Explanation: There is no real Drashah [to teach that water is in place of blood]. What we learn from the Milu'im is a mere Asmachta;

Primarily, we can explain that the verse "Ka'asher Asah ba'Yom ha'Zeh" thought that on the first of the seven days of Milu'im, he (Moshe) told them "like you did today, Hash-m commanded to do all seven days of the Milu'im."

Support: Also Rashi on Chumash explained the simple meaning like this.

Conclusion: Since it is a mere Asmachta, we need not be concerned if we say that water is in place of blood [even without a source to say so].

Question: There was Haza'ah (sprinkling) of blood at Sinai - "va'Yikach Moshe Es ha'Dam va'Yizrok Al ha'Am"!

Answer #1: That Zerikah was not for the sake of Taharah. It was not only on Moshe, rather, on the entire nation!

Rather, it was blood for the covenant - "Hinei Dam ha'Bris Asher Karas Hash-m Imachem."

Answer #2: The Gemara means that there was not Haza'ah all seven days at Sinai.

Question: Below (8a), we say that we sprinkle on both of them (the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kipur, and the Kohen who will burn Parah Adumah) all seven days. We conclude that Shabbos is excluded! (If we learn from seven days of Haza'ah in the Milu'im, which included Shabbos, we should require the same for all generations.)

Answer: There were seven days of Haza'ah in the Milu'im, but regarding Yom Kipur, later generations decreed to forbid Haza'ah on Shabbos, due to Shevus (a stringency mid'Rabanan).

Question: Below, we explain that we sprinkle on the first, second [and third] days, for any of them could be the third day from when he became Tamei Mes...

What is the source that R. Meir is concerned for this? Perhaps he learns from the Milu'im, in which there was Haza'ah all seven days!

Answer #1: Perhaps R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, who says so below, holds like Reish Lakish, who does not learn from the Milu'im. He holds that it is a mere stringency due to this concern, lest the first [or second or third] day is the third [day from when he became Tamei].

Answer #2: Even the one who learns from the Milu'im holds that the verse is a mere Asmachta. If so, if there were not somewhat of a reason, Chachamim would not obligate Haza'ah. Therefore, he must explain the reason.

Explanation: R. Yosi ha'Glili holds like Reish Lakish. (Therefore, we say that the Beraisa is like Reish Lakish.)

Question: This Beraisa is also like R. Yochanan! R. Akiva holds like R. Yochanan. He does not learn from Sinai!

Answer: We already brought above a Beraisa like R. Yochanan that is better, for our Stam Mishnah is like R. Yochanan. The Gemara then said that there is also a Tana who holds like Reish Lakish.

Question: Why is the Beraisa like Reish Lakish? R. Yochanan can be even according to R. Yosi ha'Glili;

R. Yosi ha'Glili said only that there was separation at Sinai. He did not say that we learn from there to [future] generations, that six days suffices, just like at Sinai, like Reish Lakish says. [Perhaps] he requires separation for seven days, like at the Milu'im!

Answer: We find that R. Elazar says below "va'Yikra El Moshe" - Moshe and all of Yisrael were standing... This is like R. Akiva. This shows that he expounds the verses like R. Akiva;

Presumably, R. Elazar heard so from his Rebbi, R. Yochanan, even though he did not say it in his name;

We find (Yevamos 96) that R. Elazar taught something [that he learned from R. Yochanan] not in his name. R. Yochanan was upset. [Reish Lakish said] 'R. Elazar is your Talmid. He sits and expounds, and all know that it is your Torah.'

If so, R. Yochanan expounds the verses like R. Akiva.

Source: This is like it says "Oz v'Chedvah bi'Mkomo."

Observation: Even without this (R. Akiva's opinion that the Shechinah descended from Rosh Chodesh Sivan), he must hold like R. Yosi, for in Shabbos (86a) he holds that semen is Tamei for five Onos (two and a half days).

It is clear from the Sugya there that he must hold like R. Yosi.

Question: Why do we call this a support? Tana'im argue about this!

Strengthening of question: Just the contrary, except for R. Akiva who holds like R. Elazar, all the Tana'im hold unlike him, i.e. R. Yosi ha'Glili, R. Noson, and R. Masya ben Charash!

Suggestion: Perhaps since the Halachah follows R. Akiva against a colleague, this is considered a support.

Note: In Eruvin 46b, we say that the Halachah follows R. Akiva against a colleague [but not against colleagues]! Malei ha'Ro'im says that R. Yosi, who holds that the Torah was given on Sivan 7, hold unlike R. Yosi ha'Glili, and the Halachah follows R. Yosi.

Implied question: We could have answered that [the Beraisa] is unlike R. Akiva, rather, like Tana'im who argue with him above!

Answer: Presumably, no one would argue with the Drashah "Kol Lo" - Kol Elav.