(Mishnah): One is liable for Hotza'ah whether he was Motzi in his right or left hand, Cheiko (the garment over his torso) or on his shoulder, because this is how Bnei Kehas carried.

One is exempt if he was Motzi on the back of his hand, on his foot, in his mouth, elbow, ear, or hair, in his moneybelt when the opening faced down, between his belt and cloak, in the hem of his cloak, or in his shoe or sandal, because he was not Motzi normally.

(Gemara - R. Yosah) Question: If so, if one was Motzi k'Grogeres on his shoulder, he is liable (our Mishnah did not stipulate about the size of the load). Is this how Bnei Kehas carried! (They carried only great loads on the shoulder!)

Answer: It says "u'Fkudas Elazar ben Aharon ha'Kohen Shemen ha'Ma'or u'Ketores ha'Samim u'Minchas ha'Tamid v'Shemen ha'Mishchah'' - one oil was in his right hand, one oil was in his left hand, the Ketores was in Cheiko, and the Chavitim were on the shoulder. (The entire Chavitim for one day was the volume of 43.2 eggs. He carried it on his shoulder, even though people normally carry something of its weight (less than three kilos) in the hand.)

Question: Where was Shemen ha'Mishchah put (how could he carry also it)?

Answer (R. Avun citing R. Elazar): There was like a small flask in his belt.

Suggestion: Perhaps [Elazar] was small (not so important, therefore he had all these burdens).

Rejection #1 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): It says "v'Nasi Nesi'ei ha'Levi Elazar ben Aharon ha'Kohen'' - he was the Nasi over the other Nesi'im.

Rejection #2 (R. Yehudah bei Rebbi): He was the Markal;

(R. Chiyah - Beraisa): Why was he called the Markal? It is because he Amar Al Kol (said about everything done in the Mishkan).

Conclusion: Rather, [he had all these tasks because] there is no greatness in the king's palace [for anyone other than the king, and all the more so regarding Hash-m].

(R. Levi): "V'Lavash ha'Kohen Mido Vad v'Herim Es ha'Deshen'' (why did the Torah command a Kohen to remove the ashes, which is not dignified)? Rather, [this teaches that] there is no greatness in the king's palace.

(Mishnah): If someone intended to carry something in front of himself and it swung around to his back, he is exempt;

If he intended to carry it in back and it swung around to his front, he is liable.

In truth, they said that a woman wearing [and carrying something in] a Sinar (short pants under her garment) is liable in either case, because it normally goes back and forth.

R. Yehudah says, also letter carriers are liable in this way.

(Gemara - Mishnah - R. Shimon Shezuri and R. Shimon): [R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue about one who intended for an Aveirah and did a different Aveirah. They] did not argue about something due to one Shem (e.g. he did the intended Melachah, just to a different object) he is liable. What did they argue about? It is something due to two Shemos (e.g. he is unsure whether he reaped or grinded). R. Eliezer obligates Chatas and Yehoshua exempts (PNEI MOSHE).

(Our Mishnah exempts when he intended to carry in front, and it came to his back.) According to the opinion that they argue about two Shemos, here [we must say that this is considered] two Shemos [and it is like R. Yehoshua]. However, according to the opinion that they argue about one Shem, here [we could say that this is considered] one Shem [and it is like R. Yehoshua];

Implied question: [In the Seifa, he intended to carry] in back and it came to his front, he is liable. [Both] like the one who says [that they argue about] one Shem, [and] like the one who says [that they argue about] two Shemos, here [we can say that it is considered] one Shem, and he is liable. (The first opinion establishes the Seifa like R. Eliezer, and the latter opinion holds that all agree to it.)

Note: Our Sugya holds that both the Reisha and Seifa depend only on the law of one or two Shemos. If so, there is a contradiction between them how we rule! We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Answer (R. Ila citing R. Elazar): Tana'im argue about this. The one who says that he is liable there [in the Reisha], he is liable also here (in the Seifa). The one who says that he is exempt there, he is exempt also here.

(Mishnah): In truth...

(R. Eliezer): Wherever it says "in truth'', it is a tradition from Sinai.