Previous daf

1)

(a) The two Mi'utim with which Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree is 1. 'Echad Oker ve'Echad Meni'ach' 2. 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol'.

(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.

(c) Rebbi Shimon holds that a 'Yachid she'Asah be'Horo'as Beis-Din' is Chayav.

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

(b) Rebbi Meir discards the Derashah of 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol'. According to him, 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol' is Chayav, as we saw on the previous Amud.

(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, is not doing anything.

(b) Nor is he Chayav for assisting the one who can do it, because of the principle 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash'.

(c) If a Zav is sitting on a couch whose four legs are standing on four pieces of cloth, the pieces of cloth are Tamei, because a couch cannot stand on three legs, so that each leg is indispensable; whereas, if the same Zav is riding a horse, whose four legs are swathed in four pieces of cloth, the pieces of cloth are Tahor, because a horse can stand on three legs. Consequently, each of the legs is no more than a Mesayei'a (a Stam Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who considers 'Zeh Yachol, ve'Zeh Yachol', a Mesayei'a).

(d) Yes! we do have a proof from here that 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash'.

(a) The Gemara contends that maybe the cloths under the horse are Tahor, not because of Mesayei'a, but because the horse 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?

(b) The Mishkav of a Zav only becomes Tamei if it bears the majority of his weight. Consequently, it is only when the Zav is lying *lengthwise* that the benches are Tamei, because during the course of his rest, he will have lain for a while on this one, and for a while on that one, so they are all Tamei. But if he lay *across* the benches, where none of the benches actually bore most of his weight, they all remain Tahor.

(c) If he slept on the benches, then, even if he slept *across* them, they will be Tamei, since he may have moved in his sleep, and lain along the length of any one of them.

(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 Lehachmir. In that case, we will do the same by the horse's feet, even if it is sometimes off the ground, since each of its feet might have been placed on the ground. Consequently, the reason that the cloths are Tahor can only be because of Mesayei'a.

(a) According to Rashi's Rebbes, if the Zav lay lengthwise on the benches, they are Tahor, because perhaps he only lay in between them, and they did not bear his weight at all.

(b) Rashi rejects that explanation on the basis of the Seifa, where the Zav slept across the benches, yet they are all Tamei - because he *may* have moved in his sleep, and slept lengthwise along any one of the benches. So why, in the case when he did *not* sleep, would we not also go Lechumra - to say that all the benches are Tamei because maybe he lay along one of them?

6)

(a) 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) Since the hind-legs of a horse and the fore-legs of a donkey do at least assist the animal to stand, why are they not also Metamei the cloth - unless we say 'Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash'.

(c) A Kohen is obligated to stand on the floor of the Beis Mikdash, and not on anything else. We have learnt in a Beraisa that if a Kohen is standing with one foot on the ground, and the other on a Kli or on a stone, his Avodah is valid, provided that, had the stoneor 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.

(d) A Kohen is obligated to perform the Avodah with his right hand. Whatever he performs with his left hand is invalid. Yet the Beraisa says that if a Kohen receives the blood with his right hand, the Korban is Kasher, even if his left hand also assisted to receive it - another proof that Mesayei'a Ein Bo Mamash.

(a) We have a clear proof that one does not require a separate Shiur for each one ...

1 ... from the Zav lying on the couch, with the four legs lying on cloths, and which are all four Tamei - even though they are *four* different Medrasos but only *one* Zav.
Note: Even though this proof is from a case of 'Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol' - according to Rebbi Yehudah - we can nevertheless 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. ... from the Mishnah which is Mechayev two people, neither of whom is capable of trapping a deer alone, for trapping it together - despite the fact that there is only one Shiur of trapping (one deer between the two of them).
3. ... from the Beraisa which obligates two people who stole a sheep or a cow and Shechted it together, to pay four or five times.

(b) If the Beraisa only obligates the two people who carried out the weaver's cane because it contained sufficient wood to cook a Kigerogeres of a chicken's egg, then why did it specify a *weaver's* cane, and not just a *cane*?

(c) Nevertheless, Rav Ashi's proof is refuted on the grounds that who says that the weaver's cane did not contain sufficient material to weave a small piece of cloth for each of the people who carried it out?

(a) How can the Beraisa say 'Shenayim she'Hotzi'u Kaneh shel Gardi Peturin, ve'Rebbi Shimon Mechayev', when it is Rebbi Shimon who holds Patur by 'Zeh Eino Yachol ve'Zeh Eino Yachol', and the Rabbanan who hold Chayav?

(b) Consequently, we are obligated to switch round the opinions in the Beraisa, to read in the Tana Kama's words 'Chayavin', and to conclude 've'Rebbi Shimon Poter'.

(a) No! Someone who carries out less than a Kigerogeres of food in a Kli, or a live person on a stretcher, is not Chayav for carrying out the Kli and the stretcher, which are Batel to the food and to the person, respectively.

(b) Someone who carries a whole corpse or a Kezayis of corpse, or a Kezayis of carcass or a Ke'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 he merely wants to get rid of, is not included in Meleches Machsheves, and one is therefore not Chayav for performimg it.

(a) Someone who carries out a box containing food, will be Chayav two Chata'os, if he has an independent need for the box.

(b) If the Beraisa is speaking when he was a Shogeg on the food and a Meizid on the Kli (in which case, 'Chayav two' means one Chatas and Misah), then we will have no proof that a person who eats two Kezeisim of Chelev in one He'elam is Chayav to bring two Chata'os.

(c) Rav Ashi holds like Rebbi Yochanan (in K'lal Gadol), who holds that Yedi'os (after eating two Kezeisim of Chelev in one He'elam), divide, and 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, we have a proof that one is only Chayav *one* Chatas, when he becomes aware of them at the same time!

(d) Rav Sheshes declined to learn like Rav Ashi, because he holds like Resh Lakish, in whose opinion Yedi'os (after eating the two Kezeisim in one He'elam) do not divide.