1)

(a)We try to prove from the Mishnah in Mikva'os 'Gal she'Nislash, u'Vo Arba'in Sa'ah, v'Nafal al ha'Adam v'al ha'Kelim, Tehorin' - that Tevilas Adam l'Chulin does not require Kavanah.

(b)We assume that Tevilas Adam is speaking about a case when the person did not have Kavanah, because 'Adam Dumya d'Kelim' (and Kelim do not have Da'as, in which case, their Tevilah Stam is wiothout Kavanah).

(c)We refute the proof however - by countering that, on the contrary, 'Kelim Dumyah l'Adam', because just as by Tevilas Adam, the person intends to Tovel, so too, does Tevilas Kelim speak by 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh' (where the owner is sitting and waiting for the wave to fall on his vessels).

2)

(a)The problem with this explanation is - that at first sight, establishing the Mishnah in Mikva'os by 'Adam Dumya l'Kelim' appears to be a better proposition, since then at least the Tana is teaching us that Chulin does not require Kavanah, but if it speaking in a case of 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh', then he does seem to be teaching us anything.

(b)We answer that in fact, even if we establish it by 'Yoshev u'Metzapeh', the Tana would be teaching us one of two Chidushim. The first, that we are not Gozer that a person might come to Tovel the vessels in a Chardelis - (a large collection of water, consisting of more than forty Sa'ah, flowing down the slopes of a mountain (which would be invalid, because one may only Tovel in rain-water when it is gathered in one place and not moving).

(c)The second Chidush is - that we do not decree that one may come to Tovel the vessels in the arch of a wave (the part that is off the ground).

(d)We know that one cannot Tovel in the arch of a wave whose end is on the ground - from a Beraisa, which the Tana forbids ...

(e)... because, he says, one is not permitted to Tovel in the air.

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Machshirin says that if someone places his Tamei hands into a pool of water to withdraw some fruit that fell into it, the fruit is not Muchshar l'Kabel Tum'ah - because he is not interested in the water (which is therefore not 'b'Chi Yutan'); whereas if he meant to Tovel his hands, it is - because since he wants the water, the fruit falls into the category of 'b'Chi Yutan' (if one is pleased with the Tevilah, it is as if he actually placed the water on the object [or vice-versa).

(b)Either way, says the Beraisa, his hands are Tahor - proving that Netilas Yadayim does not require Kavanah.

(c)When Rava queried the current contention (that Tevilas Chulin does not require Kavanah) from our Mishnah ...

1. ... 'ha'Tovel l'Chulin, v'Huchzak l'Chulin, Asur l'Ma'aser' (implying that Chulin too, requires Kavanah) - Rav Nachman explained that what the Tana means is that even if he had Kavanah for Chulin, he would be forbidden to eat Ma'aser (as we explained in the Mishnah [but not that Chulin requires Kavanah]), and when he says ...

2. ... 'Taval v'Lo Huchzak, Ke'ilu Lo Taval', he means - that it is as if he did not Tovel for Ma'aser (but for Chulin, his Tevilah is valid).

(d)Rava considered this latter answer a Dochek (a forced answer). We know that it is authentic however - because it is supported by a Beraisa, which states 'Taval v'Lo Huchzak, Asur l'Ma'aser u'Mutar l'Chulin'.

4)

(a)Rebbi Elazar rules - that one may Tovel first and then decide for which level of Kedushah the Tevilah should be effective.

(b)As for the Beraisa which says that only as long as one's feet are still in the water may he make such a decision - that speaks when he already had in mind a lighter Kedushah, in which case, he may only then decide to cover a more stringent Kedushah, as long as his feet are still in the water, whereas Rebbi Elazar speaks when he Toveled Stam (without any Kavanah at all).

5)

(a)Rav Pedas maintains that the author of this Beraisa must be Rebbi Yehudah - who says (in a Mishnah in Mikva'os) that if two people Tovel in a Mikvah that contained exactly forty Sa'ah of water, then, as long as the feet of the first person are still in the water, the second one is Tahor, too; but not if the first one has already left the water when the second one Tovels, since the Mikvah is now short of forty Sa'ah.

(b)Some say that Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes Rebbi Yehudah when the two men are Tamei with a Tum'ah d'Rabanan (such as those in our Mishnah), and it is there that he disagrees with the Rabanan. But if the two men are Tamei d'Oraisa - then even Rebbi Yehudah will agree that the second one remains Tamei in any case.

(c)The second Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah maintains - that on the contrary, by a Tum'ah d'Rabanan, even the Rabanan will concede to Rebbi Yehudah that the second person becomes Tahor if the first one's feet are still in the water, and it is by a Tum'ah d'Oraisa that they argue with him.

(d)It is the first Lashon in Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah which conforms with Rav Pedas (who establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and not the Rabanan) - according to the second Lashon, the author of our Mishnah could equally well be the Rabanan.

6)

(a)The underlying principle of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that as long as the feet of the first person to Tovel are still in the water, the second person may Tovel there - is 'Gud Achis' (extending all the water on the first person's body downwards, as if it was in the Mikvah).

(b)They asked Rebbi Yochanan whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, one may Tovel pins and needles on the head of the first man whose feet are still in the water - which would be based on the principle 'Gud Asik' (extending the water in the Mikvah upwards as if it was joined to the water [and to the pins and needles] on the man's head).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan tries to resolve the She'eilah with the Beraisa, which discusses a case of three pools of water, one above the other, in a sloping valley.

1. The top pool and the lower pool each contain twenty Sa'ah; the middle one, forty.

2. The three pools are joined by a Chardelis of rain-water that is flowing between them.

7)

(a)He tries to resolve our She'eilah with Rebbi Yehudah, who, quoting Rebbi Meir rules 'Matbil b'Elyonah' (because of 'Gud Asik').

(b)They refuted his proof however, on the basis of the continuation of the Beraisa (of which Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware) 'va'Ani Omer, b'Tachtonah v'Lo b'Elyonah' ...

(c)... to which Rebbi Yochanan replied 'I Tanya, Tanya'.

8)

(a)The Reisha of our Mishnah cites five levels of Kedushah, listing Chulin and Ma'aser as two of the levels. The Seifa (combining Chulin and Ma'aser into one level) lists only four. In order to reconcile the two - we establish the Reisha like the Rabanan (cited above earlier), who distinguish between Chulin and Ma'aser, and the Seifa like Rebbi Meir, who treats Ma'aser like Chulin in this regard.

(b)Rav Acha bar Ada emends the Mishnah so that the Reisha and the Seifa are both learned by the Rabanan - by adding 'Bigdei Ochlei Chulin Midras l'Ochlei Ma'aser' to the beginning of the Beraisa amending the Seifa to contain five levels like the Reisha, adding 'Bigdei Ochlei Chulin Midras l'Ochlei Ma'aser' to the beginning).

9)

(a)We try to prove from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah does not include in its list, 'Bigdei Perushin ha'Ochlin Chuleihen b'Taharas Chulin, Midras l'Ochlei Chuleihen b'Taharas ha'Kodesh' - that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' have the same status as Kodesh.

(b)We refute that however, on the grounds that - even if they were like Chulin (like the opinion of the Tana Kama) or like Terumah (like that of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok - who argue in a Beraisa), it would not be necessary to mention them, because both Terumah and Chulin are already included in the list.

(c)We ultimately prove that they do, from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda Hayah Ochel al Taharas ha'Kodesh Kol Yamav, v'Haysa Mitpachto Midras l'Chatas' - from which we infer Midras for Chatas, but not for Kodesh. This can only be due to the fact that 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh are considered Kodesh.