Implied question: Why does the Beraisa mention "b'Asosah" more than the other [exclusions]?

Answer: It is the last exclusion, and [the Tana'im] argue about it.

Question (Ri): Why did R. Shimon say "an individual who did is liable...", and he did not use the expression above "one who does all of it, and not one who does part of it"?

Answer: Perhaps the expression "two who did it are exempt" connotes more even if this one could not do it himself, and this one could not do it himself.

Implied question: Why don't we need a verse for one who wrote one letter, and his friend came and wrote a second letter?

Answer: We need a verse only for Hotza'ah, for one might have thought that the Torah was adamant about bringing in and taking out, and one is liable even without Hanachah.

Version #1: The text says "R. Shimon holds that an individual who did [an Aveirah] based on a [mistaken] ruling of Beis Din, no verse is needed [to exempt him]."

Version #2 (Rashi): The text says "R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere, that an individual who did based on a ruling of Beis Din is liable." This text is wrong!

Rejection: A Mishnah (Horiyos 3b) explicitly teaches that if one went and acted according to Beis Din [after most of Yisrael followed their ruling, and they realized their mistake], whether or not they brought their Korban... R. Shimon exempts, and [the Gemara] explains that his reason is because one who relies on Beis Din, this is Ones.

Explanation (Ri): Here "he cannot" is even if he is very strong, but he carries the beam in such a way that if not for the other person, he could not carry it alone, e.g. with his finger, or he holds it in a way that he could not carry it alone;

What difference does it make if he is strong, since now he could not carry it?!

Implied suggestion: He wants to say that the one who could do it alone is exempt, and the one who could not do it alone is liable.

Rejection: This is unreasonable!

Explanation: Rather, even the one who could not do it alone should be liable, just like according to R. Yehudah and R. Meir, who say that if this one could not do it alone, and this one could not do it alone, [both are] liable.

Explanation: [The Mishnah teaches that] helping is not significant.

Question (Ri): Here, Rav Zvid holds that helping is not significant, and also Rav Ashi below;

In Beitzah (22a), we say that Ameimar had one eye painted through a Nochri on Shabbos. Rav Ashi said "why do you think [that this is permitted? If it is] because Rav Kahana said that one who is sick without danger, he tells a Nochri, and [the Nochri] does his needs... - here, you help him, through closing and opening [your eye]!"

Ameimar said [to Rav Ashi] "Rav Zvid holds like you, and I answered him that helping is not significant."

Inference: Rav Ashi and Rav Zvid hold that [helping] is significant!

Suggestion: This that [Rav Zvid] said that helping is insignificant does not mean that it is totally permitted, just there is no Chiyuv Chatas.

Rejection: Rav Ashi brings that his Avodah is Kosher. This implies that there is not even a Pesul mid'Rabanan! (Sefas Emes questions this. Even if it is Pasul mid'Rabanan, why should we disqualify his Avodah? Also, "there is no Shevus in the Mikdash" applies to all mid'Rabanan laws, not only of Shabbos!)

Strengthening of question: If so, also regarding Shabbos, what is the source that there is an Isur mid'Rabanan!

Partial answer: For Rav Ashi, we can say that after he heard from Ameimar, he held (that helping is insignificant).

Question: However, it is difficult for Rav Zvid, for he said in the name of Rava that [helping] is insignificant, and Ameimar was long after Rava, and even after Rav Papa, who was Rava's Talmid!

Answer #1: Perhaps after the episode with Ameimar, Rav Zvid heard in the name of Rava, but not from Rava himself.

Answer #2 (Ri): [Rav Ashi] asked as follows. "You help him, through closing and opening [your eye]!" Even though normally, helping is insignificant, we should say that they forbade [any action done for Refu'ah on Shabbos] due to grinding spices!

[Ameimar] answered that it is insignificant, even for this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Shimon holds like he taught elsewhere. He exempts when this one cannot [by himself], and this one cannot [by himself].

Rejection (Rashba): There is different, for the Torah revealed. There is a verse to exempt!

Explanation #2: The reason is because we require that most of the Zav is supported on each.

Support: It connotes like this in Zavim (4:5). A Mishnah teaches that if a Zav was on the pan of a balance scale, and a Mishkav and Moshav were on the other pan, if the Zav outweighed them, they are Tehorim. If they outweighed the Zav, they are Temei'im.

R. Shimon says, alone they are Temei'im, i.e. there is only one Mishkav or Moshav. When there are many they are Tehorim, for each does not carry most of him.

Explanation: This discusses when it is stationary. If it is walking, constantly it uproots one leg and stands on three, and what is underneath is Tamei, for it cannot stand on two.

Explanation: Every leg cannot support [the Zav by itself], and the other three can.

Explanation: It is Tamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim. (Even though Safek Tum'ah there is Tahor, this is considered Vadai.)

Version #1: This is Rashi's text. He explained that they are Temei'im because we can say that each bears most of him on it - sometimes this one, and sometimes this one;

[If he lied] along their width, they are Tehorim, for most of him is not borne on each one.

Consequence: According to this, it is like R. Shimon, who requires most of the Zav to be borne on it.

Explanation #2 (Ri): We can say that it is even like Rabanan. The reason they are Tehorim is because each one helps insignificantly.

Implied question: He could have asked from the Reisha. We are Metamei [when he lied] along their length, amidst Safek (that one supported most of his weight)!

Answer: He prefers to ask from the Seifa, which explains the reason why they are Temei'im.

Citation (Zavim 4:7 - Mishnah): If one was riding on an animal, and there are four garments under the legs of the animal, they are Tehorim, because it can stand on three;

If one garment was under the two forelegs or two hind legs, it is Tamei. R. Yosi says, a horse is Metamei through its forelegs...

Explanation (Ri): R. Yosi argues only with the Reisha (a different garment under each leg), but he agrees to the Seifa, which teaches that if was under the two hind legs, it is Tamei;

Even though a horse leans on its forelegs, obviously without its hind legs it could not stand!

Question (Ri): Why did Rav Papi bring [a proof from] the Seifa, and not from the Reisha, from Rabanan's opinion, like [Rav Zvid] brought above?

Answer (Ri): One could reject the Reisha, like we wanted to say above, that here is different, for it totally uproots (one of the legs).

Implied question: We could likewise reject that R. Yosi's reason [to be Metaher a garment under the hind legs] is because it uproots [them]!

Answer: [We cannot, for] if so, it would not be Metamei even through its forelegs, for also it is obvious that it uproots them!

Implied suggestion: From here we can resolve that Min b'Mino is a Chatzitzah, for the stone is the same species as the floor [of the Azarah], and Min b'Eino Mino is a Chatzitzah, for the Kli is not the same Min as the floor!

This is a question in Yoma (58a), if one put a shoot in a bucket and received the blood in it (is it a Chatzitzah between the blood and the bucket)?

Rejection: Surely, he is Mevatel the shoot there. He is not Mevatel a Kli or stone, for people who walk there trip on it.

Question (R. Chananel): Why does [the Makshan] ask according to R. Meir? He can ask about when this one cannot do (by himself), and this one cannot do, according to R. Yehudah, whom our Mishnah is like!

Answer #1: This text is mistaken. Rather, the text says "it was taught, if this one cannot do, and this one cannot do..."

Answer #2 (Ri): This is no reason to change the text of Seforim. The reason he did not discuss when this one cannot do... is because it is not common that when neither can do, there is not a Shi'ur for each one.

Question (against R. Chananel's text): The opinion (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna) that requires a Shi'ur for each, did not he not know the Mishnah brought below "... and this one cannot lock (by himself), and both locked, both are liable"?!

However, according to the text of Seforim, that they argue about when this one can (by himself), and this one can, we can say that when [each] cannot, all agree that one Shi'ur for both suffices;

The one who brought a supports from a deer that entered a house, he holds that we should not distinguish between when both can and when they cannot.

Answer: According to R. Chananel's text, we can say that the one who requires a Shi'ur for each, says that "a deer that entered" is not precise. Rather, two entered.

Implied suggestion: We could have asked from the case of two who stole, in the Reisha!

Rejection: We could not ask from it. There we do not require a Shi'ur, for Kefel (double payment) applies to everything, and any amount.

Implied question: Why didn't it teach a plain stick (and it has a double Shi'ur)?

Answer: This teaches that even though it is not normal to weave two cloths with one stick, if it has a Shi'ur to weave a cloth for this one and for this one, [each] is liable.

Explanation: It discusses a heavy stick. This one could not [by himself], and not this one.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is liable for the Kli, i.e. stoning.

Question (Rashbam): It is difficult to establish the Beraisa to discuss that he is liable to be stoned, for everywhere we discuss Chiyuv Chatas!

Explanation #2: The Rashbam changed the text to say "e.g. he was Shogeg about the Kelim and Mezid about the food, and they did not warn him, so there is not stoning nor Chatas for the food. For the Kli he is Chayav Chatas.

Rebuttal (of both Perushim - Ri): If he was Mezid about one of them, he is not Chayav Chatas for the other, for he would not refrain had he known, since he was Mezid about one of them!

Explanation #3: Now we establish when he was Mezid about the Kli. Everything refers to stoning. The Beraisa means as follows. If one was Motzi a Shi'ur of a food in a Kli, he is Chayav Skilah for the food, e.g. if they warned him about the food, and he is exempt for the Kli, if they warned him for the Kli;

If he needed the Kli, he is Chayav Skilah even if they warned him about the Kli.

[The Gemara] asks that "even for the Kli" connotes that he is liable twice.