1)

TOSFOS DH EIN HA'MEDUMA CHOZER U'MEDAMA ELA L'FI CHESHBON

úåñ' ã"ä àéï äîãåîò çåæø åîãîò àìà ìôé çùáåï

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement and establishes it like the Chachamim, and then explains Rebbi Eliezer's opinion.)

ëãîôøù áâîøà - ëâåï ñàä ùì úøåîä ùðôìä ìôçåú îîàä ùì çåìéï åðãîòå, åðôì îï äîãåîò ìî÷åí àçø, ãàéðä îãîòú äùðéä àìà ìôé çùáåï úøåîä ùáä ...

(a)

Clarification: As the Gemara explains - When a Sa'ah of T'rumah falls into a less than a hundred Sa'ah of Chulin and the became Meduma, and some of the Dimu'a then fell into another batch of Chulin, the second batch only becomes Meduma according to the amount of T'rumah that is now in it ...

åàí éù áùðéä ùéòåø ëãé ìáèì ùéòåø îï äúøåîä ùðôì áä, áèéìä àó òì âá ãàéï áøàùåðä ëãé ìáèì ùéòåø äúøåîä ùðôì áä ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): So that in the event that it contains sufficient to render Bateil the T'rumah that fell into it, it becomes Bateil, even though the first batch did not ...

åäééðå ëçëîéí ãâîøà, åìà ëãáøé ø' àìéòæø ãàîø 'îãîò ëúøåîä åãàé' ...

(b)

Authorship: And this goes according to the Chachamim in the Gemara, and not like Rebbi Eliezer, who says that 'It is Medama like T'rumah Vadai'.

åä"ä ãîìúà ãøáé àìéòæø äåéà àôéìå àí éù áøàùðä îàä ëãé ìáèì îä ùðôì áä ...

(c)

Rebbi Eliezer: And in the same way, Rebbi Eliezer's Din will apply even if the first batch did contain a hundred Sa'ah, enough to render Bateil the T'runmah that fell into it ...

ëéåï ãìà òìúä àçú îäï ÷åãí ùðôì áùðéä...

1.

Reason: Seeing as he did not remove one Sa'ah before it fell into the second batch ...

åöøéê ìäòìåú ...

(d)

Rebbi Eliezer (cont.): And he will have to remove it ...

îôðé âæì äùáè.

1.

Reason): Due to Gezel ha'Sheivet.

2)

TOSFOS DH V'EIN HA'MECHUMATZ CHOZER U'MECHAMETZ ELA L'FI CHESHBON

úåñ' ã"ä åàéï äîçåîõ çåæø åîçîõ àìà ìôé çùáåï

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation.)

ôøù"é òéñä ùì çåìéï ùðúçîöä áùàåø ùì úøåîä, ëåìä àñåøä; åàí ðôì îàåúä òéñä ìúåê òéñä àçøú ùì çåìéï åçîöúä, àéðä àåñøúä àìà ìôé çùáåï ùàåø äúøåîä ùîòåøá áä ...

(a)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - a dough that rose via yeast of T'rumah is completely Asur; and if some of that dough then falls into another Chulin dough and causes it to rise, it only renders it Asur according to the measure of the T'rumah yeast that got mixed in it ...

ëìåîø ùàí ðôì áòéñä àçøåðä îï äøàùåðä ùéòåø âãåì ëì ëê ùéäà áå îùàåø ùì úøåîä ùðúçîöä îîðå ëãé ìçîõ äàçøåðä, àñåøä àó äàçøåðä ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): In other words, the latter dough only becomes Asur if there was sufficient T'rumah yeast of the first dough to make it rise.

åàí áéï äëì îä ùðôì îï äøàùåðä ìúåê äàçøåðä àéï áå àìà ëãé ìçîõ äàçøåðä, îåúøú äàçøåðä ...

2.

Explanation #1 (concl.): But if it requires the combination of all that what in the first dough to make it rise, then it is permitted.

ëéåï ùìà ðôì îï äúøåîä ëãé ìçîõ òë"ì øù"é.

(b)

Reason: Since not enough of the T'rumah fell to make it rise (until here is the wording of Rashi).

åìà ðøàä, ãàí ëï, ëé àîø áâîøà òìä [ãìà] ëøáé àìéòæø ãúðï 'ùàåø ùì çåìéï åùì úøåîä ... ', ìà äéä öøéê ìàúåéé ãìà ëøáé àìéòæø [îîúðé' ãùàåø] ...

(c)

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if that is so, when the Gemara, with reference to that Beraisa, comments that it does not go according to Rebbi Eliezer, who says in a Mishnah 'A yeast of Chulin and T'rumah ... ', it did not to prove that it is not like Rebbi Eliezer from the Mishnah of 'Yeast' ...

àìà îääéà îùðä ùäáéà âáé îãåîò, ãîéðä îöé ìàåëåçé ùôéø ãìà ëø' àìéòæø?

1.

Refutation (cont.): Since it could have extrapolated from the Mishnah that it already cited in connection with Meduma that it does not go like him?

ìëï ðøàä ìôøù ëâåï ëæéú ùàåø ùì úøåîä åëæéú ùàåø ùì çåìéï ùðéäí áòéï, åðôìå ìúåê òéñä ùì çåìéï åçéîöå, åàéï áëì àçã ìáãä ëãé ìçîõ, ãàéðä àñåøä ...

(d)

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it speaks where a k'Zayis of T'rumah yeast together with a k'Zayis of Chulin yeast both fell into a Chulin dough and caused it to rise, and neither of them would have done so on its own, that it is not Asur ...

åäééðå 'ìôé çùáåï' - ëãé ìçîõ áùàåø ùì úøåîä ìáãä ...

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this is what is meant by 'according to the Cheshbon' - enough to make it rise via the T'rumah on its own ...

åæäå îîù ëé ääéà îùðä ãîééúé òìä áâîøà 'åçëîéí àåîøéí ... ', ãñáø 'æä åæä âåøí àñåø'.

(e)

Conclusion: And that conforms precisely to the Mishnah cited in the Gemara 'And the Chachamim say ... ', since he (Rebbi Eliezer) holds 'Zeh v'Zeh Gorem Asur'.

3)

TOSFOS DH REBBI ELIEZER BEN YAAKOV HI D'TENAN ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä øáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á äéà ãúðï ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the ruling.)

ùäùàéáä îèäøú áøáééä åáäîùëä ...

(a)

Clarification: Because She'ivah (drawn water) is Metaher via a majority and Hamshachah (flowing along the ground) ...

åäééðå ìôé çùáåï - ùàéï äùàåáéï ôåñìéï àìà àí ëï éù áäï ëäëùøéí ãäééðå ë' ñàä îï äùàåáéï åë' ñàä îï äëùøéí ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): And that is 'according to the Cheshbon' - in that She'uvin only disqualifies the Mikvah if the amount equals the Kasher water - twenty Sa'ah of She'uvin and twenty Sa'ah of Kasher water ...

àáì àí ìà äîùéê îï äùàåáéï ëé àí úùòä òùø ìúåê ë"à äëùøéí, ëùø äåà.

2.

Clarification (cont.): But if he was only Moshech nineteen Sa'ah of She'uvin into twenty-one of Kasher water, the Mikvah is Kasher.

12b----------------------------------------12b

4)

TOSFOS DH ELE AMAR RAV PAPA L'FI CHESHBON HA'KELIM

úåñ' ã" àìà àîø øá ôôà ìôé çùáåï äëìéí

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's explanation and elaborates.)

ëìåîø ùðôì áùìùä ëìéí ëðâã çùáåï äìåâéï - åéåñó áï çåðé äéà.

(a)

Explanation #1: This means that it fell from three vessels corresponding to the number of Lugin - and the author is Yosef ben Choni.

åìôé æä øáðï ì÷åìà ôìéâé, åäà ãëé àúé øáéï øáðï äéà ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to that, the Rabbanan who argue are more lenient, and the case of 'When Ravin came' goes according to the Rabbanan ...

åîúðéúéï ìàå áäëé îééøé, ãúéîà øáé àìéòæø äéà åøáðï ìçåîøà ôìéâé. ëï ôøù"é.

2.

Explanation #1 (concl.): Whereas our Mishnah is not speaking about that, that we should say that it is Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan are more stringent (Rashi).

åä÷ùä ä"ø ùîåàì îìåðé"ì, ãàéï æä ùéèú äù"ñ ëìì, ãîòé÷øà ìãáøé øáé çééà áø àáà, øáé àìéòæø ì÷åìà åøáðï ìçåîøà, åìãáøé øáéï øáé àìéòæø ìçåîøà åøáðï ì÷åìà - ñáøú àîåøàé äôåëä ëæä ìà îöéðå?

(b)

Question #1: ha'Rav Shmuel from Lunil queries this however, in that it is not the way of the Gemara at all - to say that initially, according to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, Rebbi Eliezer is lenient and the Rabbanan strict, and then according to Ravin, Rebbi Eliezer is strict and the Rabbanan lenient - such a reversal of opinions among the Amora'im we do not find? (See Shitah Mekubetzes 30).

åòåã, äéëé îöéðå ìîéîø ãìøáðï, ùàéáä ùäîùéëä ëåìä åàéï áî÷åä îé âùîéí àçøéí ùéäà ëùø ...

(c)

Introduction to Question #2: Furthermore, how can one say that, according to the Rabbanan, drawn water which, via Hamshachah, makes up the entire Mikvah, which contains no rainwater, is Kasher, since ...

à"ë ÷ùéà îôø÷ ÷îà ãúòðéú (ãó éâ.) ãàîø 'ðåòìéï àú äîøçöàåú' åàîøéðï áâîøà òìä 'ëì ùäåà îùåí àáéìåú, àñåø ìøçåõ áéï áçîéï áéï áöåðï, åëì ùäåà îùåí úòðåâ, áçîéï àñåø, áöåðï îåúø ...

1.

Introduction to Question #2 (cont.): This poses a Kashya from the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 13a) where, on the Mishnah 'One closes the bathhouses, the Gemara comments 'Whatever is due to mourning, it is forbidden to bathe in both hot and cold water; whereas whatever is merely for pleasure is forbidden in hot water but permitted in cold ...

òã 'ìéîà îñééò ìéä - "ëì çééáé èáéìåú èåáìéï ëãøëï áè' áàá åáéåä"ë" '. áîàé? àéìéîà áçîéï, èáéìä îé àéëà áçîéï, äà ùàåáéï ðéðäå?'

2.

Introduction to Question #2 (concl.): Till 'Is this a proof for him - "All Chayvei Tevilos may Tovel as normal on Tish'ah be'Av and on Yom Kipur". How is this speaking? If it is speaking about hot water, how can one Tovel in hot water, which is She'uvin?'

åàé ëãáøé øù"é ãùàéáä îèäøú áäîùëä áìà ùåí îé âùîéí, àí ëï îöéðå èáéìä áçîéï ëâåï ùäîùéëï?

3.

Question #2: According to Rashi, that drawn water which, via Hamshachah, makes up the entire Mikvah, which contains no Kasher water, is Kasher without any rain-water, we can indeed find Tevilah in hot water - where one made Hamshachah?

åò"÷ îääéà ãúðï áîñëú î÷ååàåú (ô"å î"ç) 'á' î÷ååàåú, àçã òìéåï åàçã úçúåï, áòìéåï àøáòéí ñàä åáúçúåï àéï áä î' ñàä, îîìà áëúó åðåúï ìòìéåï òã ùéøãå ìúçúåï î' ñàä' ...

(d)

Introduction to Question #3: There is another Kashya from the Mishnah in Mikva'os (Perek 6 Mishnah 8) - 'If there are two Mikvaos, one higher up and one lower down, the former contains forty Sa'ah, but the latter does not - then he may fill buckets manually and pour them into the upper Mikvah so that it overflows into the lower one until it contains forty Sa'ah' ...

åàé ùàéáä îèäøú ò"é äîùëä áìà îéí àçøéí, ìîä ìé ðåúï áòìéåï, àôéìå ðúï á÷ø÷ò åäîùéëï ìúçúåï òöîå, äåé èäåø?

1.

Question #3: Now if She'ivah was Metaher even without any rainwater, why would one need to pour into the upper Mikvah? It ought to be Tahor even if he pours directly on to the ground and it flows into the lower Mikvah itself?

åòåã ãúðï ô"ã ãîñëú î÷ååàåú (î"ã) 'îé âùîéí åîéí ùàåáéï ùðúòøáå áçöø åáòå÷ä åòì îòìåú äîòøä, àí øåá îï äëùø, ëùø, åàí øåá îï äôñåì, ôñåì; [îçöä ìîçöä ôñåì] ...

(e)

Introduction to Question #4: Moreover, the Mishnah says there in Mikva'os (Mishnah 4) 'If rainwater and Mayim Shye'uvin mix in a Chatzer in a pit or on the steps of a cave, if the majority is the Kasher water, it is Kasher, but if the Pasul water is the majority, it is Pasul; half half, it is also Pasul ...

àéîúé? áæîï ùðúòøáå òã ùìà éâéòå ìî÷åä ëå' ...

1.

Introduction to Question #4 (cont.): When is that? Where they did not mix before reaching the Mikvah ... ' ...

åäùúà ìîä ìé ðúòøáå, àôé' îéí ùàåáéï ìáãï ëùøéï ò"é äîùëä?

(f)

Question #4: Why do they need to mix at all, seeing as even drawn water on its own is Kasher via Hamshachah?

åùìç ä"ø ùîåàì ù÷éáì îøáåúéå 'ùàéáä ùäîùéëåä ëåìä èäåøä' äééðå ëùéáåàå áî÷åä [àç"ë] îé âùîéí î' ñàä ...

(g)

Explanation #2: ha'Rav Shmuel therefore sent that he had received from his Rebbes that 'Mayim She'uvim which is completely drawn is Tahor' speaks where forty Sa'ah of rainwater subsequently came into the Mikvah (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos).

åäùúà îéúøöà ëì îä ùä÷ùéðå, åùôéø äåé äê îéìúà ãøáéï ëø"à áï éò÷á - ãìòðéï öéøåó î' ñàä, áòéðï øåá äëùø.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): According to that, all the Kashyos are answered and the statement of Ravin can very well go like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - because with regard to combining to form forty Sa'ah, one needs a majority of Kasher water.

åëï îùîò îúåê ìùåï ùàìúåú ãøá àçàé ùëúåá 'î÷åä àçã ùðôì áå â' ìåâéï îéí ùàåáéï, ôñåì; åàé àîùëéðäå àáøàé àâá îøæéáà åàæìé ìî÷åä, ìà ôñìé ...

(h)

Support: And this is also implied in the Lashon of the She'iltos of Rav Acha'I, where it writes 'A Mikvah into which three Lugin of drawn water fall is Pasul; but if one makes Hamshachah from outside via a drain and it then flows into the Mikvah, it does not render it Pasul ...

ãëé àúà øáéï àîø øáé éåçðï 'ùàéáä ùäîùéëåä ëåìä, èäåøä, åàéöèøåôé îöèøôé ìî' ñàä - ãúðéà 'ø' àìéòæø áï éò÷á àåîø ... ' ...

1.

Support (cont.): Because when Ravin came he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that 'Drawn water which, via Hamshachah, makes up the entire Mikvah is Tahor, and it combines to make up forty Sa'ah - as we learned in a Beraisa 'Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says ... ' ...

àìîà îùîò ãàéú ìéä ãùôéø îéúå÷îé äðé úøé îéìé îéìúà ãøáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á åîéìúà ãøáéï, àìîà ìà ôìéâé àäããé.

2.

Support (concl.): So we see that he holds that one can establish both the ruling of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and that of Ravin, and they do not contradict one another.

åø"é äùéá ìå ãùôéø îéúå÷îà ñåâéà ãùîòúéï ìôøåùé ... ãîùîò ìéä ãìøáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á áòé øåá îé âùîéí, àáì àí øåáï ùàåáéï àôéìå àí éøãå àç"ë î' ñàä îé âùîéí, ìà îúëùø ...

(i)

Refutation: The Ri however, answered him that one can establish our Sugya ... since it seems to him that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov requires a majority of rainwater, but if the majority is drawn water, even if forty Sa'ah of rainwater subsequently falls into it, iyt does not become Kasher ...

åîùåí äëé ôøéê ãîéìúà ãøáéï ìà îéúå÷îà ìà ëø"à áï éò÷á åìà ëøáðï.

1.

Refutation (cont.): And that explains why the Gemara asks that the statement of Ravin goes neither like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov nor like the Rabbanan.

îéäå àåîø ø"é ãëì îä ùä÷ùä ìà ÷ùä îéãé ...

(j)

Refuting R. Shmuel's Questions: However the Ri says that all that he (R. Shmuel) asked is not difficult ...

ãáëîä î÷åîåú áäù"ñ îöéðå ëï ãîòé÷øà äéä îôøù îéìúà ãçã úðà ìäçîéø åàç"ë îôøùå ìä÷ì ...

(k)

Refuting Question #1: Because in many places in Shas we find that initially it explains the words of one Tana to be stringent, and then it explains it to be lenient.

áô"÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó ìæ.) âáé ø' àìéòæø àåîø 'àó äçãù', ãîéáòé ìéä áäù"ñ àé øáé àìéòæø ì÷åìà ôìéâ àå ìçåîøà ôìéâ.

1.

Example #1: In the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 37a) in connection with Rebbi Eliezer, where the Gemara asks whether Rebbi Eliezer argues le'Kula or le'Chumra.

åëï âáé îáåé ùðèìå ìçééå, åëï âáé çìîé.

2.

Examples #2 & #3: And similarly in connection with a Mavoy whose Lechi was removed, and in connection with Chelmi.

åääéà ãúòðéú ìà ÷ùä îéãé - ãìèòîéê ðîé úé÷ùé ãîöéðå ùôéø áçîéï - ëâåï ùäîùéê é"è ñàä çîéï ìúåê ë"à ñàä îé âùîéí ...

(l)

Refuting Question #2: Nor is the Sugya in Ta'anis difficult - since even according to the questioner one can also ask that one does find Tevilah in hot water - there where one is Mochech nineteen Sa'ah of hot water into twenty-one of rainwater ...

àå î÷åä ùìí ùéèéì ìúåëå ëîä - ããëéåï ùäåà ùìí, àéðå ðôñì ...

1.

Refuting Question #2 (cont.): Or where one poured any amount into a complete Mikvah - because once it is complete, it does not become Pasul

àé ðîé ò"é òùùéåú ùì áøæì ùäåçîå åðúðå ìî÷åä ëãàîøéðï áîñëú éåîà (ãó ìà:) âáé èáéìä ãë"â áéåä"ë.

2.

Refuting Question #2 (cont.): Or via metal bars that were heated and placed in the Mikvah, as the Gemara states in Yoma (Daf 31b) in connection with the Tevilah of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur.

åùàø îùðéåú ùäáàúé ãîñëú î÷ååàåú àôùø ìàå÷åîéðäå ëøáé àìéòæø áï éò÷á.

3.

Refuting Question #2 (concl.): And it is possible to establish the remaining Mishnyos that Tosfos quoted from Masechtes Mikva'os like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

åòåã éù ìåîø îääéà ã'ðåúï ìòìéåï òã ùéøãå áúçúåï î' ñàä' - ãàúà ìàùîòéðï ãäéëà ãéù áî÷åä î' ñàä îéí ëùøéí, àôé' éøãå áå ÷' ñàä îéí ùàåáéï, ìà éôñìåäå.

(m)

Refuting Question #3: Moreover one can answer that the Mishnah 'He places the water in the upper Mikvah until forty Sa'ah overflows into the lower Mikvah' - is coming to teach us that once a Mikvah contains forty Sa'ah, even if a hundred Sa'ah of Mayim She'uvin fall into it, they do not render it Pasul.

åäðøàä ìôé äàîú ãàéï ìòùåú î÷åä ëåìäå ùàåá ò"é äîùëä ...

(n)

Halachah: It would seem that according to the Halachah one may not make a Mikvah entirely of Mayim She'uvim via Hamshachah ...

ãàôé' ìôéøù"é, äìëä ëø' àìéòæø áï éò÷á [ãîùðúå] ÷á åð÷é ...

1.

Reason: Since even according to Rashi, the Halachah is like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, whose Mishnah is 'Kav ve'Naki' (sparse but clean - i.e. Halachah) ...

àáì ò"é øáééä åäîùëä ëùø ìë"ò ...

(o)

Halachah (cont.): But via a majority and Hamshachah it is unanimously Kasher ...

ùàí éù áî÷åä ë"à ñàä îéí ëùøéí îåúø, ìîìàåú áëúó úùò òùøä ñàä åìòùåú çøéõ á÷ø÷ò åìòøåú ùí åìäîùéëï ìî÷åä òã ùéúîìà ...

1.

Clarification: Inasmuch as if the Mikvah contains twenty-one Sa'ah of Kasher water, it is permitted to fill it manually with nineteen Sa'ah, to make a ditch in the ground and pour the water into it and let it flow into the Mikvah until it fills up ...

ëääéà ãô"ã ãîñëú î÷ååàåú ùäáàúé ã÷úðé 'àéîúé? áæîï ùðúòøáå òã ùìà ùéâéòå ìî÷åä' - äà àñé÷ðà ãò"é øáééä åäîùëä ìëåìé òìîà ëùø.

2.

Source: Like the Mishnah in the fourth Perek of Mikva'os wich Tosfos quoted - 'When is that? When they get mixed before they reach the Mikvah' - so it concludes that via a majority and Hamshachah everyone agrees that it is Kasher.

åðøàä ã÷úðé 'ùðúòøáå òã ùìà éâéòå ìî÷åä' ...

(p)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana says 'before they reach the Mikvah' is ...

ìàôå÷é äéëà ùäöéðåø ùç÷÷å åìáñåó ÷áòå éåøã ìî÷åä áìà äîùëä.

1.

Answer: To preclude where the pipe that they carved and then fitted goes right down to the Mikvah without Hamshachah (flowing along the ground).

5)

TOSFOS DH YOSEF BEN CHONI OMER BI'SHENAYIM U'SHELOSHAH KEILIM POSLIN ES HA'MIKVAH B'ARBA'AH V'CHAMISHAH KEILIM EIN POSLIN

úåñ' ã"ä éåñó áï çåðé àåîø áùðéí åùìùä ëìéí ôåñìéí àú äî÷åä áàøáòä åçîùä ëìéí àéï ôåñìéï

(Summary: Tosfos explains 'L'fi Cheshbon' according to Yosef ben Choni, and elaborates.)

å'ìôé çùáåï' ã÷úðé îúðé' äëé ÷àîø - åàéï îéí ùàåáéï ôåñìéï àú äî÷åä àìà à"ë ðôìå îëìéí ìôé çùáåï äìåâéï ùôåñìéï äî÷åä - ãäééðå ùìùä, àáì àí ðôìå äâ' ìåâéï áã' åä' ôòîéí, ìà ôñìé.

(a)

Clarification: And 'L'fi Cheshbon, according to this, means - that the drawn water does not disqualify the Mikvah unless it falls into it in accordance with the number of Lugin that render the Mikvah Pasul - i.e. three, but if the three Lugin fall in four or five times, they do not disqualify it (See Shitah Mekubetzes Hashmatos).

åôñ÷ ä"ø àáøäí áø ãåã ãäìëä ëéåñó áø çåðé ...

(b)

P'sak Halachah: ha'Rav Avraham b'R. David Paskens like Yosef ben Choni ...

ìôéëê ðøàä ëùùåàáéï àú äî÷åä ìð÷åúå, ùðåèìéï àåúï îéí ùáúåëå åáàéí îéí àçøéí úçúéäï, àéï ìçåù àôé' àí ðùúééø ÷öú îï äøàùåðéí áî÷åä ...

(c)

Inference: It would therefore seem that when one drains the Mikvah to clean it, taking out the water and replacing it, one need not worry if some of the original water remains in the Mikvah ...

åàó òì âá ùðåôì îï äãìé ìúåëå, åäåå ìäå ùí éåúø îâ' ìåâéï îéí ùàåáéï ...

(d)

Implied Question: Even if some of it falls from the bucket into it, and that more than three Lugin remain ...

àô"ä àéï ìçåù, ãîñúîà ìà ðôìå â' ìåâéï îùìùä ëìéí.

1.

Answer: Nevertheless, it doesn't matter, since the three Lugin did not fall in from three vessels.

åéù îçîéøéï - ùðå÷áéï àú äãìé áëåðñ îù÷ä, îùåí äê çùùà ãôé'.

(e)

Another Opinion: However, some people are Machmir - they make a hole in the bucket large enough to allow liquid to enter, due to the concern that Tosfos just raised.

6)

TOSFOS DH HA KEITZAD RATZAH AFAR L'MATAH RATZAH AFAR L'MA'ALAH

úåñ' ã"ä äà ëéöã øöä òôø ìîèä øöä òôø ìîòìä

(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gezeirah Shavah.)

åà"ú, à"ë âæéøä ùåä ìîàé àúà?

(a)

Question: In that case, what do we learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah?

åé"ì, ãìîöåä áòéðï îéí úçéìä åàç"ë òôø, ëãëúéá áñåèä (áîãáø ä) "åîï äòôø àùø éäéä á÷ø÷ò äîùëï é÷ç äëäï åðúï àì äîéí" ...

(b)

Answer: It is a Mitzvah to pour the water first and then the earth, as the Torah writes in connection with a Sotah (Bamidbar 5) "And from the earth that is on the ground of the Mishkan the Kohen shall take and put it into the water" ...

åîù"ä àúéà âæéøä ùåä.

1.

Conclusion: And that is what the Gezeirah Shavah comes to teach us.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF