1)

(a)We learn from "ba'Asosah" - 'ha'Oseh es Kulah ve'Lo ha'Oseh es Miktzasah' (that one is only Chayav for performing a complete Melachah).

(b)Consequently, the Tana rules that two people are holding ...

1. ... a pitchfork and turning over hay, a weaving-rod and pressing it, a pen and writing or a cane and carrying it into the street - are Patur.

2. ... a large ring of pressed figs, or a beam - are Chayav.

(c)Rebbi Shimon declares them Patur in all cases. Rebbi Yehudah declares them Chayav - only if neither of them was able to carry it by himself.

(d)Rebbi Meir rules that 'Zeh Yachol ve'Zeh Yachol' is Chayav - because he learns something else from "ba'Asosah", as we shall see later.

2)

(a)Regarding the three Mi'utim "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shegagah ... ba'Asosah ... contains three Mi'utim ('Nefesh Techeta', 'Achas Techeta' and 'ba'Asosah Techeta'), Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that one comes to preclude a case of 'Zeh Oker ve'Zeh Mani'ach', and another, 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol'. Rebbi Shimon learns from the third Mi'ut that 'Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol, Patur'.

(b)From the third Mi'ut, Rebbi Yehudah excludes a Yachid she'Asah be'Hora'as Beis-Din, which by virtue of this Pasuk, is considered an Ones. Rebbi Shimon however holds that a 'Yachid she'Asah be'Horo'as Beis-Din' is Chayav.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir - 'Nefesh Achas' is only considered one Miy'ut, not two, since this is the way the Torah speaks.

(b)Rebbi Meir discards the D'rashah - 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol'. According to him, 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol' is Chayav, as we learned on the previous Amud.

4)

(a)By 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Eino Yachol' - it is the one who is able to perform it on his own who is Chayav, because the one who is not, has not done anything.

(b)Rav Hamnuna asked Rav Chisda why the second one is not Chayav for assisting him, to which he replied - with the principle 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash' (merely assisting is not considered an act for which one is Chayav).

(c)Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava supports Rav Chisda's answer with a Mishnah in Zavin - where the Tana Kama draws a distinction between a Zav who is sitting on a couch whose four legs are standing on four pieces of cloth (where the pieces of cloth are Tamei) and a Zav who is riding a horse, whose four legs are swathed in four pieces of cloth (where the pieces of cloth are Tahor).

(d)The reason the Tana gives for ...

1. ... the former ruling is - the fact that the couch is not able to stand on three legs, in which case, each leg is needed and the Din of Mesayei'a is not applicable.

2. ... the latter ruling is - the fact that it can stand on three legs. Consequently, each of the legs is no more than a Mesayei'a (an apparent proof that by 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Eino Yachol' the one who is Eino Yachol is Patur (because 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash').

5)

(a)Rebbi Shimon is more lenient than the Tana Kama. Based on his ruling in the previous Beraisa ('Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol Tahor'), he rules Tahor even in the case of the legs of the couch.

(b)Rav Yehudah from Diskarta refutes Rav Z'vid's proof from the Tana Kama that 'Mesayei'a Ein bo Mamash' - in that The Gemara contends that maybe the cloths under the horse are Tahor, not because of Mesayei'a, but - because the horse constantly raises its feet from the ground, sometimes this one and sometimes that one, in which case, it is possible that one of feet may not have been placed on the ground at all (whilst it had the cloth on it) and it will not even be a case of Mesayei'a.

(c)We disprove this theory however - on the grounds that seeing as the horse lifts sometimes one leg and sometimes the other, we do not know on which of the three legs it was standing, in which case all the cloths ought to be Tamei mi'Safek (as we shall now see from the Mishnah in Zavin).

6)

(a)The Mishnah rules that if a Zav is lying ...

1. ... lengthwise on five benches or Punda'os (long money-bags on which it is possible to sleep) placed next to each other, they are all Tamei (Medras).

2. ... across all five benches, they are Tahor ...

(b)... because none of the benches actually bore most of his weight, whereas in the Reisha, he lay on all of them, sometimes on one, sometimes on the other.

7)

(a)The Tana rules in the Seifa, that either way, where he slept, that either way, all five benches are Tamei - because then we suspect - that he may have moved in his sleep, and lain along the length of any one of them.

(b)Rashi's Rebbes invert the Reisha of the Beraisa. According to them, the benches are Tamei if he lay across them, and Tahor if he lay lengthwise - because of the possibility that he lay in between them.

(c)We reject this explanation however - on the grounds that if we are lenient in the Reisha in this way, why are we stringent in the Seifa (Safek Mis'hapech, Temei'im), where we could just as well be lenient for the same reason as we are in the Reisha.

(d)From the latter case, we see that, since it is possible for the Zav to have slept on any one of the benches, we go le'Chumra. In that case, we will do the same by the horse's feet, even though each foot is sometimes off the ground, since each of its feet might have been placed on the ground at any given time. Consequently, the cloths cannot be Tahor because of Mesayei'a.

8)

(a)Rav Papa, in the name of Rava, cites another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi disagrees with the Beraisa quoted earlier (regarding the cloths tied to the four legs of the horse). Rebbi Yossi holds that a horse (on which a Zav is riding) is Metamei a cloth only via its fore-legs (on which it tends to place its weight), but not via its hind-legs; whilst by a donkey, which tends to place its weight on its hind-legs, it is the opposite.

(b)The hind-legs of a horse and the fore-legs of a donkey do at least assist the animal to stand, yet they are not Metamei the cloth - it must be because Rebbi Yossi holds 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash'.

(c)And Rav Ashi brings a further proof that 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash' from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Zevachim, which rules that if a Kohen is standing with one foot on a Kli or a stone, and one foot on the ground - his Avodah is valid, provided that, had the stone or the Kli been removed, the Kohen would have remained standing on the one foot. Now if Mesayei'a would be effective, then his Avodah should be invalid, even in that case (since the Kohanim are obligated to stand on the floor of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and not on anything else).

(d)And Ravina brings a final proof from a Beraisa which discusses a Kohen who received a bowl of blood (of a Korban). The Tana there rules - that (despite the fact that a Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah with his right hand), the Korban is Kasher, even if his left hand also assisted in receiving it - another proof that Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash.

9)

(a)The two sides of the She'eilah regarding Rebbi Meir's opinion 'Zeh Yachol ve'Zeh Yachol, Chayav' are - whether two Shi'urim are required, one for each person, or whether one Shi'ur will suffice between them.

(b)This is actually a Machlokes between Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna.

1. Rav Papa proves from the case of the Zav lying on the couch, with four pieces of cloth underneath its four legs - all four of which are Tamei - even though they are four different Medrasos but only one Zav, that one Shi'ur will suffice, and (Note that this proof is from a case of 'Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol according to Rebbi Yehudah; yet we can assume that the same will apply to a case of 'Zeh Yachol ve'Zeh Yachol', according to Rebbi Meir. And the same applies to the next proof).

2. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brings the same proof from the Mishnah in 'ha'Oreg' which declares Chayav two people, neither of whom is capable of trapping a deer alone, who trap it together, despite the fact that there is only one Shi'ur of trapping (one deer between the two of them) ...

3. ... and Ravina brings the same proof from the Beraisa which obligates two people who stole a sheep or a cow and Shechted it together, to pay four or five times.

(c)Rav Ashi brings a proof from two people who carried out a weaver's cane, but Rav Acha Brei de'Rava tries to refute the proof, on the grounds that it could be speaking when the cane contained enough wood to cook a ki'Gerogeres of a chicken's egg. Rav Ashi rejects this refutation on the grounds - that if that were so, then why did the Tana mention specifically a weaver's cane (and not a S'tam cane).

(d)We nevertheless refute Rav Ashi's proof however. on the grounds - that the Tana may well be speaking when the weaver's cane contained sufficient material to weave a small piece of cloth for each of the people who carried it out.

10)

(a)The problem with the Beraisa 'Shenayim she'Hotzi'u Kaneh shel Gardi Peturin, ve'Rebbi Shimon Mechayev' is - that Rebbi Shimon is the one who holds Patur by 'Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol', and the Rabbanan who hold Chayav?

(b)So we switch round the opinions in the Beraisa, which now reads 'Shenayim she'Hotzi'u Kaneh shel Gardi Chayavin, ve'Rebbi Shimon Poter'.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who carries out less than a ki'Gerogeres of food in a Kli, or a live person on a stretcher - is Patur even for carrying out the Kli, which are Batel to the food and to the person, respectively.

(b)Someone who carries a whole corpse or a k'Zayis of corpse, or a k'Zayis of carcass or a k'Adashah of Sheretz is Chayav - because he has spared himself (or someone else) from becoming Tamei Mes.

(c)Rebbi Shimon says Patur - because his achievement is negative. He carries the Tamei object out, because he does not want it here, and not because he wants it there. And anything that one merely wants to get rid of, is not included in 'Meleches Machsheves', and one is therefore not Chayav for performing it.

12)

(a)Someone who carries out a box containing food, will be Chayav two Chata'os - only if he has an independent need for the box. Otherwise, it will always be Batel to its contents.

(b)Rebbi Sheishes tries to refute our proof from this Beraisa that someone who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam is Chayav two Chata'os, by saying that it speaks 'she'Shagag al ha'Ochlin, ve'Hezid al ha'Kli' - in which case, 'Chayav two' means one Chatas and Misah, and gone is the proof that a person who eats two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam is Chayav to bring two Chata'os.

(c)Rav Ashi holds like Rebbi Yochanan (in Klal Gadol), who holds that Yedi'os (after eating two k'Zeisim of Cheilev in one He'elam), divide, and that one is Chayav two Chata'os. But that is no proof that one would be Chayav two Chata'os in one He'elam - without two separate Yedi'os. On the contrary, one will only be Chayav one Chatas, should he become aware of them at the same time!

(d)Rav Sheshes declines to learn like Rav Ashi - because he holds like Resh Lakish, who holds that Yedi'os (after eating the two k'Zeisim in one He'elam) do not divide.