Explanation #1 (Rashi): These are small Amos. A medium Amah has an Amah and a Tefach of these [small Amos].

Objection: It should not have written "v'Cheik", since it refers to Amos! (It says "b'Amos Amah Amah v'Tofach v'Cheik Amah." The last two words teach that the Yesod is a small Amah. Since the previous words teach about a small Amah, there is no reason for a Vov before "Cheik", for this connotes that it is a new matter!)

Explanation #2: Rashi's Perush on Yechezkel is correct. "B'Amos Amah" are big Amos. It is an Amah and a Tefach, regarding a five-Tefachim Amah.

Support: Yonason translated "an Amah that is an Amah and Pashach (a Tefach)." It refers to other Amos of the Mizbe'ach. V'Cheik ha'Amos are small Amos (for the Yesod, Sovev and Keranos).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [A Revi'is of wine] obligates lashes (for a Nazir who drinks it).

Question: This is unlike the other [Peros], which are Shi'urim for other matters (not for themselves)!

Explanation #2: Rashi's Perush in Sukah (6a) is correct. If one ate grapes, grape skins and vine shoots, there is an opinion that the Shi'ur is a Revi'is, and we measure this with wine;

One takes a cup full of wine, and puts in it leaves and shoots like the amount that he ate. If a Revi'is of wine spills out, he is liable;

If one would measure this with water, a Revi'is would spill out due to a smaller amount [of vines...], for [water] does not pile up above the edge of the Kli as much as wine does.

Note: The Godesh (what piles up above the edge, due to surface tension) depends on the thickness of the liquid and the size of top of the Kli, but not its height. There must be a standard shape for the Kli. If not, there is no fixed Shi'ur to be liable!

Support: A Tosefta teaches like this. How does he do? He brings a cup full of wine, and brings an Aguri olive, and puts it in and [wine] spills out. If he drank this amount, he is liable. If not, he is exempt. This is R. Akiva's opinion. R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, he is liable only if he drank a Revi'is of wine;

Our Sugya is like R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

In Nazir (34a), a Mishnah teaches that he is not liable until he eats a k'Zayis of grapes. Mishnah Rishonah (the initial version) said until drinks a Revi'is of wine. R. Akiva says, even if a Nazir soaked his bread in wine, and there is enough to squeeze out a k'Zayis [of wine], he is liable;

It says in the Gemara (38b) that the first Tana compares Isurei Nazir to eating and drinking. I.e. the first Tana, i.e. Mishnah Rishonah, compares eating to drinking, and he requires a Revi'is also for eating leaves and shoots;

The Mishnah mentioned drinking, for we learn about eating from [drinking]. The reason is because it says "Lo Yishteh" twice;

[The Gemara] was concerned to explain only R. Akiva's reason. Since the verse says "va'Anavim Lachim vi'Yveshim Lo Yochel", just like [the Shi'ur] for eating is a k'Zayis, also everything is a k'Zayis.

Implied question: Why did Mishnah Acharonah (the final version) discuss eating?

Answer: It is because we learn drinking from it. Each [Mishnah] taught the matter from which we learn.

Question: What difference does it make to measure [a Revi'is] with wine? A Kli that holds a Revi'is is a Beitzah and a half. [An amount] that makes a Beitzah and a half spill out, whether of wine or water, if the amount of leaves and sprigs that he ate will make so much spill, he is liable!

Note: I.e. there is the same Godesh when he inserts the Beitzah and a half, as when he inserts the leaves and sprigs that he ate, since both times the same liquid spills out.

Answer: The difference is, if there is a Kli that holds the amount of wine that a Beitzah and a half causes to spill out. One does not measure leaves and sprigs (through putting them) in a cup full of water until this Kli fills (from what spills out), for this Kli does not hold a Beitzah and a half of water, which is not as thick as wine.

Note: Seemingly, Tosfos should have said only "this Kli does not hold a Beitzah and a half", for when the Beitzah and a half was put into wine, a large Godesh remained and did not spill out. The same volume of leaves and sprigs put in water leaves a smaller Godesh. The Kli fills through less than a Revi'is of leaves and sprigs! Why did Tosfos say "[this Kli does not hold] a Beitzah and a half of water, which is not as thick as wine"? Perhaps he means that even if water spills out and fills this Kli to overflowing (i.e. exceeds its Godesh), this is not enough, for one Godesh of wine exceeds two of water. Alternatively, Tosfos means that when this Kli fills through water that spilled, he did not eat a Beitzah and a half, because a smaller Godesh remained, because water is not as thick as wine, just the wording is awkward.

It turns out that this Kli is not a Revi'is! This is difficult. (Maharsha - the difficulty is that the Halachah is that one must measure both times with the same liquid. There is nothing special about wine.)

Comment - Question #1: Our Sugya is unlike Mishnah Rishonah, and unlike Mishnah Acharonah!

Question #2: R. Tam found in old Seforim that the text in Nazir (38b) says "the first Tana does not compare them to all Isurei Nazir for eating";

Inference: According to this text, they do not argue about eating. Rather, all agree that [the Shi'ur for eating] is a k'Zayis.

Support: Also the Yerushalmi connotes like this, that they do not argue about eating. Mishnah Rishonah says "until he drinks a Revi'is", for we expound "Shechar-Shechar." Just like there it is a Revi'is, also here it is Revi'is;

Note: Our text of Tosfos without the deletion is untenable. We should learn from the Gezeirah Shavah that the Shi'ur for a Nazir is a quarter Hin, just like the source!

Citation (Yerushalmi): They retracted to say "Lo Yochal... v'Lo Yishteh" - just like [the Shi'ur to be liable for] eating is a k'Zayis, also [the Shi'ur for] drinking is a k'Zayis.

Inference: All agree that the Shi'ur [to be liable for] eating is a k'Zayis!

Alternative text (R. Tam): The text in our Sugya should say "Gefen" - the amount of a k'Zayis of wine for a Nazir.

Question #1 (against R. Tam): One could measure with water, like with wine, in a place where there is an Aguri olive! He puts leaves and sprigs [in a full Kli]. If the amount of leaves and sprigs that he ate will make spill out as much as the olive makes spill, be it water or wine, he is liable!

Note: This is essentially the question at the end of the previous Tosfos, that this comment addresses. Tosfos challenged his own answer to the question.

Suggestion: He discusses drinking. He is liable if he drank the amount of wine that an Aguri olive makes spill out. We measure with wine, for this is a small amount (for a large Godesh remains), and not with water. (Since we make a Kli overflow only once, it makes a difference which liquid is inside.)

Rejection: This is obvious! Since he drank wine, we measure only with wine! Why do we need a verse?!

Question #2: This is difficult also for Rashi's Perush. What do we learn from [Gefen]?

Answer (to Question #2): This is not difficult at all for Rashi. A Revi'is of the Torah is two fingers by two fingers [by 2.7 fingers], like we say in Pesachim (109a). This is what makes a Beitzah and a half of water fall, according to the calculation of 40 Sa'im for a Mikveh;

Note: I.e. since we can gauge a Revi'is without inserting a Beitzah and a half to make a Kli overflow, a Kli overflows only once, so it matters which liquid was inside.

Now we measure the leaves and sprigs that he ate, like an amount that makes spill from wine to fill a Kli two fingers by two fingers [by 2.7], which is a big Shi'ur, and we do not measure an amount to make water spill [to fill the Kli], which is a small Shi'ur. The comment is until here.

Limitation: This was taught regarding Klei Etz in Maseches Kelim (17:1), but regarding Klei Cheres, a Mishnah (3:1) teaches that Kelim made for food, their Shi'ur is k'[Motzi] Zayis (a hole through which an olive can leave).

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (95b) that there are five Midos of Klei Cheres - if it was punctured k'Motzi Zayis... it is still a Kli to hold pomegranates!

Answer: That is when he designated it for pomegranates. Stam, the Shi'ur is k'Motzi Zayis.

Inference: A Mishnah (Kelim 17:4) says that the pomegranates discussed are three touching each other. This connotes that the Shi'ur is based on three pomegranates.

Question: In Shabbos (95b) it says that if it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon, it is Tahor. This implies that one pomegranate [leaves]!

Strengthening of question: Below (24a), Chizkiyah asked if it was punctured k'Motzi Zayis, and he sealed the hole, and it was punctured [and sealed...] until [in all, the holes] completed k'Motzi Rimon, what is the law?

He did not ask "if it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon, and he sealed it, and it was punctured k'Motzi Rimon... until the amount for three pomegranates was completed, what is the law?"!

Answer #1: Three pomegranates touching each other do not leave at once, rather, one after the other. A bigger hole is needed for three to leave one after the other than for one to leave alone.

Answer #2: "Three touching each other" means that they grew together. They are medium pomegranates, and not those that grow individually or two together, which are big, and not those that grow four or five together, which are small. Really, it means that one pomegranate leaves alone.

Citation: In Yoma (80a), R. Yochanan said that Shi'urim and punishments are tradition from Sinai. It was written in Seforim "Shi'urim are written! Rather, the Shi'urim of punishments [are a tradition]."

Rebuttal #1: The text does not say so, for we conclude here that Shi'urim are an Asmachta!

Rebuttal #2: [According to this text], no [proper] answer was given!

Correction: Rather, the text says "punishments are written! Rather, [the Shi'urim of punishments are a tradition]."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to his hair.

Inference: His skin, even a minority that he is not adamant about, it interrupts.

Question #1 (R. Tam) Citation (Yevamos 78a): If a pregnant Nochris converted, her son need not immerse (her Tevilah counts also for the fetus);

Citation (cont.): If you will say that it is due to R. Yitzchak's law (she is not a Chatzitzah, because the fetus is not adamant, this is wrong). Rav Kahana taught that this is only [for a Chatzitzah] on the majority, but if it is totally covered, it is a Chatzitzah!

Just the contrary, he should have said that R. Yitzchak discusses the hair. Did he say about flesh [that the minority is not a Chatzitzah]?!

Question #2: In Zevachim (98a), it brings that blood on his garment is a Chatzitzah. If he is a butcher, it is not a Chatzitzah! (I.e. even in the matter itself, it is a Chatzitzah only if he is adamant - Tosfos ha'Rosh, Ritva, Maharshal.)

Question #3: If [it is a Chatzitzah] only on his hair, if so, when the Halachah was said to Moshe on Sinai, it needed to say that a majority that he is adamant about is Chotzetz. If so, his hair is a tradition from Sinai! Why do we need a verse for his hair?

The Gemara asks like this in several places.

Explanation (Rashi): He holds that [we consider it as if] the outer edge descends and seals (it is considered a wall). The one who forbids holds that the inner edge descends and seals.

Implied question: Why didn't he explain that this one [who permits] holds that a Korah is a Heker for people in Reshus ha'Rabim (someone under the Korah appears to be inside the Mavoy), and this one (who forbids) hold that the Heker is for people inside the Mavoy (like we say below, 8b)?

Answer: Afterwards, we say "alternatively, all agree that Korah is for a Heker." This connotes that until now, [we did not think] that all agree that it is for a Heker.