Source: The Gematriya of "Lo" is thirty-six.

Clarification: They made for him a large Hesped, as the Gemara explains in Megilah (Daf 3a & 3b) where, commenting on the Pasuk "Like the Hesped of Hadrimon ben Tavrimon", it cites the Targum - "Like the Hesped of Achav ben Omri, whom Hadrimon ben Tavrimon killed"

Clarification (cont.): And this took place in wartime, where many people were present, and they all mourned for him.

Implied Question: And even though the Pasuk writes in Melachim (1, 22) "And there was jubilation in the camp"? ...

Answer: ... that referred to the Tzadikim of the generation, whereas his servants and friends eulogized him.

Implied Question #1: Even though in the last Perek of Mo'ed Katan (Daf 25a) in connection with Rav Huna ('s death), it seems that it is forbidden to do this ...

Implied Question #2: ... and in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos, Daf 32b) the Amora'im argue over whether it is permitted or not ...

Answer: ...C hizkiyah was different, inasmuch as he was exceptionally great in Torah and in good deeds.

Explanation: So we see, explains Rashi, that deeds are greater.

Question: On the contrary, asks Rabeinu Tam, the Gemara at the end of the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 40b & 41a) extrapolates that learning is greater than deeds ...

Question (cont.): ... in connection with the elders who were reclining in the attic of Beis Nitzeh in Lod, when the She'eilah was put to them - 'Which is greater, Limud or Ma'aseh'. And they took a count and came to the conclusion that 'Limud is greater since it leads to deeds.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains as follows: 'Did Mar not say that Limud leads to deeds? And since we say 'Kiyem', we are automatically saying that he learned, because if he had not learned, how could he have performed deeds, seeing as 'Limud leads to Kiyum'?

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and it has not yet occurred to the Gemara to distinguish between learning and teaching.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And the Gemara answers 'that it is speaking with regard to teaching' - which one definitely do not mention, seeing as teaching, is definitely greater than deeds, since it leads many people to perform deeds when one teaches them.

Different Text: The She'iltos de'Rav Acha'i Ga'on however, does not have the text 'Kiyem Amrinan, Limed Lo Amrinan' ...

Different Text: (cont.): ... only 'He (Rebbi Yochanan) lay Tefilin and then taught us', and no more.

Explanation #3: The Gemara then asks how he could lay Tefilin before teaching the Shi'ur, bearing in mind that learning is greater than deeds?

Explanation #3 (cont.): And it answers 'One refers to learning, the other to teaching` Learning for oneself is indeed greater than deeds, but teaching others is not ...

Explanation #3 (concl.): ... which explains why he put on Tefilin first.

Connection: It refers to the Mishnah in the first Perek (Daf 15b).

Question: If it refers to the beginning of the Mishnah, it ought to have begun with 'Keitzad ha'Shen Mu'edes', whereas if it continues from where it left off, then the Mishnah there ends with 'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak, ve'ha'Adam'?

Answer: The Ri explains that it definitely refers to the beginning of the Mishnah, and that 'Shen' and 'Regel', whose Halachos are the same, and which we learn from the same Pasuk, are considered as one ...

Reason: ... and the Tana begins with Regel, because it learns it there after Shen, so it begins here from where it left off there.

Text #1: Some texts read 've'ha'Beheimah', with a 'Vav'.

Explanation: ... and what the Beraisa means is - 'What is the Ha'ada'ah of Regel? To break things as it walks'. In other words it is the way it walks that makes it a Mu'ad.

Extends to Shen: ... and the same format applies with regard to 'Shen'.

Question: The Ri queries this however, in that What is the Tana teaching us here that we did not already learn in the first Perek?

Text #2: The Ri therefore explains that we do not read it ('ha'Beheimah') with a 'Vav' ...

Explanation: ... and what the Tana means is 'Keitzad ha'Reegel Mu'edes Regel Leshaber Derech Hiluchah?' - with reference to what it learned in the first Perek (on Daf 15b), where it said 'ha'Beheimah Mu'edes ... '?

Implied Question: The Gemara is nevertheless justified in asking 'Haynu Regel, Haynu Beheimah?' ...

Answer: ... seeing as 'ha'Regel Mu'edes' and 'ha'Beheimah Mu'edes' are one and the same.

Clarification: It mentions it here because it is equivalent to 'Tzeroros'.

Refutation of Implied Question: The Ri explains that the Tana sees fit to mention it ...

Reason: ... because we would otherwise have thought that it is Meshuneh, because, since it trod so hard on the K'li that it shot up and broke another vessel, we can assume that it damaged intentionally.

Implied Question: Even though the Tana already learned in the Reisha that even chickens are Mu'ad ...

Answer: ... he is nevertheless happy to repeat the Halachah with regard to 'Shen' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Question: It is a little difficult to understand however, why he does not mention the Toldos of Shen, as he does by Regel.

Refuted Source: When the Gemara says here that 'Beheimah incorporates Chayah', it is not learning it from the D'rashah cited in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh' (Chulin, Daf 71a) ...

Refutation: ... seeing as in this case, it incorporates birds as well, as the Mishnah says 'Chicken are Mu'ad ... '.

Authentic Source: In fact, he learns it from 'Beheimah' by Shabbos

Reason: ... where Unklus translates "Beheimah" as 'Be'iroh'.

Implied Question: Even though the Tana has already stated 'with the burden that is on it' ...

Answer: ... it needs to teach us the Din here, because the burden of a donkey is not tied to it in the same way as other animals, and we might therefore have thought that it is not considered part of the donkey.

Meaning of Word: In the Pasuk "Yecharsemenah Chazir mi'Ya'ar", Yonasan translates the word "Yecharsemenah" as "Yenuvrineih".

Implied Question: Even though the Tana already taught us the Din of Tzeroros by Regel ...

Answer: It repeats it by Tzeroros de'Shen, where the animal does it for its benefit.

Qualification: This principle is 'La'av Davka' ...

Source: ... since we see that if a Zav moves something that is Tahor with a cane that he is holding in a fold in his body, it remains Tahor, whereas by Nezikin there is no difference (he is Chayav).

Objective: The Gemara only cites this principle in order to exempt someone who throws.

Refuted Answer: And from the Mishnah which says 'Darsah al ha'Keli ve'Shavraso', implying that if it rolled to another location and broke there, he pays Chatzi Nezek, one cannot extrapolate anything.

Refutation: ... because, to the contrary, since the Gemara differentiates between the first K'li and the second one, and not in the first K'li itself, one can extrapolate the opposite.

Halachah: It is obvious that if Reuven throws a stone or shoots an arrow at a K'li and Shimon comes and breaks it before it strikes, that Shimon is Chayav, and one cannot apply here the principle that 'He broke a K'li that is already broken' ...

Reason: ... because if one were to go after 'the initial stroke in this case too, Tz'roros would never be Chayav Chatzi Nezek.

Conclusion: And the difference between throwing a stone and throwing the vessel itself is obvious.