Thank you for your insightful questions from the group learning the Daf.

We will try to answer them one by one:

1) In the place where Ula lived, the custom was to kiss on the chest (see RASHI to Shir ha'Shirim 1:2). This is similar to the way some cultures today have various practices of showing affection, such as hugging chest-to-chest in Russia. As far as why it was proper for a holy person such as Ula to do such a thing, Tosfos explains it in DH u'Pliga Dideh, the last Tosfos on the Daf.

2) It is indeed because of the question that you are asking that the MAHARSHA explains that even the afflictions (Tzaros) themselves were beloved to them, because as a result of the afflictions they came to do Teshuvah and fully repent for their sins before Hash-m, and as a result of their complete Teshuvah they meritted that miracles happened for them (as the Gemara says in Berachos 5b, "Chavivin Alecha Yesurim?...").

Rashi's words can be understood with that which the Beis ha'Levi writes (Parshas Shemos) that one to whom the sanctification of G-d's name is precious and beloved, is inspired to love Hash-m not only when he is redeemed from adversity, but when he is suffering as well, because the affliction from which he suffers is an opportunity for G-d to redeem him, and when G-d redeems him, the greatness of G-d is revealed even more.

3) You are asking that there indeed is a Nafka Mina if people think they have to immerse in both the waters of a Mikvah and in drawn waters: if someone only goes to a Mikvah and does not go into drawn waters, he will think he is Tamei (when he is really Tahor) and he will end up burning Terumah that he touches, but in reality that Terumah is Tahor.

The answer is that the Rabanan would not have decreed that Terumah is Tamei and required that Terumah to be left unusable ("li'Tlos") in order to prevent one from burning Terumah that is Tahor, because either way, their decree makes Terumah Tamei.

4) The Tum'ah that the Gemara is discussing is only relevant to Terumah and Kodshim, and is not practiced today (in lieu of Tahor Terumah and Kodshim). While there are some who have a practice not to take a shower or bath after going to the Mikvah, this practice is not related to the Halachah in the Gemara (it is said that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt'l, would take a shower after immersing in the Mikvah).

5) The Halachah is that one should not embark on a sea journey within three days prior to Shabbos, because several of the reasons of the Rishonim still apply.

6) The RASH asks this question at the end of Uktzin (as cited by the Gilyon ha'Shas), and answers that the Gemara was Lav Davka when it called honey a "food." The main point is that honey remains in the same form from beginning to end.

7) The allowance for two people to read by the light of the flame together is other with regard to reading. Here, the Gemara is dealing with building a large fire that must be strong enough to cook, and there is a much greater risk that people will come to fix the fire, even if there are two or more people present.

8) Rabeinu Tam also gives this explanation in Sefer ha'Yashar (ch. 210), and writes that the oil is given to the olive-press workers "in order to fix the olive-press. That is, to fix it at a future time, and not that it belongs to the workers now. Rather, it was merely designated to be given to them at a later time and therefore the owner removed it from his mind and no longer had any intention to eat it, and therefore it is Muktzah.

9) The only places in Shas where the Gemara asks, "Where was the Tana standing," are at the beginning of Berachos and Ta'anis. In both of those places, the Mishnah starts, "me'Eimasai" -- "From when [do we read the evening Shema (Berachos 2a), or mention the praise of Hash-m for giving rain (Ta'anis 2a)]."

In both places, the Gemara was asking why the Tana begins with when the act is done, when we have not yet been told that there is an obligation to do the act. Everywhere else (such as in the Mishnah about how to light the Shabbos candles), the details of how (and not when ) to perform the Mitzvah are given first. This indicates that telling us the details about the actual performance of the Mitzvah (in contrast to when the Mitzvah is done) is akin to telling us that there is an obligation to do that Mitzvah.

10) This means that even if the Kohanim did not expressly stipulate, when they first designated their clothing for use as Bigdei Kehunah, that their worn-out clothing could be used for non-holy purposes, the Rabanan have already made a blanket stipulation that takes effect at the moment that any clothing is dedicated for use as Bigdei Kohanim, and it covers all articles of the Kohanim to which such a stipulation would apply. (It is similar to the concept of "Kol d'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata d'Rabanan Mekadesh," which means that any man who marries a woman, marries her on the conditions set forth by the Rabanan, whether he likes it or not.)

Be well, and keep up the good work!

M. KORNFELD