Question: Rabeinu Efrayim asks from the Mishnah in Perek ha'Motzi (Shabbos 76:), that the Shi'ur of someone who carries out milk is 'K'dei Gemi'ah (one gulp), and the Shi'urei Shabbos are equal regarding all Melachos - (e.g. carrying, grinding and reaping)?

Answer: And he answers that the Shi'ur of S'tam 'milk' is a K'dei Gemi'ah which is a larger Shi'ur. But in this Sugya, where one milks in order to manufacture cheese, raising its importance, the Shi'ur is a ki'Gerogeres, which is less.

Answer (cont.): If, on the other hand, a K'dei Gemi'ah is less, then we will have to say that S'tam milk is for cheese, which explains why the Shi'ur here is a ki'Gerogeres.

Conclusion: Whereas there where one is Chayav for carrying the Shi'ur of Gemi'ah speaks where he specifically stated that he was milking for eating and drinking.

Proof: Because if S'tam milking was for eating and drinking and not for cheese, then even if he were to specifically state that he was milking for cheese, he would be Chayav for K'dei Gemi'ah, which is less, since S'tam milking is for eating and drinking.

Source: As we say at the end of Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos 76.) 'Someone who carries out the mouthful of a cow of straw for a camel is Chayav, despite the fact this is not the Shi'ur for a camel, since S'tam one carries for a caw, one is Chayav on the Shi'ur of a cow.

Answer #2: Others explain that once the milk is already there, one is Chayav on the Shi'ur of Gemi'ah.

Answer #2 (cont.): But someone who milks is only Chayav for a ki'Gerogeres, since one does not take the trouble of milking less than that.

Precedent: The Gemara in 'ha'Motzi' (Shabbos,79.) with regard to the Shi'ur of skin to make a Keme'ah'.

Clarification: It cannot possibly be 'P'sik Reisha', because if it was Rebbi Shimon would not permit Meravetz Lechatchilah, as we learned in Perek ha'Matzni'a (Shabbos 95.)

Question: In that case, asks the Ri, why does Rebbi Eliezer declare him Chayav, seeing as there may well be no holes?

Rejected Answer: And to suggest that they are arguing over whether it is 'P'sik Reisha' or not, would be a Dochek.

Answer #2: It therefore seems to the Ri that they argue in that in Rebbi Eliezer's opinion, S'tam Mechabed and Merabetz one has the intention of filling in the holes, and even if one has no need of the holes being filled in, one is Chayav according to Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as, in the end, he did fill them in.

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan maintain that he only has the intention to sweep and settle the dust, and he transgresses merely a de'Rabbanan.

Question: The Ri asks how it is possible to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Eliezer, because since it is speaking in the Azarah, which had a stone floor, 'filling in the holes' was not applicable, in which case it ought to be permitted even Lechatchilah ...

Question (cont.): As we learned in Perek ha'Matzni'a (Ibid.) 'Ameimar permitted Zilcha (Rivutz) in Mechuza'?

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Ba'meh Madlikin (Shabbos 29:) decrees a marble attic on account of a regular one ...

Answer: All the floors in Mechuza were covered with stone, and we do not decree there on account of another town.

Answer #1 (to initial Question): In the Azarah, there were holes between the rows of stones.

Answer #2: Alternatively, according to Rebbi Eliezer, where sweeping involves an Isur d'Oraysa, we decree the Azarah on account of sweeping in general.

Answer #2: Seeing as there are many cases of Sh'vus, even in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, as we find in the last Perek of Eruvin (Daf 102:).

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabbanan, who hold that sweeping never more than a de'Rabbanan, there is no such a Sh'vus as this in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, seeing as it is not d'Oraysa anywhere else.

Halachah: The Halachos Gedolos rules that sweeping is permitted, as the Gemara in 'ha'Matzni'a' (Daf 95.) says with regard to Rivutz 'Nowadays, we Pasken like Rebbi Shimon, who permits Rivutz Lechatchilah'.

Refutation #1: The Ri disagrees however, based on the Gemara in Kirah (Shabbos Daf 39.) and in Beitzah (Daf 8.), which forbids moving earth from its place.

Refutation #2: Moreover, in Perek Kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos Daf 124:) Rebbi permits moving brooms made of palm-leaves ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): And the Gemara asks what the case is; If it is from the sun to the shade, would Rebbi permit it?

Refutation #2 (concl.): This implies that it (a broom) is unanimously considered 'Melachto le'Isur'.

Conclusion: Consequently, even though Rivutz is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon, Kibud is forbidden, since it fills in the holes more than Ributz.

Clarification: Rashi explains that Zerikah will not be effective, since the blood spilt from the neck of the animal.

Question: The Ri asks that he should nevertheless perform it, as it will be effective with regard to the blood that spilt after it was received (in a K'li)?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that what the Gemara means tosay is that perhaps it was not received, and it is forbidden to bring Pasul blood on the Mizbe'ach ...

Source of Answer: As is evident in many places, that it is only if whatever is Pasul is brought up on the Mizbe'ach (Bedi'eved), it is not taken down.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara continues 'Also I only said (that the blood is sprinkled) where it was received' - since we rely on the alacrity of the Kohanim, as the Gemara concludes.

Answer (concl.): The Gemara asks specifically from blood that is fit to be received, not from Dam ha'Tamtzis (the last blood that oozes out), which is considered like water, and seeing as it is not fit to sprinkle, it is not forbidden to bring on the Mizbe'ach.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara asks 'But is the Dam ha'Tamtzis not mixed together with it, thereby negating it be'Rov?', it is not asking from blood that is fit to be received and that got spilt ...

Conclusion (cont.): Since things that can go on the Mizbe'ach do not negate each other, even according to the Rabbanan, as the Gemara states in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos 22:).

Text #1: Rashi erases it ...

Reason: because the Gemara in Menachos does not ask it, this in turn, because the Beraisa (quoted in many places) states 'And one burns it in a K'li Shareis'.

Text #2: Similarly, he erases it in Perek Sh'nei Se'irei (Yoma 67.).

Refutation: It is not however, necessary to alter the Sefarim, seeing as at the beginning of the second Perek of Sotah (Daf 15.) the Gemara asks the same question in connection with Menachos, on the Mishnah which states that he brings it up and burns it in a K'li Shareis. The Gemara there asks 'Does he really burn it in a K'li Shareis?' Say 'In order to burn it' (not that he actually burns it in the K'li Shareis).

Refutation (cont.): And since the Gemara asks the question there and answers, it did (find it necessary to) ask it (again) in Menachos.

Implied Question: And the reason that it asks it again here with regard to the Emurim, in spite of having asked it in Perek Sh'nei Se'irim (Daf 67:) ...

Answer: Is because there it is speaking about bulls, whilst here it is speaking about lambs.

Resolving Kashya on Rashi: There are some Sefarim which have the text in the Beraisa in Sotah 'He brings them up and burns them in a K'li Shareis, salts them and places them on the fire-offerings.

Resolving the Question on Rashi (cont.): The Gemara asks there 'Do you really think that they burned them in a K'li Shareis?', meaning would they really have burned them as they were' (bearing in mind that he had not yet salted them)?

Resolving the Question on Rashi (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'In order to burn them', meaning after having salted them.

Conclusion: According to this, the question on Rashi is resolved.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that one cannot ask the question with regard to Menachos ...

Reason: Since it is possible to say 'u'Maktiran be'Chelei Shareis' by Menachos, seeing as it is already inside a K'li Shareis, where it was placed to be sanctified.

Conclusion: Whereas 'Nasnam be'Meigis' implies that they are going to be burned in the bowl (See also Tosfos Yoma 67: DH 'Atu' etc, where they elaborated).

Clarification: The Tana mentions Zerikas Damo on account of Shechitaso.

Question: The Ri asks why he does not also mention Hefshet Oro (skinning it), which also overrides Shabbos ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in the previous Perek (Daf 64.) that 'If the fourteenth falls on Shabbos, one places one's hand ... hangs it ... and skins it'?

Answer: The Ri answers (that it omits it) because it is included in Hekter Chalavav, since one is only permitted to skin it as far as the chest, according to Rebbi Yishmael the son of Yochanan ben Berokah, in Perek Kol Kisvei (Shabbos Daf116:) ...

Answer (cont.): And even the Rabbanan, who argue with him, only permit skinning it in the regular manner as far as the chest. The remainder, one strips and cuts into small pieces ...

Source: As the Gemara says there 'We need to establish it where he removes it in thin strips.