Clarification (Part 1): An expert, to preclude a Talmid

Clarification (Part 2): This is not like 'Mufla' everywhere else, as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (DH 'Echad').

Explanation #1: Not higher than the whole of Eretz Yisrael, seeing as Ein Itam was higher than it, as the Gemara explains in Perek Eizehu Mekoman - 'He intended to build it (the Beis-ha'Mikdash) in Ein Itam, which was higher ... '.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the walls of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, which were a hundred Amos tall, extended higher than Ein Itam.

Clarification: To preclude from where he found them in 'Beis Pagi' and defied them, as we learned above in the first Perek.

Question: But the opinion that holds 'until Purim' concedes that even if they declared a leap-year after Purim, their declaration is valid; since it is only with regard to Nisan that we say in the first Perek 'This is Nisan, and no other month is called Nisan'; whereas the opinion that holds 'until Purim', it is only mi'de'Rabbanan that it is forbidden (to declare a leap-year after that).

Source: As the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Rosh Hashanan 'What is the reason behind the ruling of those who hold 'Until Purim' '? Because since Mar said that one starts asking She'eilos about Hilchos Pesach thirty days before Pesach, one will come to treat Chametz lightly.

Question: According to Resh Lakish, even if the Zaken Mamrei rules like Rebbi Yochanan, why should he be Chayav, seeing as he is Machmir, and this is not not a case of Chiyuv Kareis?

Answer: Kareis is applicable there where she touches a loaf of Terumah bread with which a man then betroths a woman. If the loaf is Tamei (like Rebbi Yochanan), then it is worth less than a Perutah, since it is only fit to be burned, and the Kidushin is not valid. Whereas if it is Tahor (like Resh Lakish), then it is worth a Perutah and the Kidushin is valid.

Clarification: In all the other cases except for this one, we can find a Machlokes. This means that the Zaken Mamrei does not agree with this Gezeirah-Shavah ("Heihah" "Heinah", "Zimah" "Zimah").

Implied Question: Even though Akavya is basically stringent?

Answer: Nevertheless, sometimes it is a leniency, for example, there where she sees red blood and she uses it to complement the Shi'ur of yellow blood (See Nidah 33a).

Clarification: To preclude a twenty-four hour period where the day preceded the night; It must be one where a full day precedes a full night, like Shabbos where the day follows the night.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that according to the Rabbanan, one is Chayav if one entered the Mikdash; whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua, he is Patur.

Question: This is not correct however, since if that was so, a Zaken Mamrei would not be Chayav, seeing as for entering the Mikdash one is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid (and not Kareis); as we learned earlier from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Davar" "Davar" from "ve'Ne'elam Davar", and as we learned in Perek Kohen Mashu'ach 'One brings a Korban Oleh ve'Yored for Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kodashav'?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explain it in the same way as they did above on Amud Alef (DH 've'Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish').

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is as if the plague became dimmer, which is in itself, a sign of Taharah, should its whiteness change after it has been locked up.

Question #1: But how can the Gemara then ask in Nazir that perhaps it became dimmer and is now Tamei?

Question #2: And besides; if it became dimmer and is Tamei, that is the opinion of the Tana Kama?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): The correct text therefore seems to be that of Rabeinu Chananel 'Kihah' (with a 'Kuf'), without the word 'Omer', meaning that Rebbi Yehoshua asked and went into the matter; like we read in the Hagadah 'Hakheh es Shinav', and similarly, 'Makhu Akyasa be'Shuka' (in Yevamos), meaning that he gathered groups of people to be counted).

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And the Gemara was uncertain as to whether to support the Tana Kama from here or whether to disprove him; That is why the Gemara now asks 'Mai Kihah?'. And the Gemara answers 'Kihah ve'Tihar' (a proof against him).

Refutation of Question #1: The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Shevu'os, however implies that there is such a thing as 'Kiheh ve'Tahor', when it says 'And the Torah said "And behold the plague Kiheh" - If it became dimmer, it is Tamei; But if it became much dimmer, it is Tahor'.