A MELACHAH DONE BY TWO PEOPLE (cont.)
(Continuation of Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If two held a ring of figs or a beam and were Motzi it to Reshus ha'Rabim, if one could not Motzi it and two were Motzi it, they are liable; if not, they are exempt;
R. Shimon says, even if one person could not Motzi it and two were Motzi it, they are exempt;
This is why it says "Ba'Asosah" - an individual who transgressed is liable, two who transgressed are exempt.
Question: What do they argue about?
Answer: They argue about "V'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shgagah me'Am ha'Aretz ba'Asosah":
R. Shimon says that there are three exclusions - it is as if says 'Nefesh Techeta Achas Techeta ba'Asosah Techeta', one excludes if one did Akirah and another did Hanachah, one excludes when either person could do the Melachah, one excludes when neither person could do the Melachah;
R. Yehudah says, one excludes if one did Akirah and another did Hanachah, one excludes when either person could do the Melachah, one excludes an individual who followed a [mistaken] Hora'ah (ruling) of the Great Sanhedrin.
R. Shimon is Mechayev one who followed a Hora'ah.
R. Meir: It does not say 'Nefesh Techeta Achas Techeta ba'Asosah Techeta' - there are only two exclusions ("Nefesh Achas" is only one, it is normal to speak this way):
One excludes if one did Akirah and another did Hanachah, the other excludes one who followed a Hora'ah.
(Rav Yehudah): If one of them could have done it himself but not the other, all agree that he is liable.
Question: Which one is liable?
Answer (Rav Chisda): The one who could have done it is liable - the other did not do anything!
Question (Rav Hamnuna): The other one helped!
Answer (Rav Chisda): His help was insignificant.
Support #1 (Rav Zevid - Mishnah): (If a garment supports a Zav, it receives Tum'as Medras.) If a Zav was sitting on a bed and each of the four legs had a garment underneath it, all of them are Tamei, because [each helps to support him,] the bed cannot stand on only three legs.
R. Shimon is Metaher [because none supports most of his weight].
If a Zav was riding on an animal, there was a garment under each leg, all are Tehorim, because it can stand on three legs.
Question: The fourth leg helps to support him!
Answer: Since he could be supported without it, its help is insignificant!
Rejection (Rav Yehudah of Diskarta): Help is significant [even if the helper could have done it himself but the other could not have] - here is different, for sometimes the animal lifts its leg off the ground [and it does not help at all].
Rejection of rejection: Since the animal alternates lifting different legs [and when it stands on three, its weight could be mostly on one leg], the law should be [Tamei,] like the case of a Zav who [might have] rolled over!
(Mishnah): If a Zav was lying lengthwise on five [narrow] benches or five long pouches (all were north-south, side by side; his head was at the north and his feet at the south), each is [Safek] Tamei (perhaps it bore most of his weight at one point);
If he was lying widthwise (his head was on the easternmost, his feet were on the westernmost), they are Tehorim (Rashi - for none bears the majority of his weight, the Mishnah is like R. Shimon; Ri - it is even like Chachamim, the help of each is insignificant);
If he slept [widthwise], each is [Safek] Tamei, perhaps he rolled (and rotated) in his sleep and was at one point lying [lengthwise] on it alone.
Conclusion: Rav Zevid was correct - the garments are Tehorim because the help of each leg is insignificant.
Support #2 (for Rav Chisda - Rav Papa - Mishnah - R. Yosi): [A Zav on] a horse is Metamei [garments under] its forelegs, for it supports itself [mostly] on them;
A donkey is Metamei [garments under] its hind legs, for it puts its weight on them;
Question: The legs which do not bear the majority of the weight also help - why don't they Metamei garments underneath them?
Answer: Their help is insignificant.
Support #3 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Eliezer): If a Kohen did Avodah with one foot on the floor [of the Azarah] and the other on a Kli or rock:
If the Kli or rock could be removed and he could stand on the other foot, the Avodah is Kosher, if not, it is Pasul.
Question: The foot on the Kli or rock also helps - why is the Avodah Kosher (he must be standing on the floor)!
Answer: The help [of that foot] is insignificant.
Support #4 (Ravina - Beraisa): If a Kohen did Avodah with his right hand and the left hand helped, the Avodah is Kosher.
Question: The left hand helps - why is the Avodah Kosher (it must be with the right hand)!
Answer: The help is insignificant.
ARE TWO LIABLE FOR ONE SHI'UR?
(Rav Yehudah): ...If either one of them could have done it himself, R. Meir is Mechayev. (R. Chananel's text - we ask when neither could have done it himself, for then he is Chayav - the Halachah follows R. Yehudah. Rashba - we ask according to R. Meir, from him we learn to R. Yehudah.)
Question: Is this only if they did [together a double Shi'ur, i.e.] a Shi'ur of Melachah for each, or even if they did only one Shi'ur?
Answer #1 (Rav Chisda or Rav Hamnuna): It is only they did a Shi'ur for each;
Answer #2 (The other of Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna): It is even if they did only one Shi'ur.
Support #1 (for Answer #2 - Rav Papa - Mishnah): If a Zav was on a bed and a garment was under each leg, all of them are Tamei, because the bed cannot stand on only three legs.
This shows that we do not require a Shi'ur Zivah for each!
Support #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah): If a deer entered a house and one locked the door, he is liable (for trapping it);
If two people locked the door, they are exempt;
If one could not lock it and two people locked it, they are liable.
This shows that one Shi'ur suffices for both!
Support #3 (Ravina - Mishnah): If partners stole [a Seh or ox] and slaughtered it, they are liable [four or five times its value].
We do not require a Shi'ur of Shechitah for each! (Note: Here they share the payment. Ravina proves from here that if two did a Melachah together, each brings a Chatas by himself! Presumably, it suffices to prove that it is as if each transgressed by himself, for we know that partners cannot bring a Chatas - PF.)
Support #4 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): If two people were Motzi a weaver's rod (it goes along the width of the loom), they are liable.
We do not require a Shi'ur Hotza'ah for each!
Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Perhaps it is a double Shi'ur, it suffices to cook two [k'Grogeros of] light eggs!
Answer: If so, the Beraisa would not have specified a weaver's rod! (Rather, it specifies to teach that it is [not for fuel, rather,] for weaving, i.e. there is only one Shi'ur!)
Objection: Perhaps it can be used to weave a napkin for each (side by side at the same time, i.e. its length is twice the width of a napkin)!
Conclusion: Rav Ashi's Beraisa does not support Answer #2.
(A reciter of Beraisos): If two people were Motzi a weaver's rod, they are exempt;
R. Shimon is Mechayev.
Objection (Rav Nachman): Just the contrary - R. Shimon exempts two who did a Melachah!
Correction (Beraisa): Rather, if two were Motzi a weaver's rod, they are liable;
R. Shimon exempts.
HOTZA'AH OF FOOD IN A KLI
(Mishnah): If one was Motzi less than a Shi'ur of food in a Kli, he is exempt even for the Kli, for it is Batul to the food;
If one was Motzi a live person on a bed, he is exempt even for the bed, for it is Batul to the person (we will explain why he is not liable for the person);
If one was Motzi a Mes in a bed, he is liable;
Similarly, if one was Motzi k'Zayis of a Mes or Nevelah, or ka'Adashah of a Sheretz, he is liable;
R. Shimon exempts.
(Gemara - Beraisa): If one was Motzi a Shi'ur of food:
If it was in a Kli, he is liable for the food and exempt for the Kli;
If he needed the Kli (for something else), he is liable even for the Kli.
Question: [He was Motzi both in the same Helam -] this implies that if one ate two k'Zeisim of Chelev in one Helam, he is liable twice (but surely, this is wrong)!
Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): The case is, he was Shogeg about the food and Mezid about the Kli (he is Chayav Misah for the Kli).
Objection (Rav Ashi): It says, 'He is liable even for the Kli' (implying that the two Chiyuvim are the same)!
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): He was Shogeg about both of them - the case is, he found out about one of them, and later found out about the other:
Version #1 (Tosfos): According to Reish Lakish (71B), we must say that he found out about the other after offering [or at least designating] a Korban for one; according to R. Yochanan, he is liable twice even if he found out about the other before offering (perhaps this is only if he already designated) a Korban for the other.
Version #2 (Rashi): Rav Sheshes and Rav Ashi argue like R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish. (Rav Sheshes holds like Reish Lakish, that Yedi'os do not Mechalek, therefore he did not say that he was Shogeg about both of them; Rav Ashi holds like R. Yochanan, that Yedi'os Mechalek.)