(Mishnah): If one was Motzi a live person on a bed, he is exempt even for the bed, for it is Batul to the person.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is like R. Noson, it is unlike Chachamim:

(Beraisa): If one was Motzi to Reshus ha'Rabim an animal or bird, alive or slaughtered, he is liable;

R. Noson says, he is liable if it was slaughtered and exempt if it was alive, for ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo (R. Tam, Bava Metzi'a 79b - it makes itself lighter; Ri - they did not carry living beings for the sake of the Mishkan. We do not say ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo if he or it is sick or tied up and cannot walk - perhaps transporting one who can walk is not significant enough to be a Melachah - PF).

Rejection: Our Mishnah is even like Chachamim - they argue only regarding carrying animals and birds, which resist being moved, they agree about carrying people.

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah - Mishnah): (It is forbidden to sell animals to a Nochri, lest one will come to rent or lend, and the Yisrael will transgress letting his animal rest on Shabbos.) Ben Beseira permits [selling] a horse.

(Beraisa): Ben Beseira permits a horse because it is normally used for [carrying people,] a Melachah for which one is not Chayav Chatas.

(R. Yochanan): Ben Beseira and R. Noson say the same thing.

Summation of question: If Chachamim only argue with R. Noson about carrying animals and birds, because they resist being moved, Ben Beseira's law has nothing to do with the argument of R. Noson and Chachamim!

Answer: R. Yochanan refers to a horse special for carrying birds (the Chachamim who argue with R. Noson obligate for this).

Question: Is there a horse special for carrying birds?!

Answer: Yes - bird hunters take live birds on horses to hunt other birds.

(R. Yochanan): R. Noson agrees about a living being that was tied up (we do not say ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo).

Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah): But Persians are [wrapped in wide garments and are too delicate to walk,] as if they are tied up, and R. Yochanan taught that Ben Beseira (who permits selling horses to any Nochri), holds like R. Noson (this shows that he exempts even for a tied being)!

Answer: Persians can walk, they are just haughty - the king got angry at a certain sergeant, he ran 12 Mil on foot!

(Mishnah): If one was Motzi a Mes in a bed, he is liable; similarly, if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes [or Nevelah...R. Shimon exempts].

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): R. Shimon exempts even one who was Motzi a Mes to bury it (even though this is a need of the Mes, it is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah with respect to the [one who was] Motzi).

(Rava): R. Shimon agrees that if one was Motzi a shovel to dig with or a Sefer Torah to read, he is liable.

Objection: This is obvious - if even these were Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, what would be Tzerichah l'Gufah according to R. Shimon?!

Answer: One might have thought that the Hotza'ah must be for the sake of the one who was Motzi and the object, e.g. a shovel to be fixed and to dig with it, or a Sefer Torah to proofread and read it - Rava teaches, this is not so.

A case occurred in Derukara, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak permitted Hotza'ah of a Mes to a Karmelis.

R. Yochanan, brother of Mar brei d'Ravina: Is your ruling like R. Shimon? Granted, R. Shimon exempts from Chatas, but he agrees that it is forbidden mid'Rabanan!

Rav Nachman: It is even like R. Yehudah - I only permitted Karmelis, not Reshus ha'Rabim - Kavod ha'Briyos (avoiding disgrace to the Mes) overrides a Lav ("Lo Sasur", the basis of all mid'Rabanan laws, but it does not override Shabbos).

(Mishnah): If a Metzora tore off Simanei Tum'ah (e.g. two white hairs that make one a Muchlat), or scalded healthy skin (it is also a Siman Tum'ah) in the middle of a Nega, he transgressed a Lav.

If he tore off one of two white hairs, he is liable;

(Rav Nachman): If he tore off one of three white hairs, he is liable;

(Rav Sheshes): He is exempt.

Rav Nachman is Mechayev, because his action helped - if one of the remaining hairs will fall out, he will not have Simanei Tum'ah;

Rav Sheshes exempts because it did not help now - he still has Simanei Tum'ah.

Support (Rav Sheshes, for himself - Mishnah): Similarly, if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes or of a Nevelah he is liable.

Inference: He is exempt for half a k'Zayis!

Contradiction (Beraisa): He is liable for half a k'Zayis.

Resolution: The Beraisa is Mechayev when there was one k'Zayis from the beginning (he did not leave a Shi'ur of Tum'ah), our Mishnah exempts when there was one and a half k'Zeisim from the beginning (he leaves a Shi'ur of Tum'ah)!

Rejection (Rav Nachman): In either case he is liable;

Our Mishnah exempts when he was Motzi half a k'Zayis from a large Mes (it does not help at all, a Shi'ur will remain unless someone removes the whole Mes).

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): One is liable for the following

Cutting his fingernails one on the other or with his teeth; tearing out [by hand] hair from his head, mustache, or beard; braiding hair; coloring eyes; Pokeses (fixing the hair with a comb of fingers; alternatively, applying a mudpack).

Chachamim say, these are forbidden only mid'Rabanan.

(Gemara - R. Elazar): They argue about cutting by hand, all are Mechayev for cutting with a Kli.

Objection: This is obvious - the Mishnah says, cutting fingernails one on the other!

Answer: One might have thought that Chachamim exempt even with a Kli, and the Mishnah teaches the extremity of R. Eliezer, who is Mechayev even by hand - R. Elazar teaches, this is not so.

(R. Elazar): They argue about cutting one's own nails, all exempt for cutting another's.

Objection: This is obvious - it says, cutting his fingernails!

Answer: One might have thought that R. Eliezer obligates even for cutting another's, and the Mishnah teaches the extremity of Chachamim, who exempt even for his own - R. Elazar teaches, this is not so.

(Mishnah): Similarly regarding his hair...

(Beraisa): If one cuts Malei Pi ha'Zug (the length of the end of a scissors), he is liable.

Question: How much is this?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): It is two hairs.

Question (Beraisa): ...And the Shi'ur for Korachah (the Isur to tear out hair out of grief over a Mes) is two hairs (implying that the Shi'ur for Shabbos is different)!

Answer: It means, and similarly the Shi'ur for Korachah is two hairs.

Support (Beraisa): If one cuts Malei Pi ha'Zug on Shabbos, he is liable;

Question: How much is this?

Answer #1: It is two hairs.

Answer #2 (R. Eliezer): It is one hair.

Chachamim agree that one is liable for removing one white hair among black hairs (for he is insistent to remove it);

This is forbidden [for a man] even during the week on account of "Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah" (adorning oneself like women do).

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): If a fingernail or surrounding strands of skin are mostly detached (they will fall off soon, it is as if they are already detached), it is permitted to remove them by hand; if one removed them with a Kli, he is Chayav Chatas;

Objection: If one is Chayav Chatas for removing something with a Kli, surely it is not permitted by hand (Chachamim would forbid this, lest one remove it with a Kli)!

Correction: He means, if they are mostly detached, it is permitted to remove them by hand; it is forbidden with a Kli, one is exempt if he did;

If the majority is not detached, it is forbidden to remove them by hand; if one removed them with a Kli he is Chayav Chatas.

(Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): It is permitted [by hand] only if they separated upwards (Rashi - away from the finger; R. Tam - towards the finger; Shulchan Aruch - we are concerned for both of these opinions, therefore it is never permitted) and pain him.