Explanation: This refers to all the Tana'im, like Rashi explained - according to R. Yochanan ben Brokah like he holds (that the entire loaf is six eggs, so the Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlim is an eighth,) i.e. three quarters of an egg, and according to R. Shimon, a whole egg.

Implied question: Why does it say everywhere "k'Beitzah to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin"?

Answer: That is like R. Shimon, and not like R. Yochanan ben Brokah.

Explanation: The calculation is not precise, like Rashi explained. (It is really 172 and four fifths, and 207 and 9/25.)

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "how much is the Chalah? It is nine. There are 216!"

Support: This is correct, like it says above (81a) that the Shi'ur of Chalah is one part in 24, and one needs an egg [of Chalah] for every 23 eggs (that remain in it the dough). Nine times 23 are 207.

Explanation: He was not precise, for it is slightly less. Since it is lacking only the minority of an egg, he was not concerned.

Alternative text: Some texts say "58 less a small amount."

Explanation: [It turns out a third of the Tzipori Se'ah] with the addition [that Rebbi added] and "a third" that were taught in the Beraisa, these refer to a third of a Tzipori [Se'ah], and a third of an egg.

Explanation: The calculation of a third of the Tzipori Se'ah is 69 [eggs] and 69 additions (each addition is a 20th of an egg), which are three eggs and nine additions. If so, a third of the Tzipori Se'ah with the additions is 72 eggs and a half, less one addition;

Since the additional part [of an egg] is less than half an egg, [the Beraisa] calls it a third.

Question: If you are precise, it is more than half an egg, for a Tzipori Se'ah exceeds 207 by almost two fifths (precisely, it is nine 25ths). It turns out a third of it is [more than] 69 eggs and half a fifth. When you join it with the additions, they are more than 72 and a half.

Answer (Mahari): This Beraisa refers to the tradition of Rav Dimi, who said that Rebbi estimated 217. He did not calculate the additions of seven eggs, since they do not amount to [a whole] egg;

A third of 217 amounts to 72 and a third.

Question: In our entire Sugya, it calculates the additions of Tzipori, but it does not calculate those of Midbar. There are additions to all [the measures], for they added only a sixth in the Yerushalmi [Se'ah over the Midbaris], and similarly the Tzipori [Se'ah is only a sixth more than the Yerushalmi [Se'ah]!

Answer (Ri): In Yerushalayim and Tzipori they added only to the number of eggs in a Se'ah Midbaris;

Early [Chachamim] before Rebbi were meticulous in the matter, that their addition is not exactly a sixth, for the eggs of the Midbar were bigger than those of the day they added;

They added to the Tzipori measure, which was 207 eggs and two fifths less a small amount, 10 [more] eggs, one part in 20 for each egg.

Explanation (Ri): It turns out an inner third (i.e. a third of the principal, which is a quarter of the principal with the addition) of Tzipori exceeds an outer third (i.e. half of the principal, which is a third of the principal with the addition) or Midbaris, by a third of an egg;

The word "Shelish" in the Beraisa refers to both of these (a third of the Tzipori Se'ah and the Midbaris Se'ah), and [a third of] an egg.

Ravina explains R. Yirmeyah's words, and explains that R. Yirmeyah said as follows. It turns out that a Tzipori Se'ah exceeds Midbaris close to its third, i.e. an outer third of Midbaris;

And [R. Yirmeyah explains that the Beraisa also teaches that] its third, i.e. an inner third of Tzipori is close to an outer half of Midbaris.

Support: We find like this above (35b). R. Yirmeyah said "when there was a Sheretz on it all of Bein ha'Shemashos", and Rabah and Rav Yosef explain [his words].

Explanation #1: Seven Lugim and more [are obligated in Chalah], i.e. [another] egg and a fifth of an egg. These are six Yerushalmi [Lugim], and [they equal] five Tziporiyos.

Reference: In Shabbos (76b), the text in Seforim was "a Mishnah teaches that five Reva'im of flour and more are obligated in Chalah." Rashi says that the text there does not say "and more."

Inference: It refers to Tzipori [Lugim], and there, there is no extra, just precisely five!

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): That is like R. Yosi, and the text properly says [and more];

Citation (Eduyos 1:2 Mishnah, also brought in Shabbos 15a): Shamai says that a Kav [of flour is obligated in Chalah].... Chachamim say, five Reva'im of flour are obligated in Chalah. R. Yosi says, five are exempt, but five and more are obligated.

Explanation (R. Tam): R. Yosi holds that "Reishis Arisoseichem" is after separating Reishis, i.e. Chalah, there will remain a Shi'ur of Arisoseichem, i.e. the dough of the Midbar. (Everyone received 43 and a fifth eggs of manna each day);

The "more" is the amount of Chalah. (The Torah did not fix how much one must give.)

Explanation #2 (Mahari): R. Yosi teaches [there] like he taught in our Sugya, that he said that half a half-loaf is two eggs Sochakos (with a small excess), and Rebbi gauged two eggs and an additional one part in 20 of an egg;

If so, in seven Reva'im and more, there are 43 and a fifth eggs, like the Gematriya of "Chalah". The excesses amount to two eggs and three excesses;

According to R. Yosi, there are 45 eggs and a fifth of an egg and three excesses. Even though the Sa'im and the Kavim increased, the number of eggs remains the same, like is proven in our Sugya.

Opinion #1: It seems that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi, like we said above (46b) that the Halachah follows R. Yosi against his colleague, but not against his colleagues (a Rabim, e.g. Chachamim).

Supposition: We said also that R. Elazar asked Rav Asi was Rabanan said in the Beis Midrash, and he answered "R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows R. Yosi", and the Gemara said "this implies that an individual argues with him;

Inference: If a Rabim argued with him, the Halachah would not follow R. Yosi.

Retraction: However, it seems that the text in Shabbos (76b) and Pesachim (48b) hold that five Reva'im and more are obligated in Chalah. This connotes that the Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Explanation (Ri): A Stam opening to an Aliyah is 10 [Tefachim] taller than the balcony, and the balcony is 10 above the Chatzer;

They descend from the Aliyah to the balcony and from the balcony to the Chatzer via ladders, and through the Chatzer they go out to Reshus ha'Rabim;

The balcony belongs to the people of the Aliyah, and the people of the Chatzer do not forbid it to the people of the Aliyos, since the balcony is theirs.

Implied question: Why does it say below (84b) about two balconies, when the people of the bottom [balcony] go [up a ladder, and] through the top [balcony] to draw water, the bottom forbids the top?

Answer: This is like we explain below (88a), because they made a Mechitzah in partnership. When the people of the Aliyos were not Me'arev together, they forbid the balcony on each other, because each of them uses it through lowering;

However, they would not forbid each other due to the ladders that they descend on them from the Aliyos, for a ladder has the law of a Mechitzah.

Support: Now, the Gemara properly challenges Rav. Since the openings to the Aliyos and their windows are 20 or more [above the Chatzer]...

A mound or pillar in the Chatzer 10 tall, and it is opposite the high windows, why do we give to the people of the Aliyos to use through lowering 10 [or more]?

According to Rav, the people of the Chatzer should forbid the people of the Aliyos through throwing, since the mound or pillar is of both of them, and it is unlike the balcony, which is only to the people of the Aliyos!

Implied question: (Why is this difficult?) The mound or pillar is at the same height as the balcony, and they can use the mound or pillar from the balcony through an opening!

Answer: Even so, it is not called to the people of the Aliyos "through an opening", rather, through lowering, since the balcony has no residents, and it can forbid the mound to the Chatzer only through [use from] the Aliyos;

Even though they descend from the Aliyah [to the balcony] and use there, [the balcony] does not forbid, since a ladder has the law of a Mechitzah. (We do not consider anyone to dwell in the balcony.)

Implied question: We say in our Sugya (84b) that when the people on bottom [go up a ladder to the top] to draw water, it is not considered to the bottom people like throwing! (This implies that a ladder is like an opening.)

Answer: It is not because a ladder is like an opening to forbid. Rather, through the ladder it is considered convenient use for the bottom people, like lowering. However, it is not considered like an opening, and it is not better than lowering to forbid.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] answers [for Rav] for those who live on the balcony. I.e. the openings of the Aliyos are within 10 of the balcony. Now, the ladder is not considered a Mechitzah.