Clarification: This means that their prophecy will cease, since the Shechinah only rests where there is Simchah (which is rare with someone who carries the communal yoke).

Question: Rabeinu Tam asked what the point is of this senseless sharpness in declaring Tahor what the Torah has declared Tamei?

Answer: He answers that what they were able to do was to declare Tahor from Tum'as Neveilos that it should not render Tamei be'Masa with a k'Zayis. Because since a snake, which creeps and crawls on the ground and is called "Chayah" (as we Darshen in 'Arba Misos' -"u've'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses" 'this is a snake'); We it transpires that all Sheratzim fall under the category of 'Chayah', we ought now to learn a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from a snake, which kills and increases Tum'ah in the world, yet it is Tahor (like we Darshen in Toras Kohanim) from the Pasuk "And all who crawl on their bellies ... ").

Query: Perhaps one can query the Kal-va'Chomer from Chayah, which does not kill yet it increases Tum'ah and is Metamei be'Masa, also I will bring Shratzim ... ?

Answer (Part 1): That is not a valid Pircha, since we learn the Ka'-vaChomer like this 'If already a Nachash, which kills and spreads Tum'ah, yet it is not included in Chayah here, is it not obvious that other Sheratzim are not included either?

Answer (Part 2): In this way, one can no longer answer 'Chayah Tochi'ach, which does not kill and increase Tum'ah, yet it is included in Chayah (?), seeing as a regular Chayah does not crawl on the earth, whereas Sheratzim, which dod, are automatically precluded from the Din of Chayah.

Explanation #1: And in similar fashion Rabeinu Tam explains the Gemara in 'Merubeh' - 'What is Chuldas ha'Sena'im (a bush-weasel)? Shartza Chartza. And why is it called Shartza? Because its calves are low!' (However, this is not the place to elaborate).

Observation: When the Yerushalmi asks in 'Echad Dinei Mamonos 'Perhaps it is the other way round?' - If a mouse which does not kill, yet it increases Tum'ah, how much more so a snake, which does? It is asking with regard to Maga (but not Masa - see Maharsha).

Refutation #1: The problem with Rabeinu Tam is that we do not find the D'rashah precluding a Nachash from Tum'ah from the Pasuk "And all who crawl on their bellies ... " in the Toras Kohanim?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, the Toras Kohanim explicitly precludes Sheratzim from Tum'as Masa from the Pasuk "Osam". Initially, the Medrash learns with a Kal-va'Chomer from Beheimah (ich is not Metamei be'Maga bi'k'Adasha), but then learns from "Osam" - "Osam" be'Masa, ve'Lo Sheratzim be'Masa'.

Suggested Answer: Perhaps the Torah mentioned it anyway, based on the principle 'Something that can be learned from a Kal-va'Chomer the Torah nevertheless might mention.

Refutation #1: The Kashya remains however, rather than learning with a Kal-va'Chomer from Nachash that a Sheretz is not Metamei be'Masa, we should rather learn from the Kal-va'Chomer from Beheimah (of the Toras Kohanim) that is is)?

Refutation #2: Moreover, Nachash is different in that it is Tahor from all Tum'os?

Explanation #2: There is however, another way of being Metaher a Sheretz with a Kal-va'Chomer - from Nivlas Of Tahor, which is Metamei be'Masa in one's throat (if one eats it), but it has no Tum'ah outside the body; in that case Sheretz and Neveilah, which have no Tum'ah inside the body (like the Gemara says in Perek Yotzei Dofen -"Bah" [Nivlas Of Tahor] 've'Lo ba'Acheres'), should certainly not be subject to Tum'ah outside (similar to the opposite Kal-va'Chomer that the Gemara Darshens there).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Amri de'bei Rav' is Rav Hamnuna.

Question: It is difficult to say that however, because the Gemara in 'ha'Areil' explicitly says 'Amri de'bei Rav' is Rav Huna and Rav Huna says "Ein Halachah!" '.

Answer: Rashi there 'pushes' to explain that even though the Gemara here concludes that 'Amri de'bei Rav is Rav Hamnuna, that is only where it is evident that it is not Rav Huna, such as where Rav Huna quotes Rav Hamnuna.

Question #1: According to that, the question arises as to why the Gemara then 'pushes' when it has a problem with establishing 'Shalchu mi'Tam' as R. Yossi b'R. Chanina by answering 'Ipcha' (reverse 'Shalchu mi'Tam' and Machku Alav be'Ma'arva'). Why does it not answer simply that 'where it is evident, it is different'?

Question #2: Furthermore, how can Rav Huna quote Rav Hamnuna, when R. Chisda was his Talmid (as is evident at the end of 'Eilu Metzi'os' and at the beginning of 'ha'Dar'), and Rav Hamnuna was a Talmid of Rav Chisda (as is evident at the end of the first Perek of Kidushin, in connection with 'the elders of Nezunya, who did not atend the D'rashah of Rav Chisda, where Rav Hamnuna placed them in Cherem)?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore changes the text, to read (not 'Ela Rav Hamnuna, but) 'Eima Rav Hamnuna'. Though in fact, even if we reetain the original text, we can still explain it to mean 'Don't say "Amar Rav Huna Amri bei Rav, but '"Amar Rav Hamnuna Amri bei Rav'.

Implied Question: How can Rabeinu Tam establish Amri bei Rav as Rav Huna, when we find in Perek Arba Misos, regarding the Mitzvos on which a ben No'ach receives the death-penalty 'Amri bei Rav argues with Rav Huna, Rav Yehudah and all the Talmidim of bei Rav?

Answer (Part 1): One can answer that one (the former) refers to himself , the other (the latter) to his Rebbe, bearing in mind that S'tam Amri de'bei Rav is quoting Rav, as is evident at the end of Perek ha'Sho'el and in Perek Beis-Kur, where the Gemara explains why both the statement of Rav and that of 'Amri bei Rav are necessary ...

Answer (Part 2): Despite the fact that in many places we find 'Amri bei Rav in the name of Rav'.

Observation: According to Rabeinu Tam, the text at the end of Perek Merubeh, where Rava told Rav Hamnuna 'Kipachtinhu le'Sabi de'bei Rav' meaning that he had outdone Rav Huna, is correct, as it refers to Rav Huna as 'Sabi de'bei Rav'.; though Rashi explains that Gemara differently (and Tosfos discussed this there).

Refutation (of earlier question) #1: We do however, find, in Perek Chalon, that a Rav Hamnuna learned in front of Rav in connection with an Egyptian ladder, where it states 'Did you not here what Rav Acha the son of Rav Ada, citing Rav Hamnuna Amar Rav?'

Refutation (of earlier question) #2: Also in Perek Keitzad Me'abrin, we find that Rav said to Rav Hamnuna 'My son, since you have, I will do good to you!' and in 'ha'Gozel Kama, that he Gemara says 'Indeed, Rav Hamnuna is a Talmid of Rav!'

Question: This is very difficult however, inasmuch as in Nazir, we find that R. Yossi b'R. Chanina was the one at whom they laughed?