing an Eved Ivri when he leaves) 'And if you will say that here too 'Tana ve'Shiyer', but the Tana says 'four'.

Answer: It is Davka there, where the Tana gets involved in the number, since the Seifa adds that 'One cannot find four in any one of them'.

Answer (cont.): And if the death of her father would also set her free, then we would have four in the case of a woman.

Question: What is the She'eilah, seeing as it is not considered a Shiyur, we can automatically resolve the She'eilah?

Answer: It is not clear as to why the Tana left it out, whether it is for the reason that the Gemara mentioned earlier, or because the Tana omitted it.

Question: Tosfos' Rebbe asks that here the Rabbanan argue with the Tana Kama, whilst in Perek Sheloshah Miynin (Nazir, Daf 38.) the Gemara does not include Metzora in the ten Revi'iyos, from the five white ones, and when the Gemara asks there whether there are no other cases, and cites, among them, our Mishnah here 'He brings the earthenware cup ... '

Question (cont.): To which it answers that the Tana does not involve himself with cases that are a Machlokes.

Question (concl.): But Metzora too, is a Machlokes, yet it inserts it?

Answer: We need to say that the Machlokes here is not comparable to the Mashlokos that it cites there ...

Example #1: Such as 'One person may wash his hands (with a Revi'is), and even two'. And Rebbi Yossi argues there in the first Perek of Maseches Yadayim (Mishnah 1) and says that 'A Revi'is will not suffice for two people'.

Example #2: And such as our Mishnah 'He brought an earthenware cup', where the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Revi'is will not suffice.

Example #3: And likewise, regarding nullifying urine, where, according to the Tana Kama 'A Kol she'Hu will suffice'.

Answer (concl.): Whereas in our case, the Rabbanan agree that less than a Revi'is is out of the question, and that if one wants, one may use a Revi'is, only Lechatchilah, one brings half a Log.

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the fourteenth Perek of Yadayim 'How does one purify a Metzora? One brings a new earthenware cup and pours into it a half a Log of spring-water.

Conclusion: And the Mishnah in Perek 'Sh'tei Midos' (Menachos, Daf 88.) 'What purpose did the Revi'is serve? The Revi'is of water for a Metzora, goes according to Rebbi Yishmael.

Question: Is the blood not recognizable in more than a Reve'is (of water)? Did we not learn in the seventh Perek of Mikva'os (Mishnah 5), and it is cited in a number of locations - in the first Perek of Shechitas Chulin (Daf 36.) and in the first Perek of Makos (Daf 3:) 'Three Lugin of water into which a Kurtuv of wine fell and that has the appearance of wine ... '.

Question (cont.): So we see that even wine is discernable in three Lugin, how much more so blood, which is even redder than wine.

Answer: When the Gemara says 'recognizable', it means in the form of real blood (i.e. it is discernable), and not merely a change of color.

Sugya in Menachos: This also dispels the Kashya that Tosfos' Rebe had from the Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 22.) and in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin, Daf 98:) where Rebbi Yehudah learns that 'Miyn be'Miyno is not Bateil' from the Pasuk (in Chukas) "And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat" ...

Sugya in Menachos (cont.): Even though everyone knows that the blood of a bull exceeds by far, that of a goat - so we see that 'Miyn be'Miyno is not Bateil'.

Sugya in Menachos (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan say that 'Korbanos (exclusively) are not Mevateil each other'.

Question: But here (in our Sugya) where it is a case of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno, and it is obvious that the water exceeds the blood. Nevertheless, the Torah writes "be'Dam ... "?

Answer: Since (as we explained) the blood is distinctly 'recognizable', it is still considered factually there.

Question: According to whom is the Gemara asking? According to Rebbi Yishmael, it is obviously Pasul, seeing as he requires the blood of the bird to be discernable ... .

Question (cont.): Whereas if it is according to the Rabbanan, they are not fussy about being discernable?

Answer: We therefore need to explain that this She'eilah is not in the form of a Safek, but rather a query on Rebbi Yishmael who said that a Revi'is of the bird's blood is always discernable in the water.

Answer (cont.): Because there are times when it is not discernable, where the water dispels the blood - such as where it is a small bird; and there are times when the water is not discernable - where it is a large one.

Answer (concl.): So how can the Rabbanan be so sure that the Shi'ur of the blood of the bird that it is always discernable in a Revi'is of water?

Precedent: Similar to the Gemara in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 13.), where Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira 'Do the Rabbanan kow the difference between a third and less than a third?'

Precedent (cont.): To which the latter replied 'Did I not tell you not to take yourself outside the realm of Halachah (to question the Chachamim's traditions)!'

Question: Tosfos Rebbi asks whether referring to ashes as 'Afar' is really a deviation ...

Proof #1: Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Melachim (2:23) writes in connection with the Bamos that Yoshiyahu burned in Nachal Kidron "and he ground it into dust"?

Proof #2: And similarly the Pasuk in Eikev (Devarim 9), in connection with the Golden Cafl which Moshe destroyed by burning ... "And I ground it finely until it was fine like dust"?

Answer: Those that the burning did not turn ashes via burning, but needed to be ground, are called 'dust', unlike the Parah Adumah, where it was a Mitzvah to burn it into ashes.

Implied Question: Even though, in the event that there were lumps, they would break grind them, as the Sifri says, and as is written in the Mishnah in the third Perek of Parah 'After it has been burned, one beats it with sticks on account of the lumps that did not become ashes'?

Answer: Nevertheless, the basic Mitzvah of burning was to turn it into ashes.

Question: Is that the reason that the Torah changed, but did we not learn in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Chulin, Daf 88:) that it changed, according to Beis Hillel, to teach us that Eifer is called Afar?

Answer: We learn both things from it.