Citation (Bereishis Rabah): There are dots on Ayo, but not on the Lamed. R. Shimon said that whenever you find more letters [without dots] than Nakud (letters with dots), you expound the letters. Here that the Nakud is more [than the letters], you expound the Nakud, i.e. "Ayo Avraham";

R. Azaryah said, just like they said to Avraham "where is Sarah?", so they said to Sarah "where is Avraham?"

Alternative explanation: Rashi explained that there are dots because they asked without need. (They knew where she is.)

Rebuttal: If so, there should be dots on "Aye Sarah", for this is the primary question that they asked about Sarah!

Limitation: This is only to ask "where is Plonis?";

To ask about her wellbeing is forbidden even through her husband, like we say in Kidushin (70b. See there Tosfos DH Ein. This requires some investigation. There, Tosfos says that one may ask about her wellbeing through her husband, but one may not send Shalom even through her husband.)

Implied question: Obviously, R. Yochanan said to his son "bread and pulse (a legume)", and not bread of pulse (it is not normal to make bread of pulse)!

Answer: He asked whether the Mishnah teaches "Pas Kitnis", and even so it properly connotes that bread eaten with pulse, and does not connote bread of pulse;

The reason is because it is not normal to make bread of pulse.

Consequence: This affects one who said to give to his workers Pas Kitnis. He must give to them bread and pulse.

Or, perhaps the Mishnah teaches "Pas v'Kitnis", but if he said Pas Kitnis without a Vav, this connotes bread of pulse.

Explanation: Because initially we discussed workers who eat because [the employer] stipulated to feed them, or due to a custom of the land, now we discuss those who eat based on Torah law, without stipulating and without a custom.

Explanation: They do not need the ground any more, e.g. harvesting or harvesting grapes. This excludes weeding and digging;

The Gemara learns from "v'El Kelyecha Lo Siten" - when you put into the employer's Kelim [you may eat];

"What is detached before final processing" refers to final processing for Ma'aser. The Gemara learns this from "Dayish".

Explanation: E.g. something like trees [on which one does not use a scythe] one may not eat.

Question: Why don't we learn from Chermesh? There is no challenge to this!

Answer: We do not learn from Chermesh, because there are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse);

Why did the verse need to write Ki Savo b'Cherem Re'echa? We could learn from Chermesh! Rather, surely they are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad, and they do not teach [about other matters].

When we expound from "Kamah" every standing crop, you are forced to say that Kerem was taught for its Halachos, like we say below.

Question: This is astounding! Still, why did it write Kerem? It should have written 'Ki Savo b'Shel Re'echa', for we expound both times that "Kamah" is written;

One includes every Kamah, and one teaches that man [eats] what is detached;

[We expound them] because it should not have written b'Kamas Re'echa, rather, b'Shel Re'echa!

Answer: Perhaps we need [Kerem] for some Drashah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Their argument is in Bava Kama (113a).

Question: There, even the one who permits, permits only uprooting [a Nochri's] loan, but true Gezeilah, all agree that it is forbidden!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Their argument is below (111a). One permits true Gezeilah from them.

Question: The one who permits Gezel Nochri, how does he explain "v'Chishev Im Konehu"?

We expound from this in Bava Kama (113b) that one must be exact with the buyer (a Nochri who bought an Eved Ivri), and not trick him or scheme against him. We expound from there that Gezel Nochri is forbidden!

Suggestion: He holds that the verse discusses when the Nochrim are in command.

Rejection: If so, why does the verse say "va'Yetzei ba'Yovel"? How will he leave? The Nochri will not let him leave!

Answer: When there is Chilul Hash-m, [the one who permits Gezel Nochri] admits that it is forbidden, for the Nochri trusted him, and gave his entire wage;

There would be Chilul Hash-m if he goes out by force before Yovel.

Explanation: One might have thought that just like the Torah permitted the Isur of Gezel, that he eats from his friend (the employer), similarly one might have thought that it is permitted with Hekdesh.

Question #1: A Mishnah (Me'ilah 13a) says that workers may not eat figs of Hekdesh, and similarly a cow may not eat Karshinim (vetch) of Hekdesh;

The Gemara learns from "Lo Sachsom Shor b'Disho" - your threshing, and not of Hekdesh;

Even regarding workers, we learn from it, for also regarding final processing for Ma'aser (one may eat when working with attached produce after final processing, or with detached produce before final processing) we learn from "Dayish". If so, why do we need Re'echa to exclude Hekdesh?

Question #2: Also, why do we need Re'echa three times - once in a vineyard, and twice regarding Kamah?

One excludes Hekdesh, and one we expound below (88b) to teach that an ox eats from attached produce. What does the third teach?

Question #3: According to the opinion that expounds from a different verse that an ox eats from attached produce, also the second ["Re'acha"] is extra!

Answer: Perhaps it is needed for some Drashah.

Explanation: Had it not written Sav'echa, we would have excluded Achilah Gasah from v'Achalta, for Achilah Gasah is not called eating;

We would not expound "v'Achalta, and not sucking", for drinking is included in eating.

However, now that it is written Sav'echa, and [we expound] not Achilah Gasah, "v'Achalta" is free to expound from it "and not sucking."