Explanation: Similarly, this oven that stands due to the plaster holding it together is not considered connected, and it is like skin that is not connected.

Explanation: The Mishnah in Keilim (5:1) states, "the Chachamim say that this is only when it is a big oven. However, if it is a small oven, it can start out being any size and it is still impure as long as most of it is left, when its work is finished." The last phrase, "when its work is finished" is not referring to most of it being left, but rather to both ovens referred to by the Mishnah, the big and small one. Both are not impure until they are finished being made. The Mishnah later explains when they are considered finished.

Explanation: Rashi's explanation that the Rabbanan are being lenient appears correct.

Implied Question: One should not explain stringently that if the oven is nine Tefachim it only becomes pure if it is now less than four Tefachim, and that if it was seven Tefachim it only becomes pure if it is less than half the size it was. (Why isn't this a valid explanation?)

Answer: It is illogical that the amount that remains should be more stringent (for a seven Tefach oven it would be three and a half Tefachim) than a regular size of an oven that is four Tefachim.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to answer that one case is where he cut it widthwise into pieces of four Tefachim, and the other is where he cut most of it off lengthwise. (Why not?)

Answer: Since it is one Mishnah, it is logical that it is talking about one case, either they were both cut widthwise or both were cut lengthwise. This is why the case was established to be regarding the same type of cut but with two different size ovens. This was said by the Riva.

Question: According to the opinion that answers that Rebbi Yochanan was referring to the first part of the Mishnah, that even if a Kzayis of meat was on a piece of skin that was cut off the animal it is nullified, how can we understand the statement of Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah earlier (117b) that Alal that was gathered together etc? If the case is where he gathered it, is gathering it better than having a Kzayis of meat together on the skin?

Answer #1: Yes, it is.

Answer #2: Alternatively, according to this opinion Rebbi Yehudah argues on Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva, and he holds that a Kzayis of meat due to the skinning is not nullified. The Tana Kama who argues on Rebbi Yehudah (ibid.) holds like Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva, that even a Kzayis that is due to the skinning is nullified.

Observation: This is all understandable according to the opinion that says it is referring to the second part of the Mishnah, as when the Mishnah here says it is nullified it means if it was not gathered. However, if it was gathered it is not nullified.

Implied Question: Even if they were not stuck together and a person would touch both of them, he would be impure. If you do not say this, they should not even make one impure if he carries them. This is because of Rebbi Akiva's rule that whatever can make one impure through touching can make one impure due to carrying, as stated later in the Gemara (124b). Rebbi Akiva also holds that one can touch and then touch again (and the two touches can combine to make one impure). (Why, then, doesn't the Mishnah state this case which is a more novel thought than where they are physically combined?)

Answer: Rather, because Rebbi Akiva argues on Rebbi Yishmael regarding skin that has two half Kzaysim on it, it therefore says that regarding the pieces being stuck together with a piece of wood he would agree to Rebbi Yishmael.

Observation: He holds like the Tana Kama who argues on Acheirim (119a). He says that there is no status of a Shomer for something that is guarding an item that is less than a Kzayis.

Question: Why is Ohel different than carrying? (Why do we say that we do not combine two separate acts of being in an Ohel if we do combine two separate acts of carrying?)

Answer: Carrying is included later from the Pasuk, "that will become impure." This is as the Beraisa states, "One might think this is true even regarding carrying. This is why the Pasuk states, "And the one who carries will become impure."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that there is an extra Pasuk, "that will become impure" regarding touching. Even so, the Gemara stated earlier (118b) that something which can be derived from a Kal v'Chomer will be written by the Pasuk anyway. It does not say this teaches us that one who touches and touches again can combine the two touches in order for him to become impure. (Why doesn't Rebbi Yochanan derive that it does combine from this extra verse, just as he derives this regarding carrying?)

Answer: It appears that we derive this extra Pasuk regarding carrying. This is because the Pasuk should have merely stated, "And the one who touches its carcass should become impure until nightfall." Why did it state, "and the one who carries should become impure?" Rather, it must be that it adds impurity regarding people who carry it more than people who touch it.

Explanation: Rebbi Akiva himself does not require a Pasuk, as he understands that the skin nullifies them. He is saying this according to Rebbi Yishmael. According to you that the skin does not nullify them, you should at least derive that since it does not become impure through touching etc.

Observation: Rav Avya holds like Bar Pada who says that touching twice combines to cause impurity.

Question: If the two pieces of half a Kzayis each are connected by a string of flesh that causes them to be combined, for example if the flesh is not very weakly attached, why isn't this considered to be a connection regarding impurity through touching? If it is not considered a strong connection, why should it cause a combination for carrying as they cannot be carried together?

Answer: One might suggest that this is according to Bar Pada (see Bach, Maharshal, and others that this is the correct text) who says that Rebbi Yishmael only says this regarding him touching the skin on back of the flesh etc. He holds that since the combination is only through this string of skin, it is not considered a Shomer but it is carried.

Question: One could still ask that the first case of the Mishnah regarding skin that had a Kzayis of flesh is established as having a string of flesh connecting the two pieces, and the Mishnah states that if someone touches the hair opposite it he is impure. This implies that there is a Shomer even if a string of flesh combines the pieces.

Question (cont.): It is difficult to say that the case of the string connecting the pieces here is worse than the previous case.

Answer: It appears that he holds that if a person picks up the smaller piece and the larger piece will not rise together with it, it is not considered attached. This is the case here, which is why there is no impurity through touching, but there is still impurity through carrying because they can both be carried together.

Question: Why is the Gemara changing the text of the Beraisa? Perhaps the opposite is true! The Rabbanan could hold that both one who touches and rests upon these two half Kzayis pieces is impure if the pieces are held together (without a third entity combining them, see Rashi). If they are not, he is not impure. Rebbi Eliezer could be saying that he is impure even if they are carried together without them being held together. This would explain the word, "even" in the Beraisa.

Answer: It appears that the Gemara understands that one would be impure if he rested on them even if they are not held together. This is why it was forced to change the text.