Implied question: Why doesn't the Mishnah teach whether or not he may enter the Azarah with his Kav, like it taught about Semichos?

Answer #1: It is obvious that he may not enter the Azarah with his Kav, since he does not need it so much.

Answer #2: Since it is high above the ground, and is not dirty, it is obvious that he may enter the Azarah with it.

Pesak: According to Rashi, we can prove that if the sinews of one's thighs shriveled, he may walk with sticks on Shabbos, for these are his Semuchos, which all permit to go out with on Shabbos.

Even according to R. Pores, we can prove that it is permitted. He explains that his two legs are on Semuchos, and he cannot walk without sticks, and even so he does not forbid them.

Proof #2 (Seifa): His chair and its Semuchos are Tamei Medras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbos.

Explanation (Rashi)): If the sinews of one's lower legs or thighs shriveled, he puts his buttocks in a Kav and sits on it, and ties the Kav to his body. He has two small benches in his hands, and supports himself on them and pushes on them.

The Tana did not need to mention the benches, for he cannot go in the chair without them, and he goes out with all of these on Shabbos;

Implied question: It says one may not go out with them (his chair and its Semuchos) on Shabbos!

Answer: This refers to its (the chair's) Semuchos of leather or wood made for his legs. They hang in the air and do not touch the ground;

Sometimes he supports himself on them, when the ground is high. Therefore, one may not go out with them on Shabbos, since he does not need them.

Alternatively, sometimes they fall, for they do not touch the ground, and he might come to carry them.

Summation of Proof #2 - Inference: He may go out with the benches in his hands, and the same applies to sticks.

Support: Also R. Tam permitted one whose thigh sinews shriveled to go out with sticks to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: Rashi's Perush is unclear. What was the question, perhaps it is without its pit? The Mishnah says with its pit!

Suggestion: Perhaps the questioner is unsure if it literally means "and its pit", or perhaps it means "or its pit."

This is like "he did Chalitzah and gave a Ma'amar" (Kidushin mid'Rabanan of a Yevamah), which means that he did Chalitzah or gave a Ma'amar. If so, k'Koseves ha'Gasah of the Reisha is without the pit.

Rejection: Even so, this is no Safek. It must mean and its pit, that we gauge both of them. It cannot mean either of them, for they are unequal, for it is impossible to be exactly the same, a Koseves without the pit, and a pit without the Koseves.

Therefore, we should teach that one is liable for the smaller Shi'ur, and all the more so for eating the larger Shi'ur!

Answer #1: He asks whether Koseves ha'Gasah that was taught is with its pit, i.e. like its natural state with its pit, and "u'Gar'inasah" was taught to add another pit without the Koseves, i.e. a two pits and one Koseves.

Or, perhaps Koseves ha'Gasah was taught without its pit, and "and its pit" refers to the pit inside, and no more.

Answer #2 (Aruch, Erech Koseves, citing R. Nisim Ga'on): The text of the Yerushalmi said "R. Yosi says, this shows that one must compress the Chalal (hollow)." I.e. if not, it should have taught "like it, its pit and its Chalal."

It is clear that Koseves ha'Gasah does not cling to its pit. There is a gap between them.

Therefore, the Mishnah needed to teach "like it and its pit" to be stringent, lest one err and measure a Koseves like it is, whole.

This Shi'ur is too big. Rather, one is liable for eating like it and its pit alone, without the Chalal.

Support: R. Yosi said "this shows that one must compress the Chalal", so the Koseves itself will cling to its pit, and no Chalal will remain.

After this, we gauge the Shi'ur of eating on Yom Kipur. Therefore, one needs "like it and its pit" to exclude its Chalal.

Explanation: According to this, here we ask if it is b'Gar'inasah, i.e. after the Chalal was compressed, or not b'Gar'inasah, i.e. like it is naturally, before compressing it.

Rashi's opinion: In Sukah (26b), Rashi explained [that he took it in a cloth] for cleanliness.

Rejection: There is no need to say so. It is clear from Berachos 19b and Bechoros 36a that R. Tzadok was a Kohen, and he used to eat Al Taharas Terumah.

[Stam] hands are a Sheni l'Tum'ah, and they disqualify Terumah. Even less than a k'Beitzah is Mekabel Tum'ah. (This is why he took it in a cloth.)

Explanation: He holds like R. Yehudah below in our Sugya, who expounds "v'Achalta v'Savata" to teach about eating that has satiation, i.e. k'Beitzah.

Ri's opinion: It seems that the Halachah follows R. Meir, who says [that one blesses after eating] a k'Zayis, for in Berachos (38b) R. Chiya bar Aba said that he saw R. Yochanan eat a k'Zayis, and he blessed before and after.

Support: He (R. Chiya bar Aba) also said (Berachos 48a) that one cannot be Motzi others [in Birkas ha'Mazon] until he eats a k'Zayis of grain.

The Yerushalmi's opinion: For a Beriyah (a complete creation), it need not be a k'Zayis. Even one grape or pomegranate pip requires a Berachah before and after.

Citation (Yerushalmi Berachos 6:1): R. Yochanan ate an olive and blessed on it before and after. R. Chiya bar Aba was looking at him [in surprise].

Citation (cont.) R. Yochanan: Babylonian, what are you looking at? Don't you hold that one must bless before and after anything from the seven species?!

Citation (cont.): He agrees with this. However, he was surprised because the pit [which R. Yochanan did not eat] diminishes it [from the Shi'ur].

Citation (cont.): What is R. Yochanan's reason? It is because it is a Beriyah. R. Yochanan would say that one must bless before and after even on one grape, or one pomegranate pip.

The Bavli's opinion: A similar episode with R. Yochanan is brought in Berachos 38b. R. Chiya said that he saw R. Yochanan eat a salted olive, and he blessed before and after;

Citation (38b) Question (R. Yirmeyah): How could he bless on an olive? Once he removed the pit, it is less than the Shi'ur!

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Zeira): We do not require a big olive. A medium olive suffices. R. Yochanan ate a big olive. Even though the pit was removed, a Shi'ur remained.

Suggestion: If the episode in the Bavli is the same one as in the Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi argues with the Bavli.

Rejection: [However, perhaps there were two episodes. In the Yerushalmi, he ate it with the pit, so it was a Beriyah. In the Bavli], it was not a Beriyah, for it did not have the pit.)

We must say that a Stam salted olive is without the pit. It was not a Beriyah, therefore we had to answer that it was big. The olive of the Yerushalmi was smaller than an average olive.

Application: One who wants to avoid Safek must eat a k'Zayis even of a Beriyah.

Distinction: This is only regarding a Berachah Acharonah. Beforehand, one must bless even for less than k'Zayis of anything. There is no Shi'ur for a Berachah Rishonah, for one may not benefit from the world without a Berachah;

Source #1: The episode with R. Tzadok connotes like this. He did not bless afterwards, but he blessed beforehand.

Source #2 - Citation (Yerushalmi Berachos 6:1): Whatever we say afterwards three Berachos (Birkas ha'Mazon), we say beforehand ha'Motzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz.

Citation (cont.) Question: We do not say three Berachos after less than k'Zayis. We should not say ha'Motzi on it...!

Citation (cont.) Answer (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The general rule teaches about other species.

Explanation: Rav Acha teaches that we do not distinguish between something with a Shi'ur and something without a Shi'ur. Rather, we distinguish between bread and other foods of the five species, e.g. cooked [grain]. One does not say three Berachos afterwards.

Application: The same applies to a dough baked in a cavity in the ground, and Pas ha'Ba b'Kisnin when one does not fix his meal on it, and rice bread. We do not bless ha'Motzi on them, since we do not bless three Berachos after them.

Implied question: In Berachos (35a), we derive blessing beforehand from a Kal va'Chomer from blessing afterwards. One must bless when he is satiated. All the more so one must bless when he is hungry! (This shows that one must bless before eating only if he will bless afterwards!)

Answer: Even so, Dayo (we cannot learn a bigger Chidush from a Kal va'Chomer than in the source) does not apply. On Mashehu we bless beforehand, even though we do not bless afterwards.

Explanation: This is because it is not a [real] Kal va'Chomer. It is a mere Giluy Milsa (reveals a matter). A Berachah beforehand is not mid'Oraisa;

Source #1 - Citation (Berachos 20b - Mishnah): A Ba'al Keri (one who had a seminal emission; Chachamim decreed that he not pray or learn until he immerses) blesses after the meal [for it is mid'Oraisa], but not before.

Source #2 - Citation (Berachos 16a - Beraisa): Workers working for a Ba'al ha'Bayis eat their bread and do not bless beforehand, but they bless two Berachos afterwards.

Assertion: Regarding drinking, it seems that one blesses on a k'Zayis of wine afterwards Al ha'Gafen, v'Al Peri ha'Gafen, even though regarding Yom Kipur the Shi'ur [to be liable] is Malei Lugmav (the amount that one can hold in his mouth when one cheek sticks out). We do not learn them from each other.

Support #1: Regarding eating, the Shi'ur for Yom Kipur is Koseves, and regarding Berachah it is k'Zayis, like R. Meir, like we explained.

Support #2: There is an opinion in Pesachim (107a) that does not require Malei Lugmav for Kidush. Also here, regarding Berachah [Acharonah], all agree that we do not learn from Yom Kipur.

Retraction: However, there is some reason to derive that R. Meir agrees about drinking, that one needs a Beitzah [for a Berachah Acharonah];

Source: Below, R. Meir expounds "v'Achalta" is eating. "V'Savata" is drinking. R. Yehudah expounds eating that has satiation, i.e. k'Beitzah. This shows that Sevi'ah (satiation) is k'Beitzah.

Consequence: If so, R. Meir, who expounds "v'Savata" to be drinking, requires k'Beitzah.

Retraction: Perhaps we can distinguish satiation of eating from satiation of drinking. Satiation of drinking is less than k'Beitzah, for all of these Shi'urim are mid'Rabanan, like it is clear from Berachos 20b. (Si'ach Yitzchak - one blesses afterwards for satiation mid'Rabanan, i.e. partial Yishuv ha'Da'as (assuaging of the mind). The Shi'ur for Yom Kipur is what gives total Yishuv ha'Da'as, i.e. Malei Lugmav.)

It says there "the case is, he ate a Shi'ur mid'Rabanan", i.e. k'Zayis or k'Beitzah. Mid'Oraisa, one must be totally satiated.

Implied question: In Berachos 48a, we said that Shimon ben Shetach acted according to his reason. [We hold that] to be Motzi others, he must eat a k'Zayis of grain!

Inference: Had Shimon ben Shetach eaten a k'Zayis of grain, he could properly be Motzi the king and queen, even though presumably they ate to satiation, and he ate a Shi'ur mid'Rabanan.

Summation of question: How can a [Chiyuv] mid'Rabanan be Motzi a [Chiyuv] mid'Oraisa, like we ask in Berachos (20b), about a minor being Motzi others?

Answer: A minor is unlike an adult. Even if he (an adult) did not eat at all, he could be Motzi others mid'Oraisa. Also Rashi said so there.

Explanation: This is not in the Mishnah. Rather, the Gemara asks this against the Mishnah there, and answers. Therefore, we bring it here as if it was taught in the Mishnah.

Note: Our text explicitly says "v'Tani Alah" (it was taught regarding this Mishnah). It seems that this was not in Tosfos' text (Mesoras ha'Shas 79a).

Observation: In Sukah (27a), we ask from this against Rav Yosef and Abaye, who say that one may eat Arai (haphazardly) outside a Sukah;

Rav Yosef explains that this is two or three Beitzim, and Abaye says that it is the amount that a Talmid tastes before going to Kalah (to learn).

Citation (27a) Answer: We make a different inference. Rather, if it were k'Beitzah, it would require Netilas Yadayim and a Berachah [afterwards], and we would not permit through a cloth [without Netilas Yadayim].

We are concerned lest he touch it, like it says in Chulin (107b).

Question: R. Tzadok was a Kohen. We say in Chulin (107b) that they permitted [relying on] a cloth for people who eat Terumah, but not for people who eat Taharos! (Why would he need to wash if it were k'Beitzah?)

Answer: They permitted a cloth for people who eat Terumah only while eating Terumah, for then they are very careful;

They did not permit people who eat Taharos, even Kohanim who eat Al Taharas [as if the food were] Terumah. Here, the food was not Terumah.

Rashi's opinion: In Sukah (27a), we say that if one ate Targima to complete the 14 meals he must eat in a Sukah [according to R. Eliezer], he was Yotzei. Rashi explains that this is Peros, cakes, and cooked leeks.

Question: Our Gemara connotes that Targima is not Peros!

Suggestion: We can learn from here that Minei Targima can be used in place of Seudah Shelishis on Shabbos, for we say that if one ate Targima to complete [the 14 meals], he was Yotzei.

Rejection: Seudah Shelishis is different, for we learn it from the three times it says "ha'Yom" regarding the manna, which was in place of bread.

Assertion: Even if we would say that one is Yotzei three meals through Minei Targima, just like regarding Sukah, one would not be Yotzei through Peros, for also for Sukah they do not help.

Note: Tosfos ha'Rosh and Tosfos Yeshanim say that one is Yotzei Seudah Shelishis through Minei Targima. A Hagahah in Tosfos Yeshanim says that the text of Tosfos should say so. Tosfos (Pesachim 101a) explicitly says that it does not suffice for the first two meals of Shabbos.

Question: [Beis Shamai] should say that the Shi'ur for Se'or is k'Zayis, and for Chametz it is k'Grogeres, which is bigger, like Shabbos 91a connotes!

Regarding one who threw a k'Zayis of Terumah into a Tamei house, the Gemara asked that regarding Shabbos, we require k'Grogeres [to be liable]. A k'Zayis does not suffice;

A Stam Koseves is k'Beitzah or a little less, like our Sugya connotes. A k'Grogeres is more than k'Beitzah, like Eruvin 80b connotes, like I will explain!

Answer: Perhaps once they require a Shi'ur [for Chametz] more than a k'Zayis, they adopted the Shi'ur for Yom Kipur.

Question: This is difficult, for we say below that the Koseves for Chametz is not the Koseves ha'Gasah of Yom Kipur, and even so we are unsure whether or not the Koseves of Chametz is k'Beitzah!

What is the Safek? Surely it is k'Beitzah. Beis Shamai seek a Shi'ur bigger than k'Zayis. Why don't we establish it to be k'Grogeres? (Maharsha - if the Shi'ur were k'Beitzah (the amount one can swallow at once), or the Shi'ur for Yom Kipur, which are Shi'urei Achilah, we would not suggest that it should be k'Grogeres. However, if it is neither, it would be better to establish it to be k'Grogeres!)

Answer: They hold that it is unreasonable to establish it to be k'Grogeres, for they expound R. Chanan's Drashah (Sukah 5b), that everything in the verse "Eretz Chitah u'Se'orah..." was written for a Shi'ur;

We expound a fig for the Shi'ur of Hotza'ah on Shabbos, like the Mishnah says that one is liable for k'Grogeres.

It is unreasonable to establish a fig to be the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah and eating. Rather, it is totally for Hotza'ah, since Hotza'ah and eating are not one matter;

Therefore, we establish eating to be k'Koseves, which we learn from Devash of the verse, which is date-honey, to be the Koseves ha'Gasah of Yom Kipur, which is a matter of eating.

We learn from it also that Koseves is the Shi'ur for Chametz. Even the opinion [above] below that wants to say that the Shi'ur for Chametz is not Koseves ha'Gasah (rather, a Koseves less than a Beitzah), even so we learn both (of these Shi'urim of Koseves);

The Torah authorized Chachamim to decide [which Shi'ur is for which matter. Si'ach Yitzchak - really, these are traditions from Moshe from Sinai. Chachamim merely made Asmachtos for them.]

Regarding Yom Kipur, we gauge Koseves ha'Gasah, for this amount [of food] settles the mind [of one who was fasting];

Regarding Chametz, we gauge an average Koseves, and not a big one, so the Shi'ur will not be too far from the Shi'ur for Se'or.

Implied question: We ask "we should establish it to be k'Beitzah", even though an egg is not written in the verse!

Answer #1: This is not difficult. Also ka'Adashah [the volume of a lentil] is not in that verse. However, we do not establish it to be k'Grogeres, for we do not establish "fig" of the verse to apply to eating and Hotza'ah, like I explained.

Answer #2: Also, it is fine to establish it to be k'Beitzah, for this is the amount that a person can eat (swallow) at once. There is not so much reason why the Shi'ur should be k'Grogeres.

Question: Why don't we say that they argue about the tradition from Moshe from Sinai? We hold that Shi'urim are a tradition from Sinai;

One says that the tradition is a k'Zayis for Se'or and Koseves for Chametz, and one says that both of them are k'Zayis!

Strengthening of question: If so, we would not have the difficulty why we don't establish it to be k'Beitzah!

Answer: In Beitzah (7b), it is clear that they argue about verses;

Beis Shamai's reason is not based on a tradition, for we bring a Beraisa "v'Lo Yera'eh Lecha Chametz v'Lo Yera'eh Lecha Se'or" - Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about this.

Beis Shamai say that the Shi'ur for Se'or is k'Zayis...

Since we bring a verse, this shows that they expound the verse. The Torah should have written [only] Se'or, and not Chametz. (The Torah wrote also Chametz to teach that it has a different Shi'ur.)