Explanation #1 (Rashi): It descends from a high mountain, and it has 40 Sa'im. The Tevilah was invalid, because Ketafres (water descending on an incline) is not connected (Ohalos 3:3, brought in Gitin 16a).

Explanation #2 (Ri, and some Perushim of Rashi): It is Pasul because a Mikveh is not Metaher with flowing water, rather, only with gathered water, like a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim teaches.

Support (for explanation #1 - R. Elchanan): The first Perush is primary, since we decree about a sea wave;

If it were due to flowing, it would help with a wave of the sea, unless we establish it like R. Meir, who says (Mikva'os 5:4) that all seas are like a Mikveh.

Question (my Rebbi): Why do we say that it is a decree due to a Chardelis (water flowing down a mountain) of rainwater? Even [a wave] of the sea does not help!

The Mishnah says that Beis Hillel say that we do not immerse in a Chardelis. It connotes that this refers to any Chardelis, since it does not explicitly mention rainwater.

This is fine according to the first Perush.

Question: Ketafres is connected regarding Mikva'os, like the Ri explained! (The Mishnah says that it is not connected regarding other matters of Tum'ah and Taharah.) If so, why doesn't it help?

If the reason were due to flowing, this would be more possible [to explain].

Explanation #1: The Chidush of [the Seifa of] our Mishnah is that it helps for Chulin even without Kavanah;

It need not teach that [he is not Huchzak for] Ma'aser even though he is Huchzak for Chulin. The Reisha taught this! R. Elchanan said so.

Explanation #2: Also, we can say that had it taught only the Reisha, one might have thought that regarding Ma'aser, it is better when he was not Huchzak at all, than when he was Huchzak for Chulin, for in the former case, he did not totally divert his mind from Ma'aser. (The Seifa teaches that this is not so.)

Explanation: This is when he is still wet. In some Seforim, the text explicitly says [that he is still] "wet".

Rashi's text: Rashi says that the text does not say "this implies that R. Yehudah..."

Explanation: One may immerse in the top one, due to Gud Asik (we project the water upwards, so it is as if the top pool is connected to the Mikveh), and all the more so we say Gud Achis (we project the water downwards, so the bottom pool is connected to the Mikveh).

R. Yehudah does not argue with him, since he did not teach "and I argue with him."

[Our text says] "another Beraisa says, R. Meir says, [he may immerse] in the top or bottom. I (R. Yehudah) say in the bottom, but not in the top... does not argue with him, since he did not teach "and I argue with him."

Rejection: We cannot resolve the text in Seforim, for if so, the Beraisos contradict each other. Why do you follow the latter? All of this is from Rashi's Perush.

Defense: We can resolve the text. This is how R. Chananel explained it. R. Yehudah says, R. Meir says in the bottom, but not in the top, for he holds Gud Asik, but not Gud Achis;

Inference: R. Yehudah holds that Gud Asik. Since he said "R. Meir holds", this implies that he disagrees.

We ask from a Beraisa that says "R. Yehudah says, R. Meir says, in the top or bottom, and I say in the bottom, but not in the top. This implies that he (R. Yehudah) does not hold that Gud Asik!

The Beraisos do not contradict each other. This that R. Yehudah says [in the second Beraisa] that R. Meir says "not in the top", this is R. Yehudah's opinion (what he thought R. Meir held, before he actually heard R. Meir's opinion). However, R. Meir [really] holds [that he may immerse even] in the top (like the first Beraisa says). This is from my Rebbi.

Inference: Ketafres is a connection.

Question #1: A Mishnah, brought in Gitin (16a), teaches that Nitzuk (a liquid falling through air), Ketafres and a liquid Tofe'ach (wet enough to wet something else) are not connected for Tum'ah or Taharah.

Question #2: Why does it discuss [here] three pools? It suffices to discuss two pools, each of 20 Sa'im, and a Chardelis connects them!

Answer (R. Tam): Here is different, for there is a full Mikveh in the middle.

Support: Gitin (16a) connotes like this, according to Rashi, who says that Ketafres discusses two pools, each of 20 Sa'im, and a Chardelis connects them.

He did not mention three [pools], like it says here. This shows that he holds that it is logical to distinguish [when there is a full Mikveh in the middle].

Question: How did we compare to resolve from here the question of immersing needles and small forks in the head of the first [to leave the Mikveh], like above, and we do not say that there is different, because [there is] a full Mikveh?

Answer: There above, there is another reason. It is Ketafres that is destined to descend, what is in the head of the first.

Support: This answers another question of R. Tam;

Question: There in Gitin, it connotes that Nitzuk and Ketafres are not connections, and we conclude that this is regarding Mikva'os, and it is like R. Yehudah.

Inference: Even R. Yehudah agrees to this.

Summation of question: Above, we say that if the first one's feet were touching the water, also the second is Tahor. This shows that Ketafres is a connection!

Answer: Here is different, for it is destined to descend.

Rebuttal: We could say that we establish it like R. Yehudah only regarding Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach. Nitzuk and Ketafres were not taught explicitly [with Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach].

Note: there Ilfa asked if hands can become Tahor half-way. He did not ask about when there is still liquid Tofe'ach, for a Mishnah teaches that Nitzuk, Ketafres and liquid Tofe'ach are not connections for Tum'ah or Taharah. We suggested that he asks about Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach, but questioned this, for a Beraisa explicitly says that it is connected. We answer that perhaps it discusses Mikva'os, and it is like R. Yehudah, who taught that if two immerse... Tosfos explains that we say only that the Beraisa of Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach is like R. Yehudah, and it does not discuss Nitzuk and Ketafres.

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (72b), regarding one who pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit, Nitzuk is not considered connected, even though it is destined to descend!

Answer: We can distinguish between Nitzuk and Ketafres. Nitzuk normally comes only through air.

Implied question: The Gemara inferred there from Gishta and Bas Gishta (hollow reeds connected like this ^. However, one reed is shorter than the other. One puts the short reed in a barrel and sucks from the other to make the wine begin to flow, all then all the wine flows out by itself). A Nochri put his hand [on the bottom] and Rava forbade [even what remained in the barrel].

The Gemara inferred that Nitzuk is connected. It did not consider this Ketafres!

Answer #1: This is unlike when the first one's feet were touching the water, for wine in the long reed is not destined to descend into the barrel.

Answer #2: The Ri explained there that the Mishnah (Taharos 8:9) of Nitzuk and Ketafres was taught regarding Hashakah (connecting water to a Mikveh), just like the Reisha, which discusses a stick full of Tamei liquids, and Hashakah was done to a Mikveh;

Then, we can say that here, regarding Tevilah, Nitzuk and Ketafres help. Even if there are not 40 Sa'im [in any one pool], one may immerse in the bottom one.

Implied question: If so, why did the Mishnah mention 40 Sa'im?

Answer #1: This teaches a Chidush, that even so, one may not immerse in the top pool. This is like R. Yehudah.

Answer #2: The Seifa in the Tosefta says that Chachamim permit Tevilah only in the middle. Even though it has 40 Sa'im, one may not immerse in the bottom one. I elaborated there.

This does not apply here at all. Below (21b) I will explain.

Explanation: We are concerned lest his wife sat on his clothes when she was Nidah, like it says in Chulin (35b);

We are not concerned for him (the Am ha'Aretz) himself, for he is not Metamei through Heset (moving),

Source #1 (Gitin 61b) Question: We should be concerned lest his wife moved it when she was Nidah!

Source #2 (Taharos 7:6 - Mishnah): If thieves entered a house, only the place of their feet (where they can touch) is Tamei, but Mishkavos and Moshvos (Kelim made to sit or lie on them. If a Zav or Nidah sits on it, it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah) and Klei Cheres surrounded by a Tzamid Pasil (snug seal) are Tehorim.

Inference: He (an Am ha'Aretz) is not Metamei through Masa (one who moves him) or Heset (what he moves).

Implied question: A Mishnah (Taharos 8:1) says that if one lives with an Am ha'Aretz in a Chatzer and he forgot Kelim in the Chatzer, even barrels surrounded by a Tzamid Pasil are Temei'im!

Answer: That is due to his (the Am ha'Aretz') wife, for she goes there.

Proof: This is why it says that he lives there.

Question: A Mishnah above there (7:5) teaches that if one leaves an Am ha'Aretz in his Chatzer, if he (the Chaver) sees who enters and leaves... if he does not see who enters and leaves, even Muval (this will be explained), even tied up [everything is Tamei].

[Mavul] means that his arms and legs are cut off, so he cannot move around [by himself. Even so,] everything is Tamei.

Suggestion: Also there, it is Tamei due to his wife.

Rejection #1: It says "he left him." This connotes that it is was a haphazard occurrence. (We are concerned lest his wife come only if he is there on a fixed basis.)

Rejection #2: Why does it say "even Muval"? Why is this a bigger Chidush? The Tum'ah is not due to him!

Note: Even further, if one has no arms or legs, he needs much help from others. It is more likely that his wife will come, to help him! - PF

Answer: They are not Tamei due to Heset. Rather, [we are concerned lest] he [open barrels and seal them] and forge [make it look like the way they were originally sealed];

When [the Chaver] sees who enters and leaves, [the Am ha'Aretz] is afraid lest [people see him opening barrels, and] he be caught like a thief.

Question #1: A Mishnah there (10:1) says that if one locks an olivepress in front of the pressers (Amei ha'Aretz, so they cannot leave, and others cannot enter), if there were Kelim there, they are Tamei Midras.

Inference: [An Am ha'Aretz] is Metamei Midras (makes a Mishkav an Av ha'Tum'ah)!

Question #2: Below, R. Yosi says "why are they Temei'im? Rather, it is because Amei ha'Aretz do not know the laws of Heset.

Question #3: Since Chachamim decreed that they are like Zavim in every way, why aren't they Metamei through Heset and Midras, like the law of a Zav?

Question #4: They decreed on the bodily fluids of an Am ha'Aretz. It says below that they decreed about his spit, like the law of fluids of a Zav or Zavah!

Question #5: We find in Nidah (33b) "here, we discuss a Kusi who immersed and stepped on a Chaver's garment. There is no concern for Tum'as Am ha'Aretz, for he immersed";

Inference: Had he not immersed, we would be concerned for Midras!

Answer (R. Tam): Surely, he is not Metamei Midras and Heset. This is due to Takanas ha'Shuk (Chachamim were concerned for the business market);

This is like we say, that [Chachamim enacted that if a worker was transporting a barrel and it broke, he swears that he was not negligent and he is exempt, for if not], you would never find [a worker willing] to transport a barrel from place to place (Bava Metzi'a 83a. Similarly, if Amei ha'Aretz had Tum'as Heset, people would be unable to find workers to transport Taharos, for almost all burden carriers are Amei ha'Aretz);

We do not decree on the Tzibur unless they can fulfill it.

Support: Below (20b) it connotes that he is not Metamei through Heset. It says "if his donkey-drivers and workers were laden with Taharos... the Taharos are Tehoros. If he said "go, [and I will come after you, they are Temei'im]."

Citation (20b): What is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa? The case is, he was Metaher his donkey-drivers and workers for this [job].

Inference: We established that he was Metaher [them] only due to the contradiction between the Reisha and Seifa. [If not for this,], we did not ask that the workers should be Metamei through Heset, for he (the Makshan) knew that [an Am ha'Aretz] is not Metamei [through Heset].

Answer (to Question #5): In the case in Nidah, had he not immersed, he would be Metamei through touching.

Implied question: [If so,] why does it say that he stepped?

Answer: We want [to teach about when] the Chaver's garment is under the Kusi's feet, for it teaches in the Mishnah there "he is Metamei a Mishkav below like [a Kli] above [a Zav].

Question: Why don't we establish it when he did not immerse, and something interrupts between his feet and the garment?

Answer: You are forced to establish it when he immersed, so it will be a Sefek-Sefeka;

If he did not immerse, why would it matter whether he recently had Bi'ah (if he was Bo'el Nidah within the last seven days, Tevilah does not help), or it is a long time since he had Bi'ah? (In any case, he is Tamei!)

Explanation (R. Moshe of Puntoiza): An Am ha'Aretz is Tamei like a Zav only due to his clothes. He carries a Midras. He wears his clothes, which his wife sat on when she was Nidah.

His spit is Tamei because it touched his lips [when it left his mouth].

Question #1: We say in Nidah (there) that a case occurred in which the Kohen Gadol was walking in the market, and spit of a Tzeduki splashed on his garments. He approached his wife [who told him that Tzedukiyos fear Chaverim, and follow their rulings];

The Gemara asked "in any case, [the Kohen Gadol is Tamei] due to spit of an Am ha'Aretz", i.e. even if the Tzeduki was not Tamei due to his wife.

Summation of question: Just the contrary (he needed to ask)! If [the Tzeduki] was Bo'el Nidah, he (the Kohen Gadol) and his garments would be Temei'im, like one who carries spit of a Zav;

If [the Tzeduki] was Tamei only like an Am ha'Aretz, only his (the Kohen Gadol's) garment would be Tamei!

Suggestion: The Kohen Gadol was not concerned for [Tum'ah of] himself. He was concerned only for his garments.

Rejection: Tum'ah of himself is more severe to us.

Question #2: We answer there that a naked Kusi stepped on the Chaver's garment. If so, why did we say that he immersed? Even if he did not immerse, since now he is not carrying a Midras, he is only a Rishon [l'Tum'ah, because before he carried a Midras], and he is not Metamei a Kli!

Question #3 (my Rebbi): A Tosefta explicitly teaches that Safek Reshus Am ha'Aretz and his Midras, Heset and Chatzitzo (a Tahor Kli can block Tum'as Mes from entering another room, but a Tamei Kli cannot) are Tahor for Chulin, and Tamei for Terumah. (Rashash in Gitin points out that "Chatzitzo" is not in our text of the Tosefta, and Tosfos in Nidah does not mention it.)

Answer: It seems that regarding Terumah, he is Metamei everything, like a Zav. However, he is Tahor regarding Chulin.

Whenever we find that he is Tamei, we establish this to discuss Terumah.

Implied question: In Gitin (61b), we said that we should be concerned lest Ishto Nidah moved them, even though we discuss Terumah! (If so, we should be concerned for the Am ha'Aretz himself!)

Answer #1: There, we said a clearcut matter. (If Ishto Nidah moved them, they are Tamei in every case, i.e. even regarding Chulin.)

Answer #2: Also, we are [more] concerned for a Tum'ah mid'Oraisa (Ishto Nidah), and not for a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan [of an Am ha'Aretz].

Implied question: In Chulin (35b), why did we say "lest Ishto Nidah sit on them" (his clothes? Regarding Terumah, he himself is Tamei!)

Answer: This is due to the other cases. (We said that an Am ha'Aretz' clothes are Metamei a Parush (one who eats Chulin in Taharah).)

Proof (of answer (u) - Citation (Yerushalmi)): The clothes of Perushim are Midras to those who eat Terumah;

Citation (cont.) Question: Is the body of a Parush like a Zav regarding Terumah?

Citation (cont. - R. Yochanan) Answer (Mishnah): If one leaves an Am ha'Aretz in his house to guard it, if he sees who enters and leaves... but Mishkavos and Klei Cheres surrounded [by a Tzamid Pasil] are Tehorim;

Citation (cont.): If they made his body like a Zav, even what is surrounded by a Tzamid Pasil would be Tamei!

Citation (cont.) Rejection (R. Yehudah [ben Pazi]): [The Mishnah discusses] an Am ha'Aretz in the house a Parush [regarding Chulin]. You cannot resolve anything [from there about Terumah].

Summation of proof: The Yerushalmi asked only about a Parush regarding Terumah. The law of an Am ha'Aretz regarding Terumah was obvious (his body is like a Zav).

Citation (cont. - R. Mana) Defense (of answer): We discuss Terumah! Surely this is so, for it says even Muval, even tied up, everything is Tamei.

Surely it is Tamei only due to Heset!

Citation (cont.) Support: R. Yochanan taught that Chatzitzos, Heset, Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus Am ha'Aretz do not apply to Terumah. (Si'ach Yitzchak - we are not Metaher based on Chatzitzah of an Am ha'Aretz' Kli, even if he guarded it for Terumah, unless he guarded it for Kodesh), or if he moved Terumah (even though we are Metaher Chulin that he moved without touching it). Perhaps he explains "Reshus ha'Yachid does not apply", i.e. we do not need the rule that Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei regarding Terumah in his Reshus; see the next line - PF.)

Explanation: Reshus Am ha'Aretz does not apply at all to [guarding] Terumah, for he is Metamei through Heset;

Our Mishnah discusses an Am ha'Aretz, but a Parush is not Metamei Midras and Heset.

Question (Ri): It says in Gitin (62a) that one may not take Chalah from an Am ha'Aretz's dough, since he was already Metamei it;

Citation (62a): However, one may make his dough in Taharah, and take from it the amount for Chalah, and he puts it in a Kefisha or Anchusa (Kelim made from worn out pouches). When the Am ha'Aretz comes, he takes it and we are not concerned, because the Kli is not Mekabel Tum'ah.

Summation of question: Since he is Metamei Terumah through Heset, he is Metamei Chalah! (Its laws are just like those of Terumah.)

Answer: There, since he did not yet call it [Chalah], it is Chulin in which Chalah is "mixed" (destined to be separated from it). He is not Metamei it through Heset.

Support: The words connote like this. It says "the amount for Chalah", for it is not yet Chalah;

He (the Am ha'Aretz) is Metamei it [only] through touching. Therefore, the Gemara asked "perhaps he will touch it!"