Explanation: We do not want to expound "Bo" of Kol Arel like this, to teach that Orlah does not disqualify from Ma'aser, for we expound to be stringent, and we establish it to obligate him in Matzah and Maror;

Distinction: We cannot expound "Bo" of Ben Nechar like this, to teach that he does not eat it (Korban Pesach), but he eats Matzah and Maror;

We need not teach that he is not forbidden Matzah and Maror. They have no Kedushah!

Suggestion: It comes to teach that he is obligated to eat Matzah and Maror.

Rejection: This is obvious! He is obligated to repent and fulfill all Mitzvos!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We do not expound anything from Bo written regarding Toshav v'Sachir, for we establish the entire verse for the Gezeirah Shavah, and totally uproot it from its simple meaning.

He means that since the Torah wrote it (Bo) regarding Arel and Ben Nechar, it wrote it also regarding Toshav v'Sachir.

Support: We say so below (74a) "since it wrote veha'Nosar, it wrote also Mimenu."

Distinction: This is not exactly like here. There, it is like a Parshah that was said and repeated due to a Chidush. (We need not expound everything repeated.)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): We need "Bo" written regarding Toshav v'Sachir for it itself, like it says below (74a) regarding the three times it says Mimenu. One is for it itself.

Alternate text: Some texts say here "Bo" of Arel and of Ben Nechar - he does not eat it (Korban Pesach), but he eats Matzah and Maror;

Bo written regarding Toshav v'Sachir teaches that [only] for it (Pesach), apostasy disqualifies.

Support: This is the text in all Seforim in Pesachim (96a), and so it connotes there (28b) and (120a) that from the Bo of Arel and of Ben Nechar we expound that he does not eat it (Pesach), but he eats Matzah and Maror.

Explanation: The Ri resolved the texts that we can expound from Bo of Ben Nechar "but he eats Matzah and Maror", to teach that he must eat Matzah and Maror if he repented, even though he does not eat Pesach, since he was a Mumar at the time of doing (offering) it.

Also Bo of Toshav v'Sachir we can expound thought that for it (Pesach), apostasy disqualifies, for we discuss a Nochri Toshav v'Sachir, like I explained above.

Explanation: In Pesachim (96a), the text in all Seforim says "apostasy does not disqualify from Terumah." It is fine to exclude both of them from one "Bo", for Bo connotes in it, but not in other things

We need to exclude both of them. We must exclude Terumah, lest we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah of Toshav v'Sachir;

[We need to exclude] Ma'aser, lest we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah of Mimenu-Mimenu.

Implied question: The Torah needed to write both, due to Bo, which needed to be written regarding both!

Answer: It should write them in verses that are needed.

Explanation: The text does not say "she'Eini (that I will not benefit from...), for if so, this is not a vow, for it is not tangible. He does not forbid anything to himself;

This is like [one who said] "she'Eini (that I will not) sleep." His words have no effect, unless he said Konam (is forbidden like a Korban) sleep to my eyes, like it says in Nedarim (15a).

The text: Rather, R. Tam says that the text says she'Ani Neheneh. I.e. what I benefit [from them] is Konam (forbidden to) me.

Rebuttal: The text can say "she'Eini". The Tanai is generally not so precise with his words.

Support: We find in Nedarim (81b) "Konam that I will not put straw in front of your animal", and in Shevuos (20a) "it is upon me not to eat meat and not to drink wine." In such cases (if he said precisely these words), the vow does not take effect.

Implied question: How can we ask from Nedarim to the wording of the verse? Nedarim depend on the way people speak!

Answer: The Seifa of the Mishnah we cite learns from a verse "Ki Kol ha'Goyim Arelim v'Chol Beis Yisrael Arlei Lev." (Nochrim are called Arelim. Yisre'elim are not called Stam Arelim.)

Question: It says "v'Chol Arel Lo Yochal Bo" [to teach about Yisrael. This shows that Yisre'elim are called Arelim!]

Answer: [Really, a Yisrael is not called Arel. We do not need the verse for Nochrim, therefore] it is needed only for Yisrael (to forbid a Yisrael with Orlah.)

Implied question: In some places, the Tanai learns Nedarim from the way verses speak, e.g. here and in Pesachim (2a), regarding "Halleluhu Kol Kochvei Or"!

The Gemara says there that the verse teaches that light of stars is called light. This affects one who vowed. A Mishnah forbids starlight to one who vowed not to benefit from light.

Answer: Only when the way people speak is not known, we bring a proof from a verse. However, when the way people speak is unlike the way verses speak, for vows we follow the way people speak;

It says in Erchin (19b) that mid'Oraisa, "Yad" is until the wrist, but vows follow the way people speak.

Explanation: His belly-button is not attached [through the umbilical cord] to his mother. However, if it is attached, he can live, from what his mother eats.

Question (Ri): Why do we need a proof? Why shouldn't he be able to receive Haza'ah?

Even according to R. Akiva, who includes an Arel to be like a Tamei, a Tamei can receive Haza'ah, like it says in Zevachim (93a)!

Citation (93a): [Even] Mei Chatas (water on which ashes of the Parah Adumah were put) that became Tamei, it is Metaher, for we may sprinkle on a Nidah, and she becomes Tehorah [from Tum'as Mes]. (Tosfos ha'Rosh suggests that perhaps a Metzora, whose Tum'ah is more stringent than a Nidah, cannot receive Haza'ah, and one might have thought the same applies to an Arel. R. Akiva learns that an Arel is like a Tamei from "Ish Ish... v'Hu Tzaru'a..." - PF.)

Question: If so, why do we need a verse?

In Zevachim (118a), R. Shimon derives that [in Gilgal] even the Tzibur offered only Pesachim and obligations with a fixed time, for it says "va'Ya'asu Es ha'Pesach b'Gilgal";

Rhetorical question: Why do we need the verse? Rather, it teaches that what is like Pesach (obligations with a fixed time) they offered, but not what is unlike Pesach;

Rabanan need the verse like R. Yochanan taught in the name of R. Bena'ah, that an Arel can receive Haza'ah. (Maharam - if they brought Pesach b'Tum'ah, Rabanan learn nothing from the verse! One could ask that perhaps the Gemara asks that since there is no proof that Pesach was brought b'Taharah, Rabanan should learn like R. Shimon! Aruch l'Ner answers that it is difficult to say that Tana'im argue about whether the Pesach was brought b'Tum'ah.)

Answer (R. Yitzchak): We give a better answer here, that a Beraisa explicitly teaches that they brought Pesach b'Taharah.

Explanation: In any case, Avraham did Peri'ah to his Milah, even though he was not commanded, like it says in Bereishis Rabah that he fulfilled even Eruv Tavshilin (Rabbinic laws that were enacted later. All the more so he fulfilled what Hash-m later commanded!

Question: If Peri'ah was not given until Yehoshua, how can we learn from it? It says "Eleh ha'Mitzvos" - a prophet cannot teach new Halachos after this (after Hash-m gave the Torah through Moshe)!

Answer: It was a tradition from Moshe from Sinai. Yehoshua gave an Asmachta from a verse.

Explanation #1: 'Why does it say "Shenis (a second time)"?' is a separate question. We answer that it is to make a Hekesh. The text does not say "rather, for a Hekesh", and not "perhaps".

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): 'Why does it say "Shuv (again)", and why does it say "Shenis (a second time)"?' is all one question. The text says "perhaps it is for a Hekesh."

It comes for this (the Hekesh), and not for Peri'ah.

Observation: According to this text, in the conclusion we do not answer this question at all.

Question (R. Yitzchak ha'Lavan): Here we expound from "Shenis" strands that invalidate a circumcision. Below (72a), we expound "Himol Yimol" for strands...!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we discuss strands that are Me'akev Peri'ah.

Answer #2 (Ri): Even though Avraham was commanded about strands, we properly expound it from the verse in Yehoshua.

Justification: Even when we ask "perhaps it refers to those who were not circumcised [in the Midbar]", there is no Chidush in the verse in Yehoshua, other than what they were already commanded initially.

Question: If so, also "Shuv", which teaches about Peri'ah, we can say that Avraham was commanded. What is the proof that Peri'ah was not given to Avraham?

Answer: We should say that he was commanded only what is explicitly written regarding him, e.g. strands, which we expound from "Himol Yimol", which connotes that it comes for strands, and not for Peri'ah;

Himol Yimol connotes that something that is Me'akev Milah itself. The Gemara means that Peri'ah was not given to Avraham, since it is written explicitly only regarding Yehoshua.

Inference: They did not circumcise at all [in the Midbar].

Contradiction: Pirkei d'R. Eliezer (29) connotes that they did circumcise, for it says "Mi Manah Afar Yakov" - he (Bilam) saw the entire Midbar full of foreskins of Yisrael.

Support: Megilas Setarim of Rabbeinu Nisim also connotes that they circumcised, but did not do Peri'ah. He wrote in it that the entire 40 years that Yisrael were in the Midbar, they did not do Peri'ah, due to affliction of traveling.

Question: How could they eat Kodshim, or even meat at all, since they did not circumcise?

They were not permitted meat for appetite, only through offering a Shelamim, and an Arel may not eat Kodshim;

Even if they did Milah without Peri'ah, like Pirkei d'R. Eliezer and Megilas Setarim of Rabbeinu Nisim connote, since they were commanded about Peri'ah but did not do Peri'ah, it is as if they did not circumcise!

Proof: If you would not say so, what is the proof that an Arel can receive Haza'ah from our ancestors? (They were considered circumcised!)

Answer: Those who left Mitzrayim circumcised and did Peri'ah. They ate Kodshim. Those born in the Midbar, who did not circumcise, did not eat Kodshim;

However, they were permitted meat for appetite. It was not forbidden to them, since they could not eat Kodshim;

It is just like deer and wild goat (Chayos). Since they cannot be offered for Korbanos, one may eat them for appetite, like it explains in Chulin (17a).