Explanation#1: Rashi implies that this Pasuk is in Parshas Terumah. Originally, the Gemara pushed it aside by saying that Avnei Shoham interrupted (between the need for the items to come from Bnei Yisrael and Avnei Milu'im). The Gemara then asks that the Pasuk says, "v'Avnei Milu'im," implying that it is connected to what was stated previously regarding the Avnei Shoham (the words stated beforehand) that it must be taken by Jews.

Question#1: This is difficult. Do we think that after the Pasuk says, "Avnei Shoham" it will never again say a Vav at the beginning of a word?

Question#2: It is additionally difficult to say that this is called mixing the Pesukim together. In Shevuos (10a), the Mishnah says that Rebbi Meir says that all of the goats (brought by the public on Yom Tov) have the same atonement. This is derived in the Gemara from the fact that the Pasuk says, "And a goat." The Gemara asks, what about Shevuos and Yom Kippur where the Pasuk does not say, "And a goat?" What is the question? Being that Sukkos, which is discussed after Yom Kippur, does have the word "and a goat," this should be considered as if the topic is continued!

Explanation#2: It therefore appears that this incident involving Dama ben Nesinah was not involving the Avnei Shoham, but rather involved the Avnei ha'Choshen. [It should be noted that the Lechem Starim understands that Tosfos is explaining Rashi, rather than arguing on him.]

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara says that they sought out stones for the Eifod. (What could the Gemara mean besides these stones, which were on the Eifod?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that being that the Choshen is connected to the Eifod, it is also called the Eifod.

Answer (cont.): This is also implied by the Yerushalmi in Pei'ah, which quotes the incident of Dama ben Nesinah regarding another incident where someone once lost the stone in the Choshen that was in the spot of Binyamin (there were slots for all of the tribes).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara here asks as follows. Doesn't the Pasuk say, "Avnei Milu'im" and then proceed to mix it together with the previous laws? The Vav of v'Avnei Milu'im is seemingly meant to derive that it is included in the word "va'Yikchu" - "and it should be taken" from Bnei Yisrael.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara in Shevuos (10a) is now understandable. Being that the Pasuk says, "and a goat" regarding Sukos, we should say the Torah includes Sukos, not Yom Kippur.

Text: Rabeinu Chananel has the text, "Doesn't v'Avnei go back and mix the topic?" According to him, this is referring to the Parshas Va'Yakhel, where the Pasuk says, "Take from you Terumah" and it also says, "And Avnei Shoham and Avnei Milu'im" both words with Vavin, without an interruption (similar to Rashi's explanation, but involving a different Pasuk).

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked from the statement that Rebbi Eliezer said all Korbanos are invalid if brought from animals of Nochrim. This implies he suspects that they have relations with their animals. (Why didn't it quote this as proof?)

Answer: Rather, it was better for the Gemara to quote his position from this incident that the Gemara is discussing.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask, perhaps a yoke went on her mother, and this should be considered as her and her mother carrying a yoke together (making it invalid). (Why doesn't the Gemara ask this question?)

Answer: If it would ask this question, we would not have any red heifer that did not have a yoke go on its mother, as the Mishnah in Parah (2:4) says, if a male (ox) had relations with it, it is invalid. (Being that a red heifer is a rarity that is born from normal cows, people would not know that they should separate the mother cow from male cows before the red heifer is born.)

Explanation: This (Rebbi Eliezer's statement) is not necessarily referring to all animals that are invalid to be brought as a Korban.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that an Esnan cannot be brought as a Korban, and yet we say in Bava Kama (66a) that both according to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel the offspring of an Esnan may be brought as a Korban. There is no reason to say that Rebbi Eliezer argues on them.

Question: This is difficult. Why don't we say that one would have to watch the father of the animal as well, as according to Rebbi Eliezer we say that both parents (i.e. animals) contribute to the status of the offspring in order to forbid it?

Answer: The reason that an animal that had relations with a person is forbidden to be used as a Korban is because it is denigrating, as stated in Temurah (30b). For this reason we say that if the animal had relations with a person when it was a regular animal it is permitted to be used as a Korban, because it has now changed status (to Kodshim) and it is therefore no longer denigrating. Accordingly, if the father had relations with a person it is not obvious in its offspring, and there is therefore no denigration. (It can therefore be used as a Korban.)

Question: If so, Tziporah, the wife of Moshe, only arrived to the camp of Bnei Yisrael after the giving of the Torah. This proves difficult to reconcile with the Gemara in Yevamos (62a). The Gemara says that Moshe Rabeinu did three things on his own, and Hash-m agreed to them. One of these things was that he separated from his wife. How can the Gemara say this if his wife was never there anyway?

Answer: Hash-m put it in his heart to separate from his wife (when she would arrive, even though he did not have to actually do so before Matan Torah).

Question#1: According to the opinion that Yisro came before Matan Torah, Moshe's statement to Yisro (regarding judging the nation), "And I will tell (the people) Hash-m's laws and his Torah," is difficult. The Torah had not been given yet!

Question#2: Additionally, Rashi's explanation in Yisro is difficult. He says that Moshe did not have time to judge Bnei Yisrael until the day after Yom Kippur. (This apparently cannot be according to the opinion Yisro came before Matan Torah.)

Answer: It appears that the entire first Parshah of Yisro was said before Matan Torah (according to this opinion). However, the end of the Parshah certainly was not said until after Matan Torah. Being that the Torah discusses Yisro arriving, it discusses everything that happened to him until he went back to his land.

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion that he arrived after Matan Torah, it is still slightly difficult to understand why this Parshah is stated here. (It should have been stated after the Aseres Ha'Dibros, not before the giving of the Torah!)

Answer: It must be that because the Torah related the story of Amalek being the first one to attack Bnei Yisrael, it also relates the story of Yisro immediately afterwards, as he was the first one to be kind to Bnei Yisrael by giving them good advice.

Explanation: There is therefore no reason to suspect the Nochri had relations with it (before it is three years old). This is coming to answer the question that our Mishnah (22a) seems to contradict the Beraisa that one can purchase animals for Korbanos from Nochrim according to the Rabbanan.

Explanation (cont.): According to Rebbi Eliezer, we even suspect that a Nochri has relations with an animal that is two years old. This is apparent from the fact that a Parah Adumah is only two years old, and he suspects that a Nochri had relations with it. Moreover, Rebbi Eliezer ruled that one cannot any animals purchased from Nochrim for any Korbanos. This implies even those that are only one year old.

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan, how can it be permitted to purchase an animal from a Nochri that is less than three for a Korban? We should suspect that the Nochri had relations with the mother of the animal when it was pregnant, causing the mother and this animal to both be considered as having had relations with a man!

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rebbi Yochanan is basing himself on his reasoning in Yevamos (78a) that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother (in other words, the fact that a Nochri had relations with the mother does not mean it had relations with the fetus).

Explanation: Before it is three years old, the animal certainly did not give birth.

Question: This is difficult. We see everyday that cows that are two years old give birth!

Answer: Certainly the nature of animals has changed from the earlier years.

Proof: This is akin to the Gemara in Chulin (47a) that discusses a small soft rose-colored lobe of lung in animal. The Gemara commented (that Rav Ashi was going to say the animal was a Treifah but) Rav Huna said that all animals that graze in the dust (far away) have these types of lobes. This implies that the ones that do not graze far away do not have these lobes. However, we see today that all of our animals have these types of lobes!

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is called "an orphaned psalm" because the name of its composer is not mentioned.

Question: This is difficult, as there are many psalms in Tehilim where the author is not mentioned, such as Mizmor l'Sodah (#100) and Mizmor Shir l'Yom ha'Shabbos (#92)!

Explanation#2: It appears that the explanation for this is because it does not state why it is said. Mizmor l'Sodah is clearly composed to be said when bringing a Korban Todah (or giving thanks). Similarly, Mizmor Shir l'Yom ha'Shabbos has a clear purpose (for Shabbos).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Yoshev b'Seiser Elyon (#91), Ashrei ha'Ish (#1), and Hash-m Malach Gei'us Lavesh (#93) also have no clear purpose. (If these do not have a stated purpose, how can our Gemara say Mizmor Shiru etc. is the orphaned Mizmor?)

Answer: Mizmor Shiru is the only one of these that start with Mizmor. (Accordingly, it is "the orphaned Mizmor.")