Statement: Beis Hillel actually retracts from this reason, due to Beis Shamai's reply.

Statement (cont.): And their reason is because the Pasuk in Tazri'a writes "O le'Bas" to include the eve of the eighty-first day.

Question: Why does the Torah need to write "ad Yom" (to preclude eating it on the night of the third day)?

Question (cont.): Why can we not learn that from the fact that we need "ba'Yom" (to preclude burning it then), because if one had been able to eat it then, it is obvious that one would not be able to burn it, since the obligation to burn it comes into effect immediately after one may no longer eat it (but not before)?

Answer: Had the Torah not written "ad Yom", we would have thought that one can in fact, eat it (on the night of the third day), and "ba'Yom" would then come to teach us that one cannot burn it on the night after the third day.

Statement: The Din of Merkav and Mishkav is not the same; for the clothes that someone who touches a Merkav is wearing do not require Tevilah, whereas the clothes of someone who touches a Mishkav do (as is evident in Toras Kohanim and at the beginning of Maseches Keilim.

Question: The Ri therefore asks how the Gemara can say that with regard to a woman, the Torah calls it 'Moshav'?

Suggested Answer: We cannot answer that it is coming to teach us that even the saddle has the Din of Merkav, and the Torah only calls it 'Mishkav' in order to speak in a more respectful manner ...

Refutation: Because later in the Sugya, the Gemara answers 'that because a woman is afraid that she will fall off the camel, it is normal (for her to sit astride it)' - from which we see that the Torah does not change facts in order to write in a more respectful manner? (See also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz).

Answer: The Ri therefore explains the Gemara like this: 'By a woman, it calls it "Moshav", from the superfluous Lashon, as the Toras Kohanim explains regarding the Pasuk in Shemini " ... asher Hi Yosheves Alav" - 'this refers to Moshav'; "K'li" - 'this refers to Merkav'.

Conclusion: And the Torah is teaching us to use clean speech by virtue of the fact that it only writes 'Merkav' by way of hint, and not explicitly, as it does by Zav.

Explanation: The Pasuk added the extra letter to teach us that one should always speak in a decent manner ...

Explanation (cont.): Because if it had not done so, how would we know that this is what one should do even when there are the same amount of letters (without having to add anything).

Question: Then why could the Torah not write "Yosheves" too, without a 'Vav'?

Answer: It could not do that, answers the Ri, since wherever the Torah writes "Yoshev" without a 'Vav', it comes to teach u something - like we Darshen in connection with Pasuk in Vayeira "ve'Lot Yoshev (minus a 'Vav') be'Sha'ar S'dom" ... that on that day, they had appointed Lot as judge (Bereishis Rabah, Parshah 50).

Clarification: Rav Yosef explains that the reason that Betzirah (picking grapes) is done be'Taharah, as we learned in the first Perek of Shabbos (17.) 'Perhaps one will pick them in a cemented basket (see Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz), does not apply to olives ...

Clarification (cont.): Nor does the reason that 'Sometimes a person goes to his vineyard and sees a bunch of grapes that has ripened. He then squeezes it and lets the juice pour on to the grapes, and when the time of harvesting arrives, the juice is still wet ...

Clarification (cont.): One does not tend to do these things to olives, whose juice is not Chashuv, and, as the Gemara there explain, he is not interested in retaining.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that this refers to matters concerning Avodah-Zarah, as the Torah writes in Ki Sissa "as a Shimtzah for those who arise against them" ...

Clarification (cont.): And he is Pasul with regard to Kehunah, as we learned in Maseches Menachos (Daf 109.) 'Kohanim who served in Beis Chonyo, are forbidden to serve in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, and it goes without saying if they served 'Davar Acher' (i.e. Avodah-Zarah); as the Navi writes in Melachim (2 23:9) "But the Kohanim who served on the Bamos shall not ascend the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m".

Refutation of Extrapolated Ruling: We cannot learn from here that we will believe anyone who comes aong and clainms that he is a Yisrael ...

Reason: Since it is different here, since the majority of people were Yisre'elim.

Alternative Source (#1): One can however, bring a proof from Perek ha'Choletz (45. &45:) where Rava said to the son of a Nochri 'Go into exile or marry a woman like yourself!'

Alternative Source (#2): Likewise from a man who came before Rav Yehudah and stated 'I converted without witnesses', and where Rav Yehudah replied 'You are believed to disqualify yourself (by adding that there were no witnesses), but not to disqualify your children!' - because he could have simply that he was a Yisrael.

Question: On what grounds does the Gemara then say in 'ha'Choletz' (Yevamos 46:) that if someone comes and says that he is a Ger, we may have thought that we believe him, therefore the Torah writes in Kedoshim (in connection with a Ger) "Itcha" , 'only if you know for a fact that he is a Ger'.

Answer: It speaks there where we know for sure that his fathers were Nochrim. Otherwise, we ought to believe him with a 'Migu' that he could have said that he was a Yisrael.

Implied Question: Perhaps he had received a portion of a kid-goat, which does not possess a fat-tail?

Answer #1: The majority of Korb'nos Pesach were lambs.

Answer #2: Alternatively, perhaps the Nochri told him that he had shared in a lamb.

Question: Why did Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira himself not go to Yerushalayim for Yom-Tov?

Answer #1: Because he did not own land ...

Answer #2: Or perhaps he was old and was unable to travel all the way on foot, in which case he was Patur from the Korban Pesach, just as he was Patur from the Mitzvah of 'Re'iyah' (appearing in the Beis-ha'Mikdash on Yom-Tov).

Answer #3: Alternatively, Netzivin was in Chutz la'Aretz.

Proofs: And it is evident in the Sifri in Parshas Re'ei, and in Targum Yerushalmi, which translates the Pasuk in No'ach "ve'Erech ve'Achad ve'Chalneh (in the land of Shin'ar)" as 'Hadas, Netzivin and Ketispi'.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Chananel translates it as 'a Sofer'.

Explanation #2: Whereas, according to the Ri, he came from a town called Chakukah, as is recorded in Seifer Yehoshua (19).