Question: What is the Havah Amina that Davar she'Eino Miskaven is the same as [Melachah] she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah? What is the connection of one to the other?

Remark: In Shabbos (42a) it is better. Shmuel permits even [putting into a hot Kli] a Shi'ur [of cold water] for Tziruf (that will solidify it), and [the Gemara] asks like this;

One can say that one might have thought that R. Shimon would not permit Davar she'Eino Miskaven l'Chatchilah, if not for two [reasons to be lenient] - it is also Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

Therefore, R. Yehudah, who is Mechayev for Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, for one depends on the other.

However, here one cannot explain so, for [the argument about Davar she'Eino Miskaven] is brought regarding one who volunteers wine, he brings it and sprinkles it on the fire;

The reason of Ein Tzerichah l'Gufah applies only to Melachos of Shabbos. In Chagigah (10a) it is brought regarding "laws of Shabbos are like mountains hanging from a hair."

Answer: We must say that the Gemara understands now that just like Shmuel obligates she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, likewise he should be Mechayev Ein Miskaven like one who intends.

Question (Bahag): In Shabbos (3a), Shmuel said that wherever [a Mishnah] in Shabbos says "exempt", he is exempt, but it is forbidden [mid'Rabanan] except for these three, which are exempt and permitted - trapping a deer, trapping a snake, and piercing an abscess. I.e. Rabanan permitted due to bodily pain.

Since Shmuel holds like R. Yehudah, that one is liable for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah mid'Oraisa, how could Rabanan permit due to bodily pain?!

Trapping a snake and piercing an abscess are exempt only according to R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, like is brought in Shabbos (107b)!

Remark: Bahag gave a difficult answer.

Answer (R. Tam): Shmuel counts this with cases that are exempt and permitted, but not because he holds like this. Rather, the one who holds that he is exempt, he holds that he is exempt and it is permitted. This is like Shmuel derived in Shabbos (107a) that surely [the Tana] says that he is exempt and permitted;

However, we do not hold like Shmuel regarding Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, like we find that Rava, who is Basra, holds like R. Shimon in Shabbos (141b) and the Amora'im in Shabbos (121b) who said that all damagers may be killed on Shabbos;

Even the one who forbids does not argue with the Mishnah (121a, which permits putting a Kli) on a scorpion (trapping it) so it will not bite. Therefore, one may pierce an abscess to remove pus from it.

Explanation: The blood was left overnight or became Tamei.

Question: If it became Tamei, why does it not require laundering? Mid'Oraisa one may do Zerikah l'Chatchilah, like we say (Pesachim 80b) that if blood became Tamei and he threw it, b'Shogeg it atoned!

Answer: We discuss a case, e.g. the Tzitz was broken or it is not on [the Kohen Gadol's] head, according to the opinion that it is not Meratzeh [then].

Explanation (Rashi): [Pesulim did Kabalah] or Zerikah, and even though it is Kosher, if blood splashed after Zerikah, it does not require laundering, like it says below (93a) "to exclude this, which was already sprinkled."

It needs to teach about Pesulim, to say that the blood is Nidcheh, and what remains in the bucket is not proper for Zerikah. Do not say that a Kosher [Kohen] can return to do Zerikah, for a Pasul makes Shirayim.

Question: This requires investigation in Me'ilah (5a. It concludes that our Mishnah is imprecise. It need not be laundered even if Kesherim did Zerikah.)

Explanation: The same applies to Kodshim Kalim. "Zos" excludes them.

Question: Below (98a), we include from "Zos ha'Torah l'Olah l'Minchah vela'Chatas" - just like Chatas, what absorbs it becomes forbidden [like it], also all [these Korbanos], what absorbs them becomes forbidden.

What is the source that the Hekesh comes to include all Kodshim like Chatas regarding absorptions, and the exclusion here is for laundering? I can say oppositely!

Answer: Since we find that all Kodshim require Merikah and Shtifah (scouring and rinsing), since we need to exclude Terumah, it is reasonable to establish the Hekesh to forbid through absorptions, since we find that they require Merikah and Shetifah due to what the Kli absorbed.

Support: This answers another question. Below (96b), R. Yehudah derives all Kodshim for Merikah and Shetifah from Kodesh Kodoshim;

Question: Why does he need a verse? He should know this already from the Hekesh of Chatas, that all Kodshim obligate Merikah and Shetifah, like Chatas!

Answer: According to what I explained, it is fine. If we did not find Merikah and Shetifah explicitly, we would establish the Hekesh for laundering, and the exclusion "Zos" to exclude Merikah and Shetifah and absorptions.

Question: If he lists stringencies, these are not according to one Tana! The one who says that [Dam Chatas must be put on] the edge, he does not require on the Keren, like is proven above (53a. He allows even below the Keren, until the Sovev!) Rebbi and R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon argue about this.

Answer: Here it says [that it requires] Keren, according to the opinion that says so, and [it requires] the edge, according to the opinion that says so.

Support: So we must explain above (10b. Dam Chatas is more stringent than Asham, for it is put with the finger, and on the Keranos) and the edge!

Explanation: What is more obvious should be mentioned first.

Remark: In Sukah (20a), Rashi's text in the Mishnah says "Echad small v'Echad big" (their laws are the same), and the Gemara asks that it should say "Echad big v'Echad small", for it connotes that there is one law for big, and one for small, i.e. it is like it, and it does not have a second law.

This is the style of the Tana'im everywhere. What is this is obvious to him he teaches first, and the second, when he comes to teach that it is the same, he teaches it afterwards, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (29b) "Echad Yavneh (we blow the Shofar there on Rosh Hashanah, even on Shabbos), v'Echad every place where there is a Beis Din."

And in Bava Kama (50b) it says "Echad one who digs a pit (he is liable for animals that fall in), v'Echad one who digs a long pit or cave."

And in Sotah (43a) it says "Echad one who builds a house (and did not live in it yet), v'Echad one who bought v'Echad one who inherited", and the Mishnah teaches also others regarding [returning from] war.

Question: In Kesuvos (20b) it says "Echad new [mounds], v'Echad old", and it is more obvious that old ones are Tamei than new ones!

And in Yevamos (41a), it says Echad Besulos v'Echad Be'ulos (they must wait three months before remarrying, to avoid Safek about who is the father). It mentioned the one that is not obvious first!

Answer: We can distinguish. When we refer to a verse or an argument [mentioned] above, there he normally teaches the obvious one first.

Question: A Mishnah (Sanhedrin 32a) says "Echad monetary cases v'Echad capital cases regarding Drishah v'Chakirah (interrogation of witnesses)", even though it refers to a verse!

Answer: Since the previous Perek discussed monetary cases, also this [Mishnah] mentioned monetary cases first.

Question (Rabbeinu Shimon): In Menachos (63b) it taught "and Chachamim say, Echad a weekday v'Echad Shabbos - [the Omer] came from three [Sa'im of barley sifted greatly]." It should have taught Shabbos first (for also the first Tana said so about Shabbos)!

And in the Seifa "Chachamim say, Echad Shabbos v'Echad a weekday, [it is harvested] with three baskets and three sickles", it should have mentioned a weekday first (for this is like the first Tana said about a weekday)!