Observation: Still, we must explain R. Shimon like he explained here;

Source: If [R. Shimon] discusses one who stored the very matter explicit in the Mishnah, like Rashi explained there, if so for everything he could have said that the Shi'ur is any amount, enough for an ointment for the eye to dissolve in, like the Mishnah below (90b), that for Refu'ah the Shi'ur is any amount!

[That Mishnah] is [even] like R. Shimon, for the Gemara did not say that it is unlike R. Shimon, like it says below (91a) "this is unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar."

Support: Also from there we can infer that according to R. Shimon, Stam people who normally store it are liable, even if he did not store it;

Source: It taught "one who stores for seeding [...is liable for any amount]. Anyone else is liable only for a Shi'ur." This implies that this is without storing, and it is even like R. Shimon, like I explained!

Suggestion: Perhaps an Ashir, who normally does not store, R. Shimon does not obligate him even if he stored.

Rejection: It says (in a Beraisa below, 78a) "what is the case? This refers to one who took out. However, if he stored, he is liable for any amount. R. Shimon says, what is the case? This refers to one stored..."

[The Gemara] explains that "one who stores" that Rabanan discuss, is an apprentice whose [teacher] told him [to make room... If he was Motzi] something not important for everyone, he is liable if his teacher stored it. If not, he is not [liable].

It seems that similarly, R. Shimon discusses such storing. It depends on the one who stored, i.e. for an Ashir.

Question (Rashba): For the same reason why we said here that our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon, for our Mishnah taught Stam that he is liable, which connotes that everyone is liable, even those for whom this Shi'ur is not important...

For this same reason, [the Gemara below] should have said that [the Beraisa on 90b] is unlike R. Shimon!

Answer: Perhaps here that [the Gemara] comes to explain, it should have explained more.

Implied question: It says in Bava Kama (19a) that eating with difficulty is called eating!

Answer: This is only regarding damages. It is not considered abnormal [to get the law of Keren, i.e. goring, and pay only half]. To make something considered [a food] regarding Shabbos, it is not considered eating.

Implied question: Why did the Mishnah say "like the amount to fill a lamb's mouth", and not k'Grogeres?

Answer: This was to teach that Chachamim gave this Shi'ur because a lamb eats it. Had it taught k'Grogeres, we would not know why Chachamim gave this Shi'ur.

Explanation: However, those [Shi'urim] that are the same, e.g. soft straw and leaves of garlic or onions, join. Similarly, severe (a small Shi'ur) joins with lenient (a large Shi'ur), e.g. hard straw with straw of legumes to fill a camel's mouth;

Even if hard straw is not proper for a camel, perhaps along with straw of legumes, it is proper.

Explanation (Ri): Only in this way they join - Beged (fabric) and Sak join, and Sak with leather, but Beged and leather, or Sak and matting, do not join, for they are not proper to fasten together. If one fastens them, Batlah Daito (we ignore his intent, since it is abnormal), and it is not Metamei Midras.

Question (Ri): Why do we need this reason? Since they join with each other, if so it is proper to fasten together, and they are proper for Midras (sitting on them). Since they are proper for Midras, obviously they join for Tum'as Midras;

Even a clump of Se'or that was designated for sitting is Tamei Midras, like it says in Chulin (129a);

Here we discuss Tamei Midras, since it says "a Beged three by three [masculine, i.e. Tefachim]." Regarding Tum'as Mes, even three by three (feminine, i.e. fingers, is Tamei), like I explained above (46a DH Bigdei)!

Answer (Ri): Surely, what was taught "a Beged three by three [Tefachim]" discusses only Midras. However, the Seifa of Sak, leather and matting, discusses also Tum'as Mes.

Source: It says in Kelim (27:2) "[the Shi'ur for] Beged is three by three [Tefachim] for Tum'as Midras, and three by three [fingers] for Tum'as Mes. Sak is four by four [Tefachim], leather is five by five, and matting is six by six, both for Midras, and for Tum'as Mes." However, the Gemara brings [the Mishnah] abbreviated, like it often does in several places.

Regarding Tum'as Mes, it says "why do they join?", when he did not designate it for Midras.

We do not need this reason for joining leather and matting, for matting receives Tum'as Mes only when it is Tamei through a Zav, i.e. when he designated it for Midras, and based on a Kal v'Chomer from small (Cheres) flasks, like we say below (84b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [It is proper for sitting] if he cut from two and joined them together for a patch on a donkey's saddle;

The case of cutting from all of them a square Tefach (the Beraisa that our Gemara cites, which appears also) in Me'ilah (18a) means that all together, there is a Tefach.

Rebuttal (Ri): Why do we need to bring a proof that they are proper to join? Even without the reason of [being proper for] sitting, we know from the Mishnah here that they are proper to join in the order that they are taught in! It taught specifically Beged to Sak, Sak to leather, and leather to matting, for these are proper to join together!

Explanation #2 (Ri, Riva): "Since it is proper to receive Tum'as Moshav", i.e. since they have the same Shi'ur for Moshav, like Rashi explained in Sukah (17b), that "one who cuts mi'Kulan" means that whichever he cuts from, it is Tamei.

Even though here the Shi'urim are not the same, they join, since regarding Moshav they are the same.

This that it says "also here, they are proper for a sample", i.e. their Shi'urim are the same for a sample, like the Mishnah below (90b) "for a sample, [one is liable for Hotza'ah of] any amount." Therefore, they join even for a matter for which their Shi'urim are different.

Implied question: We could have said here that also for seeding or Refu'ah, the Shi'ur is any amount!

Answer: Seeding and Refu'ah do not apply to all matters, but a sample applies to everything.

Observation: It says in Sukah (17b) "one who cuts mi'Kulan... since it is proper to patch on a donkey's saddle." "It is proper" is not precise, for only if he made from them a patch and designated them for this, a square Tefach is Tamei.

Support (Ri): We find like this below (90a), "since they are proper to season a pot." It should have said "since they season", for we discuss when they fell into a pot.

Citation (Kelim, Bava Basra 2:5 - Tosefta): One who cuts - for lying it cannot be less than three by three [Tefachim]. For sitting [it must be at least] a Tefach, and for a handle, any amount.

Explanation: This is the correct text (five quarter-Kavim and an additional amount is the Shi'ur for Chalah), like I explained above (15a).

Question (R. Efrayim): A Beraisa below (95a) teaches that if one milks, curdles or makes cheese, the Shi'ur is k'Grogeres;

There is no distinction between Hotza'ah [of milk] and milking, for below (79a) it says that the Shi'ur for tanning hide is like the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of hide!

Answer (Ri): Stam milk is for drinking. (Its Shi'ur of Kedei Gemi'ah, i.e. what an average person can swallow at once, is) more than k'Grogeres;

There we discuss one who milks for cheese. His intent [for this] makes [even a smaller Shi'ur] important.

Proof: Kedei Gemi'ah is more than k'Grogeres, for in Yoma (80a), regarding one who drinks on Yom Kipur, one opinion obligates for a Revi'is, and one opinion says Kedei Gemi'ah;

In Eruvin (82b) it connotes that there are nine meals in [bread made from] a Kav [of wheat], and in Eruvin (80b) it connotes that there are 18 Grogeros in two meals. (A Kav is 16 Reviyos, and it is nine meals, which is 81 Grogeros, so there are four and a half Grogeros in a Revi'is.)

If Kedei Gemi'ah were less than a Grogeres, these [opinions about what settles one's mind on Yom Kipur, i.e. a Revi'is or Kedei Gemi'ah] would be too far from each other (the former would be more than four and a half times the latter)!

Disclaimer: However, the Grogeres below (95a) is dry. Perhaps initially [when it was moist] it was more than Kedei Gemi'ah;

Opinion #1: According to this, we must say that Stam milk is for cheese. One is liable here for [the smaller Shi'ur of] Kedei Gemi'ah, i.e. when he explicitly specified that it is for drinking;

Source: If Stam milk were for eating and drinking and not for cheese, even if he explicitly specified that it is for cheese, he would be liable for the smaller Shi'ur of Kedei Gemi'ah, since Stam it is for this (eating and drinking);

This is like we said above (76a), that one who takes out for a camel enough hard straw to fill a cow's mouth, he is liable, for it is proper for a cow.

Opinion #2: Some say that when the milk is already intact, he is liable for Kedei Gemi'ah, but one who milks is not liable until a Grogeres, for a person does not toil to milk less than k'Grogeres.

We say like this below (79a), that a person does not toil to knead mud less than enough to make an opening for a furnace.

Rejection (Ri): These are different! There, the water is not important because it is proper to knead mud, just like the mud itself that is already kneaded [is not important];

However, here, when he milks to remove from the udder Kedei Gemi'ah, it should be important, just like elsewhere.

Explanation (Rav Pores): [Kedei Gemi'ah] is Malei Lugmav (what he can hold in his mouth when his cheeks stick out).

Rejection: It connotes unlike this in Yoma (80a. Tana'im argue about whether one is liable on Yom Kipur for Malei Lugmav, k'Malei Lugmav (what one can hold in his mouth when one cheek sticks out), or Kedei Gemi'ah. We do not ask that Kedei Gemi'ah is the same as Malei (or k'Malei) Lugmav!)

Explanation: Here, Revi'is is a quarter of a Log, like Rashi explained.

Support #1: We can derive that the Reviyos in Nazir (38a) are a quarter of a Log, for the Gemara asked "is there nothing else [for which the Shi'ur is a Revi'is]? There is a Revi'is for Netilas Yadayim!", and in Maseches Yadayim (1:1) it explicitly connotes that this is a quarter of a Log.

Support #2: In Pesachim (109a) it connotes that a cup (for the Seder) is the Revi'is of the Torah, and from the calculation of a Mikveh, it connotes that this is quarter of a Log.

Implied question: It says there (109a) that there was a measure for selling fish oil in Tzipori. It was like a Lug of the Mikdash, it was used to measure a Revi'is for Pesach! (This connotes that a Revi'is is a Log!)

Answer: They did not measure with the entire Kli. Rather, a quarter of that measure was used to measure a Revi'is for Pesach.

Inference: The Kos Shel Brachah (cup over which we say Birkas ha'Mazon) must be mixed (diluted with water, for pure wine is too strong).

Support: Also in Brachos (50b), R. Yosi bar Chanina said that Chachamim agree to R. Eliezer that we do not bless on the Kos Shel Brachah until putting water into it.

Question: In Brachos (51a), it says that 10 laws were said about the Kos Shel Brachah - it must be rinsed inside and out, it must be Chai (undiluted) and full. This shows that it must be Chai!

Answer #1: There, Rashi explained that it need not be Chai when blessing on it. Rather, it is Chai when he puts it in the cup in which he will bless. This teaches that he does not mix it and then put it in the Kos Shel Brachah.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): "Chai" means partially diluted. This is called Clai, like it says in Sanhedrin (70a) "[one becomes Ben Sorer u'Moreh] only if he eats half a Maneh of meat and drinks Chai wine, and we establish it to be partially diluted;

[During Birkas ha'Mazon] in Birkas ha'Aretz, he adds water until it is properly diluted, like it says in Brachos (51a) that he adds water in Birkas ha'Aretz, unlike Rashi explained, that he adds wine in Birkas ha'Aretz.

Answer #3 (Bnei Narvona): Chai refers to the cup. It must be complete.

Support: All the matters mentioned there apply to the cup, and not to the wine.

Support: We find like this in Makos (16b) "if one diced nine ants and one Chai." This means complete, for even if it is dead it is considered a Beriyah (whole creation), like it says in Chulin (102b).

Implied question: We say in Pesachim (107a) that one who makes Kidush, if he tasted Malei Lugmav, he was Yotzei. Malei Lugmav is more than a Revi'is, like is proven in Yoma (80a! Beis Shamai says that one who drinks a Revi'is on Yom Kipur is liable, and Beis Hillel obligate for Malei Lugmav. The Gemara says that for a normal size person, Beis Hillel are more stringent.)

Answer #1: "Malei Lugmav" there is not precise. Rather, it is [k'Malei Lugmav], what one can hold in his mouth when one cheek sticks out, and it looks like Malei Lugmav, like it explains in Yoma regarding [the Mishnah and Beraisa] there.

Answer #2: Only Kidush requires Malei Lugmav. (For everything else, a Revi'is suffices. Maharsha asks that in Pesachim, we say that each of the four cups must be a Revi'is! Yad David and Mishmeres Kehunah answer that a Revi'is suffices for the Mitzvah of Pesach, but one is Yotzei Kidush only with Malei Lugmav. I.e. if one has less than Malei Lugmav, he must be Yotzei Kodesh through one who drinks Malei Lugmav.)

Explanation: The Kos Shel Brachah requires a Revi'is. Presumably, the Shi'ur for wine is when they will dilute it and it will be a Revi'is, like other drinks, which the Seifa teaches that the Shi'ur is a Revi'is;

It teaches "in order to mix a nice cup", which connotes that the Kos Shel Brachah, when it is diluted, it must have a Revi'is, like for Hotza'ah.

Observation: We do not learn from our Mishnah that we require a quarter Revi'is of wine. Rather, we know this automatically, for the dilution is three parts [water] for one part [of wine].

Implied question: Why didn't our Mishnah teach "in order to dilute to a Revi'is"?

Answer #1: It teaches a matter in passing, that the Kos Shel Brachah must be a Revi'is!

Answer #2: For this reason that it is proper for the Kos Shel Brachah, less than a Revi'is [of undiluted wine] is important and one is liable for it, for one can add water to it;

For other liquids one is not liable for less than a Revi'is, even though he can add to them, like we conclude "this that you say, water is in the flask and they join?! [Rava answered that] regarding Shabbos, we require something important."