Question: But we already know this from the Mishnah in Perek ha'Ishah she'Halchah (Yevamos, Daf 117b) and the Mishnah in Perek Eglah Arufah (later, Daf 47a)?

Answer #1: We nevertheless need it here to teach that we even apply it le'Kula, despite the fact that there are strong grounds for suspicion.

Answer #2: Moreover, in those Mishnahs it does not specifically mention the Din by Pesulei Eidus in our MIshnah; that is why it mentions it there by each one.

Clarification: This means in any language that he understands, to preclude a Median who may not read it in Persian if he does not understand it.

Clarification (cont.): But the text 'be'Chol Lashon' implies whether one understands it or not.

Reservation: Though the Gemara (on Amud Beis) does not seem to say that.

Question: Why does the Tana omit Hallel, Kidush on Shabbos, Birchas ha'Peiros and Birchas ha'Mitzvos?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer the he only mentions B'rachos that are d'Oraysa ...

Refutation #1: Since in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 21a) it implies that Tefilah and K'ri'as Sh'ma (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) are de'Rabbanan?

Refutation #2: Moreover, there (Daf 20b) it implies that Kidush is d'Oraysa?

Proof: And this is also implied in Maseches Nazir (Daf 3b).

Question (cont.): This answer will hold water with regard to Megilah, as we learned in the Mishnah in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 17a) 'A foreigner who heard it in Ashuris is Yotzei'.

Refutation (concl.): But why does he leave out these four?

Answer: It therefore appears that those four can be said in any language even in a language that one does not understand. Therefore they are not comparable to those in the Mishnah, which can be said specifically in a language that one does.

Question: But the Gemara says in the first Sugya in Menachos (Daf 3a) that people do not pay attention to the difference between male and female animals?

Answer: Tosfos' Rebbe answers that the Gemara says that specifically there where his actions do not indicate one way or the other, where they simply rely on his words that he is Shechting a Chatas as an Olah, but in a S'tam case, such as here, people certainly notice the difference.

Question: Why does the Torah then not fix a different location for the Shechitah, so that he should have a proper Kaparah?

Answer: Seeing as it drew one distinction between them to attract attention as to the difference, why does it need more (Tosfos' Rebbe).

Case #1: The Gemara here implies that according to both Rebbi and the Rabbanan Keri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa.

Case #2: Similarly, the Tana'im who argue there (in B'rachos, 15a) regarding someone who reads the Sh'ma and who does hear what he is reading'.

Case #3: And also Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel there in the Mishnah in the first Perek (Daf 10b) where Beis Shamai says that 'At nighttime everybody should lean and read the Sh'ma, and in the morning he should recite it standing, as the Torah says "When you lie down and when you get up" ...

Case #3 (cont.): Whereas Beis Hillel explain 'At the time that people lie down ... '.

Case #3 (concl.): So we see that both opinions interpret the Pasuk in connection with Keri'as Sh'ma.

Case #4: And the S'tam Gemara there too Daf 2a), asks 'Where is the Tana holding, when he says 'From when can one recite the Sh'ma'? And it answers that 'He is holding by the Pasuk "be'Shochb'cha u'Vekumecha".

Case #5: Furthermore, in the second Perek (Ibid, daf 13b) regarding the Machlokes between Rebbi Zutra and Rebbi Yashiyah, in connection with the Beraisa "ve'Hayu" - that one may not read the Sh'ma backwards; "ha'Devarim al Levavecha" - where Rebbi Zutra says 'Until here (the end of the first paragraph) is the Mitzvah to read it with Kavanah, from here onwards, is the Mitzvah of reading'.

Case #5 (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yashiyah says 'Until here is the Mitzvah of reading, from here onwards is the Mitzvah to read with Kavanah'.

Case #5 (cont.): The Gemara explains: 'Rebbi Zutra ... ': Why does he say that from here onwards is the Mitzvah to read'? Because the Torah says "le'Daber bam", there too (in the first paragraph) it says "ve'Dibarta bam"?

Case #5 (cont.): The Gemara explains continues: 'Rebbi Yashiyah says ... '. Why does he say that from here onwards is the Mitzvah of reciting it with Kavanah? Because it says "al Levavchem"? There too, it says "al Levavcha"?

Case #5 (cont.): We must therefore explain that 'Until here is the Mitzvah of reading with Kavanah; from here onwards is the Mitzvah of Kavanah without reading. Why until here it is a Mitzvah to read with Kavanah? Because the Torah writes "ve'Dibarta bam".

Case #5 (cont.): There too, the Torah writes "le'Daber Bam"? And the Gemara answers 'That is speaking about the Mitzvah of Torah-study'.

Case #5 (concl.): Now since the Gemara concludes that 'That is speaking about the Mitzvah of Torah-study', we can extrapolate that "ve'Dibarta bam" is speaking about Keri'as Sh'ma.

Case #6: Furthermore there (16a) we learned that 'Laborers who are working for their employer must recite the Sh'ma together with the B'rachos both before and after it, and when they eat, they recite two B'rachos after the meal.

Case #6 (cont.): How is that? They recite the first B'rachah as normal, they incorporates 'Boneh Yerushalayim in the second one and omit 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' altogether, seeing as it is mi'de'Rabbanan, since they instituted it in Yavneh.

Case #6 (cont.): So we see that the obligation to recite the Sh'ma is d'Oraysa.

Question #1: Whereas in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 21a) in the Gemara concerning a Ba'al Keri, the Gemara asks S'tam that 'Keri'as Sh'ma is de'Rabbanan?'

Question #1 (cont.): On the Gemara's statement that Keri'as Sh'ma and Birchas ha'Mazon are d'Oraysa?

Question #2: Furthermore the Gemara says there (Daf 21. See there) 'Shmuel says that, someone is unsure as to whether he recited the Sh'ma or not does not need to repeat it; whereas if he is unsure whether he recited 'Emes ve'Yatziv' or not, he does'. And the Gemara explains that this is because Keri'as Sh'ma is de'Rabbanan?

Refuted Answer: It is a Dochek to say that all the cases that imply that Keri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa as merely Asmachta.

Refutation #1: Since it is not the way of the Gemara to get so involved as Rebbi and the Rabbanan on an Asmachta.

Refutation #2: Moreover, when the Gemara suggests here that 'Rebbi holds the entire Torah was given in all languages?', it would not be able to make such an inference if it was only an Asmachta?

Question: What pushes the Gemara to say this ...

Question (cont.): When it could have said the Rabbanan learn both things from there?

Precedent: Like the Gemara says in Perek Hayah Korei (B'rachos, Daf 15a) where the Mishnah says that 'Someone who is reading the Sh'ma and does not hear what he says is Yotzei; Rebbi Yossi says that he is not'.

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara there explains that Rebbi infers from the word "Sh'ma" 'Hear with your ears', whereas the Tana Kama learns "Sh'ma" - in any language that one understands.

Precedent (concl.): And it concludes that Rebbi Yossi learns both things from there.