Implied question: We could ask here "does he come to teach Beis Shamai's opinion?!"

Answer: Since the first Tana says that they did not argue about this law, it is proper that he respind and say that they argued.

Implied question: We should say that the latter Tana comes to add!

Answer: This does not apply here, since a Tana interrupts between them.

Suggestion: This means like elsewhere. He wanted to know if they knew to refute his words!

Rejection: Since he said that R. Yishmael never said this, they knew that he said so (that the Halachah follows the Talmid) only to praise [the Talmid, and encourage Talmidim to express their reasoning].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is Adarmint (in old French. Targum ha'La'az says that this is vitriol. It is clear from the next line of Tosfos that this is not vidriol (in old French).

Explanation #2 (Rashbam, Aruch): Kankantom is yellow earth called vidriol.

Support: Also R. Tam rules like this in laws of Sefer Torah. All permit to put vitriol in the ink for a Sefer Torah, for it is not Kankantom.

Question: In Nidah (19a), a Mishnah teaches that black [blood] is like Charas, and it explains there Charta d'Ushkefi, and in Gitin (19a) it says that Kankantom is Charta d'Ushkefi. This connotes that it is black, and vidriol is yellow, and resembles glass. It is called vidriol!

Answer #1: This is fine for Rashi. (Kankantom is not vidriol).

Answer #2 (Ri): After they grind it well to put it in the ink, it blackens.

Explanation #1: [If he would add a Vov to "Bara", and write] Bereishis Bar'u (implying that there were more than one Creator).

Explanation #2: Rabbeinu Meir received from his Rebbeyim, if he would preface a Yud to the second "Hovah" in "Hovah Al Hovah" (implying that a mishap or event could befall Hash-m).

Implied question: Why did R. Yishmael forbid in the entire Torah?

Answer #1: Perhaps he expounded a Gezeirah Shavah from Sotah - "Kesivah-Kesivah" or another Gezeirah Shavah.

Answer #2: He forbids mid'Rabanan.

Inference: Even though [Parshas] Sotah must be written Lishmah, we erase it from the Torah.

Question: Regarding a Get, we disqualify in Gitin (19b) one who took a Sefer Torah and gave it to his wife [and said that it is her Get]!

Rav Yosef said 'what concern is there? If you will say that [it is valid due to] the expressions of divorce in the Torah, we require "v'Chasav Lah" - Lishmah, and this was not [written for her]!'

Answer #1: Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Papa's reasoning here.

Answer #2: [Rav Yosef] holds like the opinion that one may not erase [Parshas Sotah] from the Torah.

Question: How is Rav Papa Machshir a Sefer Torah [for Sotah], even according to the opinion that requires Lishmah?

A Mishnah in Gitin (24a) teaches that if one heard scribes saying "Ploni divorces Plonis" (and these are the names of him and his wife), it is Pasul to divorce with it;

The Gemara establishes it to discuss scribes training to write. Also a Sefer Torah is considered here like they are training (they did not intend for a Sotah).

Inference: It connotes that all Tana'im hold like the Mishnah there, for we ask "does Rav Acha bar Yoshiyah disagree with the Mishnah...?!"

Answer: There, training means that it was not written at all to be a Kosher Get. However, a Sefer Torah, Stam one writes it with intent that if they will need, they will erase Parshas Sotah from it.

Question: Regarding Get, even like this is Pasul, and it is not considered Lishmah, for even if the scribe wrote it Lishmah without the husband's command, it is Pasul to divorce with it!

Source (Gitin 72a - Beraisa): If a scribe wrote [a Get] Lishmah, and the witnesses signed Lishmah, and they gave it to her, it is Pasul unless they heard her husband's voice, that he told the scribe "write" and the witnesses "sign";

There, it is Pasul because it is not considered Lishmah, and not because we require Shelichus for writing [a Get].

Source: In Gitin (22b) we are Machshir writing through a Cheresh (deafmute), lunatic or child when an adult supervises, even though they cannot be Sheluchim.

Answer #1: Really, [a Sefer Torah] is considered Lishmah (it is for the sake of divorce, or Megilas Sotah, if it will be needed). There, it is Pasul mid'Rabanan [for divorce]. Regarding Sotah, it is not applicable to disqualify mid'Rabanan.

Answer #2: Regarding Sotah, the Kohen who must write is not adamant if another person writes Lishmah without his permission. Presumably, he is pleased if someone does;

However, regarding a Get, presumably, the husband is displeased [if someone else writes a Get without his permission].

Question: If so [only erasing must be Lishmah], why don't we erase it from the Torah?

Answer (Ri): It says "v'Chasav Es ha'Alos ha'Elu" - it must be written for the sake of curses. (It need not be written for the sake of a particular Sotah.)

Question: What is the sharpness to be Metaher a Sheretz? The Torah explicitly was Metamei it!

Answer (R. Tam): We discuss Tum'ah Neveilos, that a k'Zayis of it is not Metamei through Masa (moving it), for it says "Oh b'Nivlas Chayah";

Even though a Sheretz creeps, it is in the category of Chayah, just like a snake, which we expound in Sanhedrin (59b) "uv'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses" - this is a snake;

Ravina learns from a Kal v'Chomer from a snake, which left the category of Nivlas Chayah. In Toras Kohanim, we exclude it from Tum'ah Neveilah from "v'Chol Holech Al Gachon."

Observation: When we conclude and refute [Ravina's] Kal v'Chomer, still we can learn [to be Metaher a Sheretz] from a Mah Matzinu from a snake, which is not in the category of Chayah. Likewise, all creeping Sheratzim are not in the category of Chayah.

Question #1: The Ri did not find in Toras Kohanim anywhere that excludes a snake from Tum'ah Neveilah.

Question #2: Toras Kohanim explicitly excludes all Sheratzim from Tum'ah Neveilah, for it teaches there "Hi" is Metamei through Masa, but Sheratzim are not Metamei through Masa.

Citation (Toras Kohanim): The Torah did not make the blood of a Behemah like its flesh, yet it is Metamei through Masa. The Torah made the blood of a Sheretz like its flesh. All the more so it should be Metamei through Masa! "Hi" (Nivlas Behemah) excludes a Sheretz. (Note: Our text of Toras Kohanim learns from elsewhere.)

Answer: We can say that even though there is an exclusion, we make a Kal v'Chomer.

Question #1: How can Ravina come to nullify the Kal v'Chomer in Toras Kohanim? If not for an explicit exclusion, we would make the Kal v'Chomer of Toras Kohanim!

Question #2: We can challenge Ravina's Kal v'Chomer. You cannot learn from a snake, for it is Tahor, even if one touches k'Adashah (the volume of a lentil) of it!

Implied question: It says in Avodah Zarah (5a) "we should be grateful to our ancestors. Had they not sinned (with the golden calf), we would not have come to the world!"

Answer #1: It explains there that we would be as if we were not here (we would have no eminence, for they would still be alive).

Answer #2: Here we discuss Stam people. However, a Tzadik is fortunate (that he was created), and fortunate is his generation.