Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (37a) regarding the Sanhedrin "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" that if one of them needed to leave, if there are 23 [who will remain], he may leave, i.e. (about) a third of the Sanhedrin [will remain]. This implies that mixing is two parts for every one!

Answer #1 (Riva): Only Rava used to dilute like proper mixing, i.e. three parts [water] for every one [part of wine], like Rava said in Bava Metzi'a (60a) "my mixing is known." (Anyone who tastes it will know that it is unlike most people mix.)

Support: Also in Eruvin (54a, Rav Yosef tasted wine and said) "this is diluted like Rava brei d'Rav Yosef bar Chama mixes"! Everyone else likes strong wine, and add only two parts [water] for every one [part of wine].

Objection (Ri): If so, what was Abaye's question? [Rava] can establish the Mishnah in Nidah to discuss how others mix!

Answer #2 (Ri): The verse "Al Yechsar ha'Mazeg" discusses Sharoni wine, for we cannot establish the verse to discuss Stam mixing, i.e. a quarter, for what use is a quarter of the Sanhedrin? However, a third (23) can judge capital cases.

Question: However, according to the version that it is due to appearance (it is mixed with only two parts in order to resemble Dam Nidah, but for drinking, it is mixed with three parts water for every part of wine), this is difficult!

Answer: Due to appearance, lest it lose the appearance of wine, it is normal to mix two parts for every one, and not more.

Question: According to Abaye, who holds that Stam mixing is two parts [water] for every one [part of wine], just the contrary, [the Mishnah] is difficult for him! Why did it need to specify two parts of water? It should have said Stam "like mixed [wine]"!

Answer: One might have thought that in passing, it teaches that all mixed wine is like this.

Explanation: [Abaye asks that] you are forced to say that the reason is not because when it will be mixed there will be a Revi'is and it is proper for drinking, like other drinks;

Rather, this (a quarter Revi'is) is the Shi'ur, even though when it is mixed there will not be a Revi'is, like Rashi explained. Rather, it is because wine is important, and it is proper to store it for the Kos Shel Brachah;

Implied question: It is not proper for the Kos Shel Brachah without [adding] water!

Answer: Even so, this is like water that is stored for Kilor (an ointment), even though it is not proper [for this] without the Kilor;

Abaye argues only about this that he does not require a Revi'is when it will be mixed, but he requires a quarter Revi'is of pure wine for the Kos Shel Brachah, like it connotes in Pesachim (108b);

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that these four cups [for the Seder] must have enough to mix a nice cup. We challenge this from a Beraisa which says that they must have Kedei Revi'is;

[We answer that] both of these are the same Shi'ur. Enough to mix a nice cup for each [of the four cups] is Kedei Revi'is.

Inference: Revi'is of the Beraisa is for all the four cups. Each is a quarter of a Revi'is, which is mixing a nice cup.

Implied question: It taught there at the end of the Beraisa "the same applies whether it is Chai or mixed"!

Answer: It means that the same applies whether he drinks the quarter Revi'is like it is Chai, or he dilutes it and drinks it. (Maharsha - this is according to Abaye. Rava holds that the Shi'ur of each cup is a Revi'is, and one may drink it mixed or Chai.)

Question (Ri): Below, Abaye said that R. Noson said only here [regarding wine], for which a Revi'is is needed [to congeal] to a k'Zayis... This implies that Abaye holds that the Kos Shel Brachah needs a Revi'is of Chai wine!

Answer: Based on what Rashi explained below, that congealed wine needs a Revi'is because it is not proper to mix a cup, we can say that really, Abaye holds that even mixed wine does not require a Revi'is. (It is better than congealed wine.)

Question (Ri, against Rashi): If a k'Zayis of dry wine is not proper for mixing, why is it important because initially there was a Revi'is? Why is it different than a fig that dried (below, 91a)?

Answer (Ri): Rav Yosef and Abaye hold that the Kos Shel Brachah requires a Revi'is of Chai wine, like it connotes below;

The Beraisa in Pesachim, which teaches that there must be in them Kedei Revi'is, means in each of them.

Implied question: Why did our Mishnah taught wine by itself, even though it is a Revi'is, like other drinks?

Answer: This is lest we err [and say] like Rava, to say that it is important if it is enough to mix to a Revi'is.

Implied question: Why didn't [our Tana] explicitly teach "one who takes out a Revi'is of Chai wine"?

Answer: He prefers to teach "enough to mix a cup", because the reason that it is proper to store it for a Kos Shel Brachah is why he is liable for Hotza'ah of a Revi'is;

However, if it was disqualified from being a Kos Shel Brachah through Pegimah (someone drank from it) or a Nochri touched it, we do not say that because it is proper for a Yisrael or Nochri to drink, he is liable for a Revi'is;

This is because people do not store such a small Shi'ur, since it is proper only through mixing, and it requires fixing. It is not as important as other drinks, which are proper without water.

Also to knead with mud, people do not store it, just like parchment. The amount to write a tax receipt is not important, even though it is more important than paper (for which is the Shi'ur is to write a tax receipt), because people do not store it for this.

Inference: Blood is considered like flesh.

Question: If so, why is a verse needed in Chulin (72a) and in Sanhedrin (4a) for a Revi'is of blood of a Mes, that it is Metamei in an Ohel? We already know this, for it is like flesh, since it can congeal!

Answer #1 (Ri): We need a verse for a Mes for a Revi'is of blood, for in Nidah (55b) we say that regarding Tum'as Mes, we require something that does not regenerate, like a bone;

Even flesh we would be Metaher, if not that it does not regenerate, for the place becomes scarred. Blood regenerates.

Answer #2: The Tana here is Metamei blood of Neveilah, but not because it can congeal. Rather, he has a Drashah that blood of Neveilah is Tamei;

This reason that it can congeal, we need it so that only a Revi'is of blood is Metamei, but less is not, for then (only when it is a Revi'is) it has a Shi'ur of flesh. However, without a verse, all agree that it is not like flesh;

Therefore, there is a Tana in Menachos (103b) who says that they testified about blood of Neveilah, that it is Tahor.

Support #1: It connotes everywhere that blood is not included in flesh of a Neveilah, for in Pesachim (22a) we derive one may benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh and Chelev is permitted, because when the Torah permitted [benefit from] a Neveilah, [also from] its Gid and Chelev were permitted;

When it asks there [against R. Avahu, who says that wherever the Torah says "Lo Sochal" it forbids eating and benefit], that regarding blood [it says "Lo Sochal Dam," yet one may benefit from it], it did not answer that when the Torah permitted [benefit from] a Neveilah, it and its blood were permitted!

Support #2: Also in Me'ilah (17a), we learn blood of a Sheretz from "v'Zeh Lachem ha'Tamei', because it is not included in "Sheretz".

Question: Just the contrary, oppositely is more reasonable! R. Nasan said "Ever Katan." This connotes of a newborn baby more than R. Shimon ben Elazar, who said "Ever Katan v'Katan Ben Yomo";

Source: Above, we challenged R. Yanai, who explains that "Ever Katan" of our Mishnah is Ever Katan of a Katan Ben Yomo, [and the Mishnah's wording] is like R. Nasan's, (and we challenge R. Yanai) from a Beraisa that teaches like R. Shimon ben Elazar's wording! (We said that R. Shimon ben Elazar's words connote a small limb of an adult, or a big limb of a baby. We should say the same now, and say that R. Nasan refers to a small limb of a baby!)

Answer: Based on what we answered above [that R. Shimon ben Elazar's words connote a small limb of a baby], the reasoning is opposite (his words connote so more than R. Nasan's). We say now based on what we concluded (i.e. answered) above.

Alternative text: Some texts say oppositely (we suggest that R. Shimon ben Elazar refers to a small limb of an adult, or a big limb of a baby, and R. Nasan refers to a small limb of a baby.)

Rejection: We conclude [below, 81a] that R. Shimon ben Elazar refers to a small limb of a baby;

According to the texts that say oppositely, the conclusion is unlike we suggest now, and not like the rejection (that they argue about whether a small limb of an adult equals a big limb of a baby, but no Tana discusses a small limb of a baby)!