Explanation #1: [Rav Ashi explains the Beraisa to teach that he is liable even for the Kli, i.e.] two Chata'os. According to R. Yochanan, this is when he found out and later found out, for Yedi'os divide. According to Reish Lakish, after he atoned he found out about one.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): (Rav Sheshes holds like Reish Lakish, that Yedi'os are not Mechalek, therefore he did not say that he was Shogeg about both of them. Rav Ashi holds like R. Yochanan, that Yedi'os are Mechalek.)

Objection (Ri): Granted, Rav Sheshes does not hold that Yedi'os separate. Still, he should establish it when he found out about one after he already atoned. All agree that Kaparah divides!

Question (Ri): Why is he exempt?

Suggestion #1: It is because a living being makes himself lighter.

Rejection: One is liable even for a lighter load!

Suggestion: It is because two who did [one Melachah] are exempt.

Rejection: This one (who carried him) can [do the Melachah alone], and this one cannot, for one who was carried cannot carry himself, and the one who carried him has strength to carry him even if he were dead [and did not help]!

Answer (Ri): We learn from the Mishkan. They did not carry anything living. The Techashim and rams walked on their feet [when alive], and they bruised the Chilazon immediately [after trapping it], before it died, for it is better [to take its blood] while it is alive, in order that the dye [made from it] be clear.

Question: Below (141b) it connotes that they argue also about a person, for it says about [Hotza'ah of] a child that Rava holds like R. Noson!

Answer (Rashba): A child is like an animal, for he makes himself heavier.

Question: Below (128b) a Beraisa teaches that one may be Medadeh (hold and make walk) Chayos, Behemos and birds in a Chatzer, but not in Reshus ha'Rabim, and a woman may be Medadeh her son in Reshus ha'Rabim;

Rashi explained there that a Behemah in Reshus ha'Rabim is forbidden lest he lift it off the ground. The Stam Beraisa is like Rabanan of R. Nasan, who obligate. However, her son, even if she lifts him, Rabanan agree that ha'Chai Nosei Es Atzmo!

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara on 141b discusses a newborn baby [who cannot walk at all].

Explanation: Ben Beseira permits a horse. He said so about all horses. Rabanan forbid all horses, due to a horse special for birds. Chachamim did not distinguish among horses.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Bird hunters place on [these horses] their birds with which they hunt other birds.

Remark: One cannot explain that they put [on the horses] trapped birds, for it is as if they are tied, and it says below that R. Nasan agrees about a tied [living being].

Explanation: [Ben Beseira] does not distinguish. [He permits] selling a horse to any Nochri (even though Persians cannot walk, so carrying them is a Melachah).

Opinion #1 (Ri): Based on here, we hold everywhere that R. Yehudah holds that Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, one is liable for it, for presumably, the first Tana of (i.e. the one who argues with) R. Shimon is R. Yehudah;

This is like above (92b), if this one who do it [alone] and this one could not do it, the first Tana of R. Shimon is R. Yehudah, like is proven in the Gemara. (Rav Yehudah assumed so, and afterwards a Beraisa proves that this is so.)

Opinion #2 (Rashba): We can bring a proof (that R. Yehudah obligates for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah) from the Mishnah above (90a). R. Yehudah says, even one who is Motzi things used to serve idolatry [is liable]. This is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah!

Explanation #1 (Ri): Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah is called when one does a Melachah, and he does not need it for the same need like they needed it in the Mishkan, rather, for something else;

The need for which the Melachah was done in the Mishkan, that is the Melachah itself and its source.

Consequence: According to this, all of them are fine (why they are Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah). Regarding Hotza'ah of a Mes, he does not need the Mes. In the Mishkan, they needed for the items that they were Motzi;

One who traps a snake so it will not bite him (107a-b) does not need the snake. In the Mishkan, they needed the Tachash and Chilazon;

One who punctures an abscess to expel pus that damages him (107a, this is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for) it is not destined to let in air and expel pus constantly.

Implied question: He makes a proper opening! It is proper for entry and exit, if he would need!

In any case, it is unlike openings in the Mishkan, which were destined to be used for entry and exit. However, [if he intended] to make an opening for [an abscess], similar to the Mishkan, he is liable.

One who kills damagers (107a) does not need them. In the Mishkan, they needed the rams they slaughtered for their hides.

One who digs a pit and needs only the earth (73b, this is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for) in the Mishkan, they needed the cavity to insert something in it, or for something else.

A Zav who goes out with a pouch [to catch emissions] lest his clothes get dirty (11a), this is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for he does not need the pouch itself.

Implied question: If he needs to count his sightings [of Zivah, to know if he is Chayav Korban] or clean days (to know when Tevilah will be Metaher him), he needs the pouch! (This is Tzerichah l'Gufah!)

Answer: Still, he does not need this Hotza'ah. It would suffice if he sat in one place. (He could count his sightings or clean days without being Motzi the pouch.)

One who extinguishes a coal lest Rabim be damaged (42a), or [extinguishes a lamp] in order to save the lamp, oil or singed wick (31b), this is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for in the Mishkan, they extinguished only to make wicks through this extinguishing, and they improve through this extinguishing, that [the wick] is proper for smelting.

Extinguishing lest the ingredients burn in cooking was not in the Mishkan, for they were careful not to make the fire too big.

Similarly, R. Shimon, who requires [Melachah to be] Tzerichah l'Gufah, obligates for destroying in order to build (31b) only in a case that he destroys in order to fix better than it was initially, e.g. the last building is better than the first, like is proven in the Sugya (there) of one who wanted to save the lamp.

Similarly, tearing due to a Mes, or breaking Kelim to instill fear on his household (105b), is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, for in the Mishkan tearing was for the need of fixing something torn.

Observation: Regarding Hotza'ah, R. Shimon does not require that it is totally like in the Mishkan. He does not require a shovel to make a blade for it or a Sefer Torah in order to proofread it, even though in the Mishkan, Hotza'ah of the donations was in order to fix them, to make from them the Mishkan and Kelim...

Distinction: Regarding Mekalkelim (destructive Melachos) such as extinguishing, destroying and tearing, presumably, it must be in order to fix, like in the Mishkan. Mekalkelim are considered Tzerichah l'Gufah only if it is l'Gufo and l'Gufah (for the sake of the one who does the Melachah, and for the sake of the item).

Implied question: Why isn't it called [Melachah ha'Tzerichah] l'Gufo ul'Gufah?

Answer: Since both are needed, [l'Gufo] is included in l'Gufah.

Distinction: However, regarding a shovel and a Sefer Torah, since he needs only l'Gufo, for [R. Shimon] does not require regarding a shovel to make a blade for it or a Sefer Torah to proofread it, this is not included in l'Gufah;

Because they are needed l'Gufah, this is like in the Mishkan, like I explained, it needed to teach about a shovel that we do not require in order to make a blade for it, like was in the Mishkan.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [She'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah] means that he wishes that it did not come, and he would not need it. He merely dispels it from himself, e.g. trapping a snake so it will not bite him, or extinguishing a coal lest Rabim be damaged. He wishes that it was not in the world;

Similarly, above (31b) he explained "he wanted to save the wick" that it was already singed. It is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah because he does not need this extinguishing;

He would be pleased if it never burned. Since he wants to save [the wick], the more that remains of it, is pleasing to him.

Question: Destroying in order to build like initially, and tearing in his anger to instill fear on his household are difficult [for Rashi]. There, he needs the Melachah, and he wants that it is in the world!

Suggestion: He does not want that he should need to instill fear (therefore it is Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah).

Rejection #1: If so, one who punctures an abscess to make an opening should be exempt, since he wants that there was never an abscess!

Rejection #2: Similarly, tearing a curtain in which a worm [whole] came, in order to sew it (he should be exempt), since he wants to that it never came!

Rejection #3: Similarly, sewing a torn garment (he should be exempt), since he wants to that it never tore!

Conclusion: One must explain like I explained (Explanation #1).

Question (R. Tam): Regarding Tiltul, which is an Isur mid'Rabanan, we permit [moving a Mes] due to Kevod ha'Beriyos only through [putting on the Mes] a loaf or infant (and we move the latter via the Mes), like it says above (30b, 43b)!

Answer: Tiltul is different, for it is possible through a loaf or infant, therefore they did not permit it in another way.

Explanation: [If he removed] one out of four, that even if another would be removed, the Tum'ah would not depart, all agree that he is exempt. This is like half a Zayis from a big Mes.

Implied question: He could have established it when there is only a half Zayis!

Answer: He prefers to teach about half a Zayis from a big Mes, which is a bigger Chidush. If there is only a half Zayis in all, obviously he is exempt!

Limitation: This is only for half a Zayis. However, one is liable for a Zayis from a big Mes, which is a bigger Chidush. Even though if he takes away another k'Zayis, the Tum'ah does not go away, still his action helped;

Once he cut [the k'Zayis] from the Mes, it is not drawn after the Mes. When he removes the Mes from the house, and this k'Zayis remains, it is Metamei the entire house. It turns out that through this Hotza'ah [of the Zayis now], he causes Taharah.

Explanation: It is not only a big [Mes]. Rather, it is from [at least] two or three Zeisim.

Explanation: This is like R. Yehudah, who obligates for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah.

Question: Perhaps Rabanan hold like R. Shimon. What is [R. Elazar's] source that [Rabanan] obligate if he used a Kli?

Answer: If so (they held like R. Shimon), they should argue about with a Kli, to teach the extremity of Rabanan's opinion (they exempt even with a Kli);

Explanation #1: When the Gemara says "one might have thought that Rabanan exempt even with a Kli, this means that they hold like R. Shimon, like I explained.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): They exempt because shearing applies only to wool.

Rebuttal (Ri): There is no room to err about this. Shearing applies to all animals, like it says above (74b) 'one who plucked [a feather from] a bird's wing, he is liable for shearing.'

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [They separated] towards the end of his fingers, which is above when he lifts his hands.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Towards his body is called Klapei Ma'alah (above), like we find in Nidah (13b) "from the crown and l'Ma'alah", and there it is towards the body.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Pokeses is combing by hand or with a comb.

Objection #1: The Gemara connotes that it is like spinning. Combing is not like spinning at all!

Objection #2: If so, [the Mishnah] would have taught "Sorekes", like it says (Nazir 42a) "a Nazir may rub (shampoo) his hair, and may separate the hairs, but he may not be Sorek." (Presumably, Tosfos holds like Rashi's latter Perush, that it is applying a mudpack.)

Implied question: Braiding [goat hair] is considered weaving, like we say above (64a. If one braids three strands, it is Tamei like something woven!)

Answer #1: Here, regarding [human] hair it is not considered weaving, like [it is not considered woven] in fabric.

Answer #2: Here, it is not destined to last. It is destined to be untied.