Answer (Rava): Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri, and R. Chiya's Beraisa holds like Chachamim.

(Mishnah): If a Kortov of wine fell into water, and the volume of the mixture is three Lugim, and it looks like wine, the mixture does not disqualify a Mikveh. (This is because there are not three full Lugim of water in the mixture, but if there were, it would disqualify the Mikveh);

Similarly, if a Kortov of milk fell into water, and there are three Lugim in the mixture, and it looks like water, the mixture does not disqualify a Mikveh;

R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, it all depends on the appearance (if it looks like water, it disqualifies a Mikveh).

Question: Rav Papa was unsure about this!

Question (Rav Papa): Did Rav's text of the first clause of the Mishnah say that the volume of the mixture is three Lugim, but if there were three Lugim of water alone, Chachamim disqualify the Mikveh?

If so, Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri.

Or, did Rav's text say that the volume of the water is three Lugim, and R. Yochanan ben Nuri argues only in the second clause?

If so, Rav's law is like everyone.

Answer: Rav Papa was unsure. Rava was sure (that Rav holds like R. Yochanan ben Nuri).

Rav Yosef: I (was a Talmid of Rav, yet I) never heard this teaching!

Abaye: You yourself taught us that Rav's text says that there are three Lugim of water, and Rav's law is like everyone! (Rav Yosef forgot his learning when he fell sick.)

Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Yehudah): If a barrel of water fell into the Mediterranean, one who immerses there (Ya'avetz - in the barrel) may not eat or touch Terumah. We are concerned lest three Lugim remain there (of the original water. If three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim fall on someone, or a Tevul Yom (one who immersed today from Tum'ah) enters Mayim She'uvim in a Keli, he is Tamei mid'Rabanan.)

Version #2 - Tosfos - (Rav Yehudah): If a barrel of wine fell into the Mediterranean, immersion there does not help. We are concerned lest the wine did not disperse (and he immersed in wine, and not water). (end of Version #2)

This applies only to the Mediterranean, which is stagnant, but rivers flow.

Support (Beraisa): If a barrel of wine fell into the Mediterranean, immersion there does not help. We are concerned lest (three Lugim of She'uvim; many texts - it) did not disperse;

Similarly, if a Terumah loaf fell in (after a man immersed), it is Tamei (lest it touched wine that the man was Metamei).

Question: What does the Seifa teach that we do not know from the Reisha?

Answer: One might have thought that it does not help to immerse, because we leave a Tamei person in his Chazakah (status quo), and likewise we leave the loaf in its Chezkas Taharah. The Seifa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Edim Zomemim testified that Reuven owes 200 Zuz, they are lashed and pay, for different verses obligate lashes and payment;

Chachamim say, anyone who pays is not lashed.

R. Meir says, if Edim Zomemim testified that Reuven is liable to receive 40 lashes, they receive 80 lashes, 40 for "Lo Sa'aneh", and 40 for "va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam";

Chachamim say, he is lashed only 40.

Version #1 (Gemara) Question: Granted, Chachamim learn from "Kedei Rish'aso" that one receives only one punishment for his evil;

Why does R. Meir argue?

Answer (Ula): He learns from Motzi Shem Ra (a man who claims that his bride was not a virgin), who is lashed and pays (if we find that he lied).

Question: We cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra, for it is a Kenas!

Answer: R. Meir holds like R. Akiva, who says that Edim Zomemim is a Kenas.

Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Lo Sosiru... (veha'Nosar... ba'Esh Tisrofu)" - the verse gives an Aseh to fix the Lav, therefore one is not lashed for it;

(R. Yakov): No, one is not lashed because this Lav is transgressed without an action, one is not lashed for such Lavim;

Inference: R. Yehudah holds that one is lashed for such Lavim.

Question: What is R. Yehudah's source?

Answer #1 (Ula): He learns from Motzi Shem Ra, who did not do an action, yet he is lashed.

Question: We cannot learn from Motzi Shem Ra, for he is lashed and pays (unlike other Aveiros)!

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): He learns from Edim Zomemim, who did not do an action, yet they are lashed.

Question: We cannot learn from Edim Zomemim. They are lashed without warning (unlike other Aveiros)!

Answer: Motzi Shem Ra proves that this is not the reason (he did not do an action and he is lashed, even though he must be warned).

Each has its own stringency unlike the other. We learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah (common side) of them. They did not do an action, yet they are lashed. Likewise, one is lashed for any Lav without an action.

Question: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for both the sources (Motzi Shem Ra and Edim Zomemim) are Kenasos!

Answer: R. Yehudah says that Edim Zomemim is not a Kenas. He argues with R. Akiva.

Question: We cannot learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah, for both the sources have stringencies not found in other Aveiros!

Answer: R. Yehudah learns from a Tzad ha'Shavah even in such a case.

Question: What do Chachamim expound from "Lo Sa'aneh"?

Answer: It is a warning to Edim Zomemim.(without a warning, they would not be lashed).

Question: According to R. Meir, what is the warning to Edim Zomemim?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): It is "veha'Nish'arim Yishme'u v'Yira'u v'Lo Yosifu (La'asos Od ka'Davar ha'Ra ha'Zeh)."

Chachamim use this to teach that we announce before killing Edim Zomemim.

R. Meir learns this from "Yishme'u v'Yira'u."