Text: Rashi explains that, according to this text ('a barrel full of water'), the Tevilah is invalid because it is Mayim She'uvim (drawn water).

Refutation #1: This does not seem right however, because, seeing as 'Hashakah' (a vessel containing water that is dipped in a Mikvah until the water in the vessel is touching the water in the Mikvah) is considered joined to the Mikvah as far as rendering it Tahor is concerned, it is also considered joined regarding Tevilah.

Refutation #2: Furthermore, we learned in a Beraisa in Beitzah that one may Tovel a vessel together with the water in it, to render it Tahor, another proof that the Tevilah of the water is valid (because if it wasn't, then the Tevilah of the vessel would not be valid either).

Alternative Text: Therefore the correct text in Rav Yehudah is 'a barrel full of wine'.

A Reason for the Ruling: ... and the reason the Tevilah is invalid is because, seeing as sea-water is basically static, in which case he may well have Toveled in wine (which is not a valid Tevilah). This would not be the case in a river, which flows, causing the wine to disperse (and there is no reason for the Tevilah not to be valid).

Clarification: And Rav Yehudah is speaking about white wine, which does change the appearance of the water; but had it been red wine, we would have been able to see whether the color of the water changed or not.

The Correct Text: Here, even Rashi has the text 'wine', and not water, because otherwise what does the Tana mean when he says 'And so it is with a loaf of Terumah that falls there', seeing as even if the water is still intact, and has not mixed, the loaf will not become Tamei, seeing as the water became Tahor through Hashakah.

Proof: ... as we learned in the Beraisa in Beitzah (that we cited earlier) 'One may Tovel a vessel together with the water in it to render it Tahor'.

Explanation: The Pasuk from which we learn Malkos is (the Pasuk in Yisro) "Lo Sa'aneh", whereas the Pasuk from which we learn payment is the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "va'Asisem lo Ka'asher Zamam", which explains why R. Meir holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'.

Implication: ... implying that if they were both learned from the same Pasuk, he would not receive both punishments.

Question: This is problematic from the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a however, where we learned that somebody who muzzles an ox whilst it is threshing receives Malkos and must pay - even though there is only one Pasuk?

An Alternative Explanation: Rabeinu Meir from Burguni therefore explains that what R. Meir means is that once there is a Pasuk for Malkos, a Pasuk for payment is not necessary; Indeed, he maintains, if payment required a Pasuk, then we would say that the Pasuk comes to teach us payment and not Malkos, much in the same way as we will later learn a that Pasuk that comes to teach us Misas Beis-Din is not subject to Malkos. Clearly then, payment does not require a Pasuk.

Proof: .... as we see by Shen ve'Ayin (where a master knocks out the tooth or the eye of his Eved Cana'ani) where the Torah obligates him to pay ("Shalem Yeshalem"), but does not specify a La'av.

Conclusion: Consequently, "Lo Sa'aneh" comes for Malkos exclusively, as does "Lo Sachsom" (with regard to muzzling an ox), and once we know the respective prohibitions, it is obvious that the sinner is obligated to pay.

Final Proof: Nor is it possible to say the opposite, because then the Torah ought to have presented it as an Asei "Ha'achel Shor be'Disho" ('Feed an ox when it threshes'), from which we would understand the prohibition of failing to feed it (without being subject to Malkos). Consequently, the Pasuk can only be coming to teach us Malkos.

Explanation: According to the Rabbanan, "Rish'aso" in the Pasuk refers to Mamon, as is evident in the Gemara in Kesuvos. But what is R. Meir's reason, seeing as "K'dei Rish'aso" implies 'one punishment and not two'?

Question: What is the problem, seeing as in Kesuvos we establish this same Pasuk by 'Lokin u'Misah'?

Answer: That too, is included in the Kashya; How R. Meir can Darshen two punishments from this Pasuk (whether it is Malkos u'Mamon or Malkos u'Misah) seeing as the words imply one punishment and not two?

Question: Why do we need to learn Eidim Zomemin from "ve'Hayah Im Bim Hakos ha'Rasha" (because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh')? Why can we not learn it too, from Motzi-Shem-Ra, which is also a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh,.

Answer: We only know that Motzi-Shem-Ra itself is subject to Malkos from "ve'Hayah Im Bim Hakos ha'Rasha", as the Gemara explains in Kesuvos - 'We learn "Yisru" from "Yisru", "Yisru" from "Ben", "Ben" from "Ben" and "Ben" from "ve'Hayah Im Bim Hakos ha'Rasha".

Clarification: It is only because R. Meir considers Eidim Zom'min K'nas that he learns the Din of Lokeh u'Meshalem from K'nas, whereas the Rabbanan, who consider it Mamon, do not.

Inference: This implies that, according to R. Meir, Lokeh u'Meshalem applies exclusively to K'nas, but not to Mamon.

Question #1: The Gemara in Bava Metzi'a states that R. Meir holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem' in the case of someone who muzzles an ox and threshes with it (even though it is a case of Mamon and not of K'nas).

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara in Kesuvos states that R. Meir holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem', but not 'Meis u'Meshalem', implying that he holds Lokeh u'Meshalem even by Mamon, too.

Question #3: Thirdly, we can ask a similar Kashya on the Rabbanan, who clearly agree with R. Meir here that by K'nas 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'; from the Gemara in Kesuvos, which asks with regard to K'nas 'ha Kayma-lan 'Ein Lokeh u'Meshalem'? This goes according to the Rabbanan, and clearly indicates that R. Meir and the Rabbanan are arguing over 'Lokeh u'Meshalem' even by K'nas, too.

Answer: The truth is that neither R. Meir nor the Rabbanan differentiate between Mamon and K'nas with regard to Lokeh u'Meshalem.

Explanation: This is because they both learn their respective opinions from 'K'dei Rish'aso', which is written in connection with Eidim Zomemin. Consequently, R. Meir, who considers Eidim Zom'min K'nas, learns from Motzi-Shem-Ra that Lokin u'Meshalmin. That being the case, "K'dei Rish'aso" which is written by Eidim Zom'min, must come to preclude two punishments by Misah u'Malkos (as the Gemara explains in Kesuvos), whereas by Mamon, he will hold u'Meshalem, by Mamon as well as by K'nas. The Rabbanan on the other hand, who consider Eidim Zom'min Mamon, do not learn Lokeh u'Meshalem from Motzi-Shem-Ra (which is K'nas) at all.. Consequently, they will learn from "K'dei Rish'aso" 'Eino Lokeh u'Meshalem', even with regard to K'nas, as is implied by "K'dei Rish'aso".

Implied Ruling: The Gemara implies that, according to R. Akiva, who hold that Eidim Zomemin are a K'nas, must hold 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav' (since he disagrees with R. Yehudah's D'rashah, which in turn, is based on the fact that Eidim Zom'min is Mamon).

Question: But R.Akiva himself will teach us later that somebody who retains Kil'ayim (which the Aruch explains literally) is subject to Malkos (even though he has not performed an act?

Answer (Alternative Explanation): It therefore seems more correct to explains 'retains Kil'ayim' to mean that he builds a fence around the Kil'ayim (not like the Aruch).

Clarification: The one does not require warning; the other, does not receive Malkos and pay.

Question: How can one create a Tzad ha'Shaveh which is not equal?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that what they have in common is the fact that they do not require a warning and 'Lokeh u'Meshalem' are radically different than other Malkiyos?

Answer #2: What they also have in common is that both receive Malkos even they did not sin by way of action, only by word of mouth.

Proof: ... and a proof for this answer lies in the fact that the Yerushalmi, which queries R. Meir's Limud from Motzi-Shem-Ra, which is different because it is a Dibur.

Why R. Yehudah disagrees: R. Yehudah does not ask from Tzad Chamur', according to the Yerushalmi, because in his opinion, Eidim Zom'min did not perform an act (see Sanhedrin 65b).

Clarification: What the Gemara said earlier that "Lo Sa'aneh" is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh (and is subject to Malkos), that was without the Pasuk of "ve'Hitzdiku ... ", but once we have the Pasuk of "ve'Hitzdiku", we have to say that one receives Malkos because of "Lo Sa'aneh".

Question #1: Why he is not Patur from Malkos, since "Lo Sa'aneh" is a La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din, and we have a principle that 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din Ein Lokin Alav'?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara could have answered that, and it doesn't, because it gives a better answer ... that we need "Lo Sa'aneh" for the warning for Eidim Zomemin.

Question #2: The question remains however, on the Gemara earlier, which learns the P'tur of Eidim Zom'min in a case of Mamon from Malkos, from "K'dei Rish'aso". Why are they not Patur anyway because it is a 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din'?

Suggested Answer: Perhaps this is not considered a a 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din', seeing as in the case of Mamon that is being discussed, is not subject to Misah.

Refutation: The suggestion is unacceptable however, due to the Gemara in Shabbos which exempts the La'av of Mechamer (leading a laden animal on Shabbos) from Malkos, because the La'av of "Lo Sa'aseh Kol Melachah Atah ... u'Behemtecha" is a 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din', even though Mechamer itself is not subject to Misah.

Answer: Eidim Zom'min is different, inasmuch as the Torah writes "ve'Hayah im bin Hakos ha'Rasha", indicating that they receive Malkos in any case because of "Lo Sa'aneh" (seeing as there can be no Malkos without warning).

Question: The question remains however, on the beginning of the Masechta, where the Gemara asks why we need the Pasuk of "ve'Hayah im bin Hakos ha'Rasha" to teach us Malkos by Eidim Zom'min; seeing as we can learn it from "Lo Sa'aneh". Why did the Gemara not answer that if not for "ve'Hayah ... , we would have exempted them from Malkos because it is a 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din'?

Answer #1: Indeed, the Gemara could have answered that, but it gave a better answer (because it is a La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh).

Answer #2: And besides, the Gemara there is not asking according to the Chachamim, but according to R. Meir, who learns the warning for Eidim from "ve'Lo Sosofu La'asos" (which is not a 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din' [see Tosfos Bava Kama 74b DH 'Havah Leih ... ']).

Question: Why did the Gemara at the beginning of the Amud, give the reason for the Rabbanan in our Mishnah ('Kol ha'Meshalem Eino Lokeh') from "K'dei Rish'aso", rather than from "Lo Sa'aneh be'Re'acha Eid Shaker"?

Answer: The Gemara here is referring to Eidim Zom'min who testified that the defendant is Chayav Malkos, something that we cannot learn from "Ka'asher Zamam", without an independent warning (seeing as Beis-Din are not permitted to administer corporal punishment without a warning). Whereas above, the Gemara is talking about Mamon, which does not require a warning, and can therefore be learned from "Ka'asher Zamam".