Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked that according to Rebbi Yochanan, whether he understands the second part of the Tosefta is discussing a Yad or a Shomer, it is difficult. This is therefore not really a question that is only on Rav! (Why did the Gemara act as if this is only a question on Rav?)

Answer: Rather, asking this question enabled the Gemara to explain that Rav can hold according to both of the Tanaim (mentioned in the Tosefta).

Implied Question: It could have said that the entire Tosefta is discussing a Shomer, and that Rebbi Yochanan holds like the Tana Kama.

Implied Question (cont.): This is because according to the Tana Kama, even if there were three bones and each had less than a bean of meat on them, they would combine to be a Kzayis. The only reason why the Tosefta dealt with two bones was to show the strong position of Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa. (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: Rather, because the Gemara said according to Rav that if the Tosefta is discussing Yad the first part of it is difficult, the Gemara says that Rebbi Yochanan can understand it is discussing a Yad. However, it could just as easily be discussing a Shomer according to Rebbi Yochanan.

Observation: Since Rebbi Yochanan can establish the first part of the Tosefta as being according to the Tana Kama and discussing either a Yad or a Shomer, the Gemara first discussed Rav's understanding of the Tosefta.

Implied Question: He did not want to say it is discussing a case of Yados, even though it would have seemingly been a better fit with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. (Why, then, didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: This is as Rashi explains that the implication is that it is referring to a Shomer.

Implied Question: The Gemara establishes that the case is regarding a Yad according to Rav. (Why not say it is regarding a Shomer?)

Answer: This is in order to say it is according to Rebbi Yehudah, as we rule like Rebbi Yehudah in his argument with Acheirim, which refers to Rebbi Meir. (We always rule like Rebbi Yehudah over Rebbi Meir.)

Implied Question: One should not ask that Rebbi Yochanan said earlier (118b) that there is a Yad for less than a Kzayis and a Shomer for less than the size of a bean. This implies that Acheirim are not saying an amount, as we ask and answer earlier.

Answer: Our Gemara is explaining Acheirim's opinion, that one should not make a mistake and establish the case as referring to a Yad and that this specific amount is being referred to as a Yad.

Implied Question: However, this does not prove that he holds like Acheirim. (Why not?)

Answer: It is possible that the reason he said that Acheirim do not really mean an amount is because he heard this from his Rebbi (not because he holds this way, see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Explanation: Now that we know that Rebbi Yochanan holds this way, it must be as I explained earlier (in the previous Tosfos) that Rebbi Yochanan did not say the case is referring to a Yad and is specifically the size of a bean. Otherwise we would say that just like Rav says the case is referring to a Yad in order that he can rule like Rebbi Yehudah, despite the fact that the case seems to be discussing a Shomer, so too Rebbi Yochanan would have said the case is referring to a Yad in order to say that the amount is specifically the size of a bean.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Kufa is a Kosht (peel).

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as in all the Sefarim the text is, "If he left a seed in each Shomer it is impure" implying that a Sharvit is not the Kofa, as it itself is a Shomer.

Explanation #2: Rather, it is the stalk that the Shomrim are connected to which is called a Rais. "That they emptied" means that they took the food out of the Shomrim, and it is therefore pure.

Explanation: The questioner currently understands that the case is where impurity touched every Shomer, causing all of the seeds in the other Shomrim to combine to form a k'Beitzah. This implies that there is a Shomer for less than the size of a bean, and is a question on Rebbi Chanina who says that the amount mentioned is a specific amount.

Explanation (cont.): Even though he is saying this according to Acheirim, the questioner is asking that the this should have been made clear, just as Rebbi Yochanan said that this is not talking about a specific amount in order that Acheirim should not seem to argue on the Beraisa.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara answers that the case is where it touched a stalk, and therefore the impurity is due to Yad not because of Shomer.

Explanation (cont.): According to this explanation (that Sharvit is a stalk and that the text in the Mishnah in Uktzin (1:5) is that a seed remained in every Shomer), it is clear why the Gemara later quotes this is as proof regarding food (becoming impure). The Gemara thinks that the case is where it touched Shomrim and the impurity is due to Shomer, and all of them combine together (to form a k'Beitzah).

Implied Question: However, Rashi explains that the text (in the Mishnah in Uktzin 1:5) reads, "If he left one seed it is impure." (Why, then, does the Gemara later quote this as proof regarding impurity of something the size of a k'Beitzah?)

Answer: It must be that the Gemara later originally thinks that the case is where there are a lot of peels, as Rashi explains later. If it would only be discussing one peel, it is not talking about combining anything at all, as it would only be discussing one Shomer.

Question: If so, what is the difference whether or not it was emptied as a stalk is a Yad for more than a Kzayis? It would be understandable based on what we originally thought, as it would be teaching us that even though it is not the size of a bean it is considered a Shomer.

Answer: It is teaching us that even though there is not a Kzayis in one place, but rather there is one seed here and one seed there, the stalk is still considered a Yad (for all of them together).

Explanation: The case is not where it was divided completely, as if so it is obvious that they do not combine, as I explained earlier. This is why it says specifically that it was divided (not separated). However, two nuts that are considered two whole (separate) foods clearly cannot combine.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, the case is where there is meat with skin on it, and the skin was divided so that half of the skin is on one side of the piece of meat and half is on the other side.

Explanation (cont.): He brings proof from Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah who says that it is impure regarding legumes, because all of the Shomrim in the stalk combine, even though each Shomer is only protecting its own seed.

Question: Why don't we answer that the Shomrim do not combine, and the case is where there was a k'Beitzah of seeds without taking the Shomrim into account? The Shomrim would bring (to) and give (from) impurity but not combine to form a k'Beitzah. Why does the Gemara answer instead that the case is regarding a stalk and due to Yad?

Answer: It is still better to say it is regarding a stalk and due to Yad. The Gemara originally said it was due to Shomer because when it said "b'Mashmishan -- when he feels them" it implied Shomer. However, not that the Gemara explains that b'Mashmishan means he uses it, it is better to say it is referring to the stalk (he uses the stalk to carry the seeds).

Explanation: The lentils were also like the lentils of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach. They were the size of golden Dinarim, and together with their Shomrim they were the size of a k'Beitzah.

Question: Why did Rebbi Shimon (ben Lakish) say earlier that a hair is not a Yad (and therefore it is not impure)? It should be impure because it is a Shomer!

Answer: The Gemara earlier is referring to a person who touches a hair that is not opposite the flesh. This is also Rashi's understanding of that Gemara.

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan who says that it is a Yad, why does it say, "the hair opposite it?"

Answer: It must be that it does not specifically mean opposite, as explained by Rashi.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have said, "We only learned this regarding horns and hooves, as they themselves are due to Shomer." (Why didn't it say this?)

Answer: Rather, because the Gemara earlier said, "we only learned this regarding bone" it said this here as well.