1)

(a)The Mishnah in Mikva'os validates a Mikvah into which fell three Lugin of water minus a Kortov, which was supplemented by wine which fell into it, causing the water to look like wine - because the three Lugin lacked a Kortov to begin with. Otherwise, the Mikvah would be Pasul.

(b)He then goes on to say that if milk falls into the water, and the water retained its appearance, the Mikvah remains Kasher - because the fact remains that part of the three Lugin of water is milk (in which case, less than three Lugin of water fell into the Mikvah, which does not invalidate it). In fact, the same would apply if it had been wine (and not milk), and the water would have retained its original appearance.

(c)Despite the fact that it makes no difference whether the water looks like wine or not, the Tana switches from wine in the Reisha to milk in the Seifa - because practically speaking, one would expect the water to continue to look like water, if milk fell into it more than if wine did.

2)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Mishnah in Mikva'os states 'ha'Kol Holech Achar ha'Mareh' ('it all depends on the appearance of the water').

(b)He disagrees with the Tana Kama ...

1. ... in the Reisha (in the case of wine) - inasmuch as he would have validated the Mikvah even if the three Lugin into which the wine fell had not lacked a Kortov.

2. ... in the Seifa (in the case of milk) - inasmuch as he would have invalidated it.

(c)Rav Papa actually asked whether the wording in the Mishnah ought to be 'Chaser Kortov' or not. If yes, then Rava would be right in establishing Rav like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri; but if not, then Rav's ruling would be unanimous.

(d)We cannot reconcile Rava's establishing Rav like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, with Rav Papa's She'eilah - because Rav Papa considers a Safek what is obvious to him.

3)

(a)Rav Yosef (who became ill and forgot much of his learning) maintained that he had not heard of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's ruling at all, a surprising statement (if not for his illness) - since he was a Talmid of Rav Yehudah.

(b)Abaye reminded him that he had heard it, and that he had even taught it to them. Rav Yehudah had actually taught them - the second version of Rav Papa's She'eilah, omitting the words 'Chaser Kortov' from the Tana Kama's statement (in which case Rav's ruling was unanimous, not like Rava).

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules - that if a barrel of water falls into the sea, whoever Tovels in that spot, remains Tamei ...

(b)... (not because it is impossible for three Lugin of water not to have remained gathered in one spot, but) - because the Tamei person may have Toveled in three Lugin of drawn water (assuming that he Toveled in the barrel [see also Rabeinu Chananel]).

(c)We extrapolate from Rav's having mentioned specifically the sea, that had the water fallen into the river, the Tevilah would be Kasher - because a river, (unlike the sea, which is relatively static) moves constantly, and the chances of three Lugin of water remaining in one place are extremely remote.

(d)We support Rav's initial statement with a Beraisa, which presents a slightly different case. Instead of a barrel of water - he speaks about a barrel of wine (see Tosfos DH 'Tanya').

5)

(a)The same Beraisa then rules that - the same will apply to a loaf of Terumah bread that fell into the sea at that spot after the Tamei person Toveled there, and it too, becomes Tamei ...

(b)... because the wine, which was rendered Tamei by the person falling in, is then Metamei it.

(c)The Tana finds it necessary to add this case - because we might otherwise have thought that it is the person who began with a Chezkas Tum'ah, who remains Tamei, but the loaf, which had a Chezkas Taharah, will retain its Chazakah, and remain Tahor.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, if witnesses who testify that Reuven owes Shimon two hundred Zuz become Zom'min, they receive Malkos as well as having to pay - because the Chiyuv Malkus stems from a Lo Sa'aseh (we will elaborate shortly), whereas the payment stems from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Zamam".

(b)The Chachamim say - 'Kol ha'Meshalem Eino Lokeh', which they learn from the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso" ('K'dei Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Machayvo Mishum Sh'tei Rish'ayos').

(c)Rebbi Meir also rules that, in a case where the witnesses testify that Reuven is Chayav Malkos and then become Zom'min - they receive two sets of Malkos, one because of "Lo Sa'aneh", and the other, because of "Ka'asher Zamam".

(d)According to the Chachamim however - they receive only one set of Malkos (again based on the Pasuk "K'dei Rish'aso").

7)

(a)According to Ula, Rebbi Meir learns his ruling from the case of Motzi-Shem-Ra (where a man accuses his newly-wed wife of adultery) - who receives Malkos and pays his wife a hundred Shekalim.

(b)We query this however, on the grounds that Motzi-Shem-Ra is a K'nas, and we cannot learn Mamon from K'nas. And we answer that - Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Akiva, in whose opinion Eidim Zom'min is also a K'nas (and one *can* learn one K'nas from another).

(c)In the second Lashon, Ula's statement refers to the Beraisa concerning Nosar. Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu ad Boker, ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu ad Boker ba'Eish Tisrofu" that - Nosar is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei' (a La'av that is connected to an Asei), and is therefore Patur from Malkos.

(d)Rebbi Akiva says that - this Limud is not necessary, since Nosar is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh', which is not subject to Malkos anyway.

8)

(a)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' is subject to Malkos (Rebbi Yehudah) or not (Rebbi Akiva).

(b)We refute Ula's initial source (Motzi-Shem-Ra) for Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh', in that - Motzi-Shem-Ra is different, inasmuch as the husband receives two punishments.

(c)So Resh Lakish cites Rebbi Yehudah's source as Eidim Zom'min (Eidei Gerushah [who receive Malkos, even though it is a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh']). However, we can ask on this too, that Eidim Zom'min are different - inasmuch as (unlike other La'avin) they do not require warning (in which case, he cannot learn from there either).

9)

(a)Although Rebbi Yehudah cannot learn (that 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav') either from Motzi-Shem-Ra or from Eidim Zom'min (individually) - he learns it from the two combined (from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh').

(b)There is no problem with Rebbi Yehudah learning all 'La'avin She'Ein bahen Ma'aseh even from the 'Tzad-ha'Shaveh' - since he disagrees with Rebbi Akiva, and considers Eidim Zom'min Mamon (and not K'nas).

(c)We might nevertheless query the Tzad ha'Shaveh in that - it is 'Tzad Chamur' (each side has a highly unusual Chumra [see Tosfos DH 'Ela'), and we cannot therefore learn from it.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah does not consider this a Pircha however - because, as long as the two Chumros are different, we will learn from them (since it is a 'Binyan Av mi'Shenei Kesuvim').

10)

(a)The Rabbanan in our Mishnah learn from the La'av of "Lo Sa'aneh" - the Torah's warning (the Azharah) for Motzi-Shem-Ra.

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah explains that Rebbi Meir learns that from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'ha'Nish'arim Yishme'u ve'Yira'u ve'Lo Yosifu Od". The Rabbanan learn from there - 'Hachrazah' (the obligation to announce the death of the Eidim Zom'min, as we will learn in the third Perek) ...

(c)... which Rebbi Meir learns - from the words "Yishme'u ve'Yira'u".