Clarification: When the Gemara states at the beginning of 'ha'Dar' (Eruvin, 63a) that we do not find Yehoshua ever needing to consult Elazar with regard to the Urim ve'Tumim, it is not referring to the division of the land, which required Elazar via a Gezeirah-Shavah. Rather, it is referring to other issues, which were revealed to Yehoshua directly through prophecy.

Implied Question: Why does our Sugya not incorporate Ir in "Ish" (like it does in Perek Eilu Devarim [Pesachim, 66b & 67a and in Chulin, 29a], where it rules that a man (including an entire town) who is Tamei is pushed away from bringing the Pesach Rishon, to bring the Pesach Sheini, and it is only the majority of Yisrael who brings it be'Tum'ah?

Answer: Here (by Misah) it is different, seeing as we have a precedent for drawing a distinction between individuals and an entire town - with regard to an Ir ha'Nidachas, where the punishment of the whole town differs from that of an individual (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one uproots a clod of earth from a pit and throws it back into the pit, it will not fill the pit.

Question: This is not correct however, based on the Gemara in Perek ha'Ro'eh (B'rachos, 59a), which relates how Hash-m brought the Flood on the world by taking two stars from Kimah, and how He subsequently filled the gap with 'Ash'. Then, in answer to the question as to why He did fill it with the two stars that He took from it initially, it answers that a pit (the gap) cannot be filled with the earth that one took from it.

Explanation #2: Some commentaries therefore explain that 'Chulya' refers to the earth that one has dug and that one subsequently places on the edge of the pit, like we learn in the Mshnah in Eruvin, 83b 'The Chulya of a pit and a rock which are ten Tefachim tall'. And the Gemara states there that one cannot fill the pit with that Chulya.

Explanation #3: Rabeinu Tam however, explains 'Chulya' with reference to the pit's source of water - meaning that a pit will not be filled with its own water source (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Proof: ... and this is evident from the Midrash (in Shmuel) which states that a pit cannot be filled with its own Chulya, unless one fills it with water from another source.

Clarification #1: This is how Rabeinu Tam reads the text, and this is how the Pesukim read: "After Achitofel came Yehoyada ben Benayahu and Evyasar" - "Yehoyada ben Benayahu" refers to the Sanhedrin, and so it says "And Benayahu ben Yehoyada was in charge of the K'reisi and the P'leisi". Why are they called 'Kreisi and P'leisi' ... ? Evyasar - this is the Urim ve'Tumim` and afterwards "the captain of the hosts ... ".

Clarification #2: The Gemara now proves that just as Beneyahu was the head of the Sanhedrin, so too was Yehoyada his father, since "K'reisi and P'leisi" refers to the Sanhedrin.

Question #1: This is somewhat difficult however, because in Divrei ha'Yamim, at the beginning of David's reign, it reckons Benayahu ben Yehoyada together with the mighty men of David, who helped him attain the throne, whereas the Pasuk concerning Achitofel refers to the end of David's reign, at the beginning of Melachim in the days of Shlomoh. And it reckons Yehoyada there! How can he have possibly have been the father of Benayahu (see 'Chamra ve'Chaye, who explains the entire Tosfos)'?

Question #2: And what's more, it also mentions Benayahu at the end of Sefer Shmuel, where, once again, it lists him together with the mighty men (how can this have been the same Benayahu who is mentioned at the beginning of David's reign, and who was already succeeded by his son Yehoyada [see Chochmas Mano'ach])?

Answer: It seems that there were two Benayahu ben Yehoyadas, one the father of Yehoyada; the other, the son (and there were also two Yehoyadas [Ibid.]).

Clarification: And Moshe stood in place of seventy-one.

Question #1: Bearing in mind that we learn seventy-one elders from Moshe, who appointed seventy members of Sanhedrin for the tribes, plus himself, even though the Torah does not write there "ve'Chein Ta'asu", why do we need "ve'Chein Ta'asu" (with regard to the Din that the Sanhedrin requires seventy-one members)?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Mishnah in the first Perek of Shavu'os teaches us that adding to the city or the Azaros requires a king, a Navi and Sanhedrin (of seventy-one). Rashi explains there that the Tana learns it from Moshe, who was the king, Navi and represented the seventy-one members of Sanhedrin. Why does one not then also require a king and a Navi when appointing the Sanhedrin?

Answer: Because, here we incorporate more things since the Torah writes "ve'Chein Ta'asu", implying that it comes to incorporate all those things.

Question: Why do the Keilim (which are also covered by "ve'Chein Ta'asu") then not also require seventy-one?

Implied Answer: And it you attribute it to the fact that the Torah links the Keilim to "Sheirus" (using them in the service of the Mikdash [as the Gemara will explain shortly]), implying that 'Sheirus' is the only criterion.

Refutation: ... the Gemara will shortly imply that were it not for the word "Osam" (in the Pasuk "va'Yekadesh Osam"), we would have thought that it requires Meshichah (anointing) and Avodah. That being the case, we ought to confine the preclusion to Meshichah, but not to seventy-one?

Answer: In fact, "Osam" comes to reveal that "ve'Chein Ta'asu" does not refer to Keilim at all, in which case they do not require ''le'Doros' - similar to Moshe.

Clarification: In the event that a city has residents from two tribes, they set up two Batei-Din.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim.

Question: This is not correct however, since, in the Reisha of the Beraisa, after 'Shoftim for all Yisrael', the Beraisa cites R. Yehudah, who rules 'Echad Memuneh al Kulam', before mentioning 'for each and every tribe and for each and every town'.

Explanation #2: Others explain that 'Echad Memuneh al Kulan' refers to the Nasi, as we learn in the Tosefta, that the Nasi sits in the middle.

Explanation #3: The correct explanation howeveeer, is that 'Echad Memuneh al Kulan' refers to the Dayan who was in charge of all the Dayanim; he was the most outstanding member of Beis-Din - the Av Beis-Din. In fact, each and every Beis-Din had a 'Mufla' - synonymous with the Av Beis-Din, like we find (in the Tosefta, in connection with a Zakein Mamrei) 'he and the Mufla in his Beis-Din'.

Ruling: And it seems that the 'Mufla' was not counted as one of the members of the Beis-Din ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara states in the first Perek of Horayos (Daf 4b) on the Mishnah in Horiyos, which rules that if a Beis-Din that judged and one of them was aware that they had erred ... or if the Mufla of the Beis-Din was absent, they are Patur (from bringing a Par He'elam Davar [a Chatas]), the Gemara explains that they should have learned. Now if the Mufla was included in the seventy, then why does the Gemara refer specifically to the Mufla, seeing as any member of Sanhedrin who is absent renders them Patur. As the Gemara states there earlier 'So says the Torah - if the entire Sanhedrin is present it is considered a ruling; otherwise, it is not'.

Inference: according to the above explanation, the Gemara in Horiyos follows the opinion of R. Yehudah (cited earlier).

Observation: And when the Beraisa in Perek ha'Nechnakin (later, on Daf 86b) establishes the Pasuk "Ki Yipalei" (in connection with a Zakein Mamrei) with regard to 'Mufla she'be'Beis-Din', it is not referring to the regular Mufla (that we have just been discussing) ...

Proof: ... since there, the Pasuk is only coming to preclude a Talmid, just as Rashi explains, seeing as the Din of Hamra'ah (Zakein Mamrei) pertains to every member of the Sanhedrin, except for a Talmid, who has not reached the level of Hora'ah, as we learned in the Mishnah there (i bid.) 'A Talmid who issued a ruling to perform a sin is Patur'. It therefore transpires that the stringency that precludes him from ruling is his leniency'. (So we see, that 'Mufla' there, pertains to each official member of the Sanhedrin).

Clarification: It means 'One in one Beis-Din or two in two Batei-Din. And according to the opinion that permits two or three Batei-Din, we will explain either one in one location or two in two locations (see Maharsha).

Question: The question arises that the Torah should omit "Achas" and we would know from "Arecha" - two and not three, based on the principle 'Tafasta Mu'at Tafasta' (and the minimum of plural is two [see Maharsha & Tosfos ha'Rosh])?