Siman - Shabbos Daf 93
- מסייע אין בו ממש
Rav Chisdah stated that in a case where two people carry an object into a reshus harabim, and one was strong enough to carry it by himself and the other was not, then the one who was able to carry it by himself is liable, since he accomplished the entire action and the one who was unable is exempt, since he did not accomplish anything.
When Rav Hamnuna suggested that the weaker person was a מסייע, an “aid” to the stronger person, Rav Chisdah responded that מסייע אין בו ממש – merely aiding someone is not significant.
The Gemara brings a number of proofs that support Rav Chisdah’s view, the final one being that if a Kohen is mekabel dam (receives blood) of an offering using his right hand, and his left hand aids his right hand in holding the kli, the avodah is valid. Even though an avodah that is done with the left hand is invalid, in this case it was merely מסייע, which is insignificant.
- One full shiur is sufficient for two people
The Baraisa on 92b says that according to Rebbe Meir, if two people carried out an object together, and they were both strong enough to carry it out individually, they are still both liable.
The Gemara asks if they individually need to carry out one full shiur, or is one full shiur sufficient to make them both liable?
The Gemara brings a number of proofs to support the opinion that only one full shiur is required. One proof is from a Mishnah that states that , if a deer entered a house, and two people, who were both capable individually of closing the door, closed the door together, then they are both liable for the melacha of trapping. From the fact that the Mishnah does not require each of them to trap a full measure, indicates that one full measure is sufficient for the two of them.
- A kli is tafel to the object it contains
The next Mishnah in the perek states that if one transfers food that is less than the required shiur, in a kli, the person is exempt from carrying even the kli, since הכלי טפלה לו, the kli is secondary to the food.
The Meiri explains that since the kli is a mere accessory, it is subordinate to the food, and since there is no liability for the primary object, there is no liability for the subordinate object.
