Implied question: We could have said that even if they were not lenient about Demai, since it is only mid'Rabanan, it is different, like we said above!

Answer #1: [We gave this answer because] we give this answer in several places.

Answer #2: Since there is concern for Safek Tevel, which is mid'Oraisa, Chachamim would have been stringent, if not for the reason that they were lenient about Demai.

Implied question: In Nidah (46b), it says that R. Yochanan holds that Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa;

The Gemara challenged him from a Beraisa, and [derived] that if a child is eating Nevelos, Beis Din is not commanded to stop him.

The Gemara could have said "how can you say so? Here, R. Yochanan was unsure [whether Beis Din must stop him]!"

Answer (R. Elchanan): Even without this, the Gemara answered properly there.

Question: Even if it would not be k'Le'acher Yad, [it is not mid'Oraisa], for Dishah (threshing) applies only to Gidulei Karka (what grows from the ground)!

We say so in Shabbos (75a) regarding one who bruises a Chilazon (a fish whose blood is used to make Techeiles).

Suggestion: Even though the Chilazon is not considered Gidulei Karka, an animal is considered Gidulei Karka, like it says in Eruvin (27b);

It excludes fish (one may not buy them with Kesef Ma'aser), for it says "Bakar v'Tzon" - just like the Peratim (specific cases) are Gidulei Karka...

Rejection: We cannot say so. Even though [the Gemara in Eruvin] considers animals to be Gidulei Karka, since we learn [Dash] from the ingredients [used for the Ketores], we require something that truly grows from the ground, like the ingredients;

Compared to something that truly grows from the ground, animals are not considered to be Gidulei Karka. This is clear from Bava Metzi'a (89a);

Citation (89a - Beraisa): "Dayish" - just like Dishah [applies to Gidulei Karka, and one may not muzzle an animal doing it...] this excludes milking, churning (milk to make butter), and making cheese. These are not Gidulei Karka, so a worker has no right to eat while doing them.

Compared to something that truly grows from the ground, animals are not considered to be Gidulei Karka.

Support: Also Kidushin (17a) connotes like this regarding the granary and winery.

Answer #1: We need the reason that it is Mefarek k'Le'acher Yad because R. Yehudah holds that Dishah applies even not to Gidulei Karka. He obligates one who bruises a Chilazon also for Dash.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Mefarek is liable due to Memachek (smoothing). He smoothes the skin. This is an Av Melachah.

Question (Ri): It says in Shabbos (144a) that one may milk into a pot [with food], but not into an [empty] bowl.

This is fine for Rashi. He explains that one may milk into a pot because the liquid enters a food, so it is like a food, so this is not Borer;

One may not milk into a bowl, for he selects a liquid from a food, so it is like Dash, in which he selects a food from Pesoles;

However, according to R. Tam, in either case he should be liable for Memachek!

Question: We say in Kesuvos (60a) that a moaning child may suckle milk on Shabbos. He (R. Merinus) holds that it is Mefarek k'Le'acher Yad, and due to pain, Chachamim did not decree;

Here, he forbids on Shabbos!

Suggestion: There, we discuss one who is in danger.

Rejection: If so, we would permit even a proper Melachah, even if it were not k'Le'acher Yad!

Answer (R. Tam): There [we permit] due to sickness, and here [we discuss] due to hunger. This is called pain, like it says in Shevuos (26b);

Citation (26b) Question: If one swore not to eat a loaf and he is in danger due to it, what is the law?

Citation (cont.) Objection: If he is in danger, surely it is permitted! Rather, if he is pained due to it, what is the law?

Question (Ri): If so, why does it say here "if there is danger, it is permitted even on Shabbos"?

Even for the sick [without danger] it is permitted, since it is not a full Melachah!

Answer #1 (Rebbi): This is not difficult. The Gemara did not yet explain that it is Mefarek k'Le'acher Yad;

It says that even a full Torah Melachah should be Nidcheh and permitted, since there is danger!

Answer #2 (Ri): Our Sugya here disagrees.

Support: It says there (60a) that the Halachah follows R. Merinus. This implies that others argue with him.

Answer #3: Some explain that here we discuss pain of the animal. It has too much milk in its udder.

Question (Ri): If so, why did they suckle? They could have milked into a pot!

Answer: This is not difficult according to R. Tam (who said that here we discuss hunger). Presumably, since they were hungry, they had no food in a pot.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Their Isur (one is liable for them) is for ka'Adashah (the volume of a lentil).

Rebuttal #1: It explicitly says in Me'ilah (16b) that one is lashed for Sheratzim for a k'Zayis, since it says "Achilah" regarding them.

Rebuttal #2: It says in Makos (16b) that if one minced nine ants and a 10th whole ant completed the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis... Also several places connote [that the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis].

Explanation #2: Rather, "their Isur is b'Mashehu" means that one is liable for an ant [of any size], since it is a Beriyah (whole creation). The Ri agreed with this.

Implied question: This is just like the first Tana!

Answer: Initially, [the first Tana] did not specify whether he discusses even if she is not crying. Here he explains this.

Implied question: There is no need to teach this, for Stam (normally), there is peace in the world and between them!

Answer: This was taught due to the Seifa.

Explanation: She is afraid to stay until he dies, for they are shooting arrows and catapult boulders in the war, and they do not aim for who they will fall on. (Even though she is not involved in the war, they might fall on her.)

However, below, regarding "bandits came upon us", she is believed to say that he was killed, for she stays until he dies, and does not say based on estimation.

Question (Ri): You are forced to say that Migo does not apply, since she says based on estimation;

If Migo applied, when there is war in the world, why isn't she believed through a Migo? She could have said that he died on his bed!

Inference: Migo does not apply, since she is not suspected to [intentionally] lie.

Answer (Ri): Since she is so meticulous to establish that there is war in the world, and says that there is war, surely she does not say based on estimation;

We should believe her through a Migo - if she wanted, she could have said that there is Shalom in the world - because she is so meticulous.

Distinction: However, when she did not establish [that there is war in the world], she is not believed to say that her husband died in war, through [a Migo that] she could have said that he died on his bed;

This is not a Migo. Since it is known that there is war, she is afraid to say that he died on his bed, lest it become known that she lies;

However, when she established [that there is war in the world], surely she is very precise.

Question (Ri): It says in Shevuos (45b) about a worker [who says that he was not paid], who swears and collects, "this is only when witnesses know that he was hired";

However, if he was hired without witnesses, since the employer could say "I never hired you", he can say "I hired you, and I paid you your wage."

Why is this a Migo? He is not suspected to lie. Rather, the employer is distracted with his workers, like it says there, and says based on estimation!