Regel #1: That one does not sit in the Sukah ...

Korban: That it does not follow the same pattern as the bulls of Sukos, which ought to have numberede six ...

B'rachah #1: That one says 'Es Yom Shemini Chag ha'Atzeres ha'Zeh'.

B'rachah #2: The Tosefta however, implies that one blesses the king ( in the eighth year after Hakheil), when, commenting on 'B'rachah le'Atzmo', it quotes the Pasuk (in Melachim 1, Chapter 8) "ba'Yom ha'Shemini Shalach es ha'Am va'Yevorchu es ha'Melech" (Rashi).

Refutation: In that case, it does not conform to the Beraisa earlier (Daf 46a), which says that 'Just as Sukos requires Shir, Korban, B'rachah and Linah, so too, does Shemini Atzeres'.

B'rachah #3: Rabeinu Tam explains 'B'rachah' here with reference to Birchas ha'Mazon and Tefilah, like it does earlier ...

Regel #2: And 'Regel bi'Fenei Atzmo' with reference to Linah.

Regel #3: Whereas Rabeinu Chananel explains it with reference to its pushing off Aneilus ...

Source: Based on the Gemara in the last Perek of MO'ed Katan (Daf 19a) - 'If someone who buries his dead seven days before Yom-Tov, the Din of Sheloshim is negated' ...

Source (cont.): And there are times that, despite the fact that there are not seven days before Yom-Tov, of Sheloshim is negated - on account of Shemini Atzeres.

Question: In fact, Rabeinu Tam himself inserted in the Ma'ariv of Shemini Atzeres 'Sacrosanct regarding Linah and it pushes away the Sheloshim, when one comforts the mourners'.

Clarification: One cannot however, explain that it is totally negated ...

Source: Since in the last Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 24b & 25a) the Gemara rules that 'One day before Sikos plus Sukos and Shemini Atzeres adds up to twenty-one days ... '.

Refutation of B'rachah #2:

Shir: With regard to the fact that they sang a complete chapter (of Tehilim), which they did not do on the other days of Sukos, when they sang, not a complete chapter, but half on one day, and half, on the next (Rabeinu Tam) ...

Proof: As the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Chalil (later on Daf 58a), where it gives the sign of 'Humbehi' ...

Conclusion: And Tosfos already explained earlier (on Daf 47a, DH 'Shir') that they sang "Lemnatze'ach al ha'Sheminis".

Clarification: Tefachim, rendering it Pasul (Rashi).

Question: What sort of Shi'ur is four Tefachim, seeing as air of three Tefachim invalidates the Sukah, irrespective of whether it is a large Sukah or a small one, whether it is in the middle of the Sukah or at the side? ...

Source: As is evident in the first Perek (Daf 17a).

Reference: Tosfos already explained this earlier, in Perek ha'Yashein (Daf 29a, See Tosfos DH 've'Amri lah').

Clarification: It is one of the southern gates of the Azarah.)

Source: As we learned in Maseches Midos (Perek 2, Mishnah 6) 'The southern gates starting from the west' - and it reckons the 'Water-Gate' ...

Source (cont.): And the Mishnah explains that it is called 'the Water-Gate', because they brought the jar of water through it for the Nisuch ha'Mayim on Sukos.

Refuted Reason: Not like Rashi exlained - 'In order not to walk further than necessary' ...

Refutation: Because if that were so, then the same would apply even if it took place on the south-eastern corner ...

Authentic Reason: But the reason here is because backtracking is on the right-hand side.

Observation, Mishnah in Zevachim: This Beraisa is actually a Mishnah in Zevachim (Perek Kodshei Kodshim, Daf 63a).

Inference: The Gemara there extrapolates from the words 'When it east side is crowded' its correct location is on the east side.

Question: To extrapolate it from a Diyuk however, is futile ...

Question (cont.): Since the Mishnah there (on Daf 64b) states 'How was the Olas ha'Of brought? He ascended the ramp and turned on to the Sovev until he arrived at the south-eastern corner'.

Introduction to Question: We learned in the Mishnah in Perek Sh'tei ha'Lechem (Menachos, Daf 91b) 'There were two Tables in the Ulam, one of silver, the other of gold ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Upon entering, they placed the Lechem ha'Panim on the silver one, and upon leaving, due to the principle 'Ma'alin ba'Kodesh ve'Lo Moridin', on the golden one ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): Meaning that once they removed it from the golden Table in the Heichal, they were not permitted to take it down and place it on the silver one ...

Question: In that case, here, having drawn the water in a golden jar, how can they pour it into silver basins?

Refuted Answer: And if you suggest that they drew it with a jar that was not sanctified ...

Refutation: That is not correct, because in connection with the barrel that they filled on Erev Shabbos, the Mishnah stated 'she'Einah Mekudeshes', for the reason given in the Gemara (on Daf 49b) ...

Refutation (cont.): Implying that the jar with which they drew on a weekday was sanctified.

Answer: The basins were fixed with lime, in which case they were not Keilim, but part of the body of the Mizbe'ach ...

Precedent: And this is similar to the Levonah, which was placed in a golden dish, and which they then burned on the Mizbe'ach.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is a 'nostril' inside the basin which was hole. Tthe Kohen would pour into the mouth of the basins, and the Nesachim would flow via the nostrils on to the Mizbe'ach ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): On the Mizb'ach was a hole into which the water and the wine flowed - down to the Shitin (foundations) of the Mizbe'ach, which were completely hollow and deep.

Question: This explanation however, is extremely difficult - From where does he take this - that via the nostrils in the basins, it flowed on to the roof of the Mizbe'ach and from there down to the Shitin? ...

Explanation #2: Perhaps it flowed directly from the hole of the basins down to Shitin, like the two nostrils of the nose, and not that they protruded like a kind of nostril? ...

Precedent: Like the Mishnah in Maseches Midos (3:2) in connection with 'blood' - 'And on the south-western corner there were two holes like two nostrils, through which the blood that was sprinkled on the western and southern Y'sodos (bases) descended, to mix in the Amah (the stream that flowed through the Azarah).

Compromise: Maybe there was a sort of protruding nostril formed above the hole ...

Reason: To prevent something from falling on the hole and blocking it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one of the holes was thick ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Implying that one of the holes was wider than the other.

Explanation #2: However the Lashon 'Me'uveh' implies that it was the base of the bowl that was wider, as a result of which the liquid would not flow out so quickly.

Explanation #1: Maybe a snake drank from it, the poison mixed with the water and it transpires that he did not pour the full Shi'ur of water ...

Reason: Seeing as the poison complements the Shi'ur (Rashi).

Explanation #1 (cont.): This explanation is correct according to what the Gemara initially thinks, when it asks (later on Daf 50a) 'Why not pass it through a strainer?' ...

Explanation #2: But according to the Maskana, the reason is because of "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha" (bring it to your princes!)

Explanation #1: That one blows Teki'ah and Teru'ah when drawing the water for Nisuch ha'Mayim.

Explanation #2: It is also possible to explain - from where we know that one must draw from the water of the Shilo'ach, to which it replies 'From the Pasuk (in Yeshayah) "u'She'avtem Mayim be'Sason" (See also Mesores ha'Shas).