Explanation: The Gemara knew that Rav Yosef did not hear that Rav explicitly taught about our Mishnah, rather, Rav Yosef had a reason to infer that Rav taught about our Mishnah;

Therefore, it says "why is this stronger than this?" What was his source to infer this?

It answers that our Mishnah teaches half a Log of wine, and Rav said that we are Me'arev with two Revi'iyos (half a Log) of wine.

Observation: Rav did not say this explicitly, rather, it was inferred from "and similarly regarding an Eruv." If so, this shows that "and similarly regarding an Eruv" refers to our Mishnah;

If he said so regarding the Beraisa, what is the source that Rav holds that we are Me'arev with two Revi'iyos of wine?

Obviously, we cannot learn one from the other, since it did not say "all Shi'urim of Eruv are like the Shi'urim of Matanos Aniyim"!

Explanation: This is a Revi'is, like it says below (68a).

Explanation #1: He was outside the city, for in the city, he could traverse all of it, like it says below (41b).

Explanation #2: [R. Meir] holds like R. Yehoshua, who says that he has only four Amos outside the city, for in the city, he could traverse all of it, like it says below (41b).

Suggestion: R. Meir [said that he has only four Amos] because he fines Shogeg due to Mezid.

Rejection #1: He does not fine regarding Torah laws, and he holds below (35b) that Techumim is mid'Oraisa.

Rejection #2: Since we consider the entire city like four Amos, even b'Mezid he may traverse all of it, for also b'Mezid he has four Amos. This is from Tosfos R. Yehudah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is poison on the onion's sap.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): This is the central core inside that is round inside it, like a stem, and the onion seeds gather in it. That pillar is called the snake of the onion.

Explanation: [Here it is called Shechar, and] even so, it disqualifies the Mikveh.

Implied question: It says in Makos (3b) that mixed wine does not disqualify a Mikveh, even when it contains three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim (that was in a Kli), because it is called mixed wine!

Answer #1: Shechar is different, for its essence is only water.

Answer #2: There it is called mixed wine, and the name of wine is on it, and Peros do not disqualify a Mikveh.

Inference: The Kos Shel Brachah must be mixed [with water].

Support: Also in Brachos (50b) and Bava Basra (97b) it says that we do not bless on [the Kos Shel Brachah] until he puts water into it.

Question: In Brachos (51a) we say that 10 laws were said about the Kos Shel Brachah, and it counts Chai (unmixed)!

Answer #1 (Rashi): There, Chai means that he puts it in the cup Chai, and afterwards he mixes it. He may not mix it in this cup, and then put it in another cup, on which he will bless.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There, Chai means half-mixed;

It says in Sanhedrin (70a) that Ben Sorer u'Moreh is not liable until he drinks wine Chai, and we establish this to be half-mixed.

Answer #2 (cont.): He puts in a little water at the beginning of the Brachah, and adds water in Birkas ha'Aretz until it is mixed properly, like it says in Brachos (51a) that he adds in Birkas ha'Aretz;

This means that he adds water, unlike Rashi explained, that he adds wine.

Answer #3 (Bnei Narvona): Chai refers to the cup. It excludes a broken cup, for all 10 matters refer to the cup;

"Chai" applies to a cup, like it says (Bava Kama 54a) that breaking [of Kelim] is their death (the verse says "u'Mes... Chamor" and Chachamim say that Chamor excludes Kelim, i.e. if they "die").

Support: In Makos (16b), it says that if one minced nine ants and [ate them, and also] one Chai... "Chai" means complete.

Support: In Makos (16b), it says that if one minced nine ants and [ate them, and also] one Chai... "Chai" means complete.

Explanation #1: It seems that this is like Rashi explained in Shabbos (76b) that the Kos Shel Brachah must have a quarter Revi'is of a Log, so that when mixed it will be Revi'is ha'Log;

Explanation #2: Some err and explain a quarter Revi'is of a Kav, which is Revi'is ha'Log, so that when mixed it will be a Log;

Rebuttal #1: In Nazir (38a), it counts this clause that the Shi'ur for other liquids is a Revi'is, which is brought here, and here and in Shabbos (76a) it connotes that this is the Shi'ur of a nice cup after it is mixed;

Those that it counts in Nazir, [the Shi'ur] is Revi'is ha'Log, since it counts a Revi'is of oil for [Menachos of] a Nazir, which is half the Shi'ur for [Lachmei] Todah, and a Mishnah (Menachos 88b) teaches half a Log of oil for a Todah.

Rebuttal #2: It taught there that there were seven wet measures in the Mikdash. What was the use of Revi'is ha'Log? It was of a Revi'is of water for a Metzora (over which a bird is slaughtered), a Revi'is of oil for a Nazir...

It lists also that a Revi'is of blood is Metamei in an Ohel, and this is Revi'is ha'Log, like it connotes in Nazir (53a), for it says "a half-Kav of bones and a half Log of blood [is Metamei b'Ohel] for everything. A quarter-Kav of bones and a Revi'is of blood is not [Metamei b'Ohel] for everything (only for Terumah and Kodshim, excluding Nazir and Korban Pesach).

Rebuttal #3: It asks there "are there no other matters [for which the Shi'ur is a Revi'is]? There is a Revi'is of water for Netilas Yadayim, i.e. Revi'is ha'Log of water, like is proven in Maseches Yadayim (1:1).

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (37a) "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" - if one of [the Sanhedrin] needed to leave, we see. If there are 23 [who will remain, i.e. a third of the Sanhedrin, he may leave]. This implies that mixing is with two thirds water!

Answer (Ri): The verse discusses Sharoni wine. It is mixed with two thirds water;

We cannot establish the verse to discuss Stam mixing, for what is the use of a quarter of a Sanhedrin? (There is nothing that requires 17 or 18 judges!)

However, a third (23) is proper for capital cases, to be a small Sanhedrin.

Question: Since [dates] are better, perhaps we do not require a Kav!

Answer: He brings a proof that we do not require more than a Kav.

Explanation #1: The distinction between poor and rich people is only for Tum'as Midras, for it depends on designation, and it is not normal for an Ashir to designate less than three by three Tefachim [to sit on it], and if he designated, Batlah Daito;

However, for Tum'as Mes there is no distinction. Even for rich people, [the Shi'ur is] three by three [fingers];

Source #1: In Shabbos (26b), a Beraisa teaches 'what is the source for three by three [fingers]? It says "veha'Beged"', and it does not distinguish between poor and rich people.

Source #2: In Kelim (27:2), a Mishnah teaches "three by three [Tefachim] is the Shi'ur for Midras. Three by three [fingers] is for [Tum'as] Mes";

You are forced to say that this is for rich people, for regarding Aniyim a Mishnah (28:9) teaches that Bigdei Aniyim, even though they are not three by three [Tefachim], receive Tum'as Midras. R. Tam explained like this.

Explanation #2: This is unlike Rashi, who explained in Shabbos (47a) that three by three [fingers] of an Ashir does not receive Tum'ah at all.