Shabbat

R. Eleazar said: This does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person  and he did put it away; then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention. MISHNAH. HE WHO CARRIES OUT A COW'S MOUTHFUL OF STRAW, A CAMEL'S MOUTHFUL OF PEA-STALKS ['EZAH], A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN, A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF HERBS, MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY [LEAVES], [IS CULPABLE].  AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER,  BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS. GEMARA. What is 'EZAH? — Said Rab Judah: The stalks of certain kinds of peas. When R. Dimi came,  he stated: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, — R. Johanan maintained: He is culpable: R. Simeon b. Lakish said: He is not culpable. In the evening R. Johanan ruled thus, [but] in the morning he retracted. R. Joseph observed: He did well to retract, since it is not sufficient  for a camel. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, logic supports his original view, since it is sufficient for a cow.  But when Rabin came,  he said: If one carries out a cow's mouthful of straw for a camel, all agree that he is culpable. Where do they differ: if one carries out a cow's mouthful of pea-stalks for a cow,  and the reverse was stated: R. Johanan maintained: He is not culpable; Resh Lakish maintained: He is culpable. R. Johanan maintained; He is not culpable: eating through pressing need is not designated eating. Resh Lakish maintained, He is culpable: eating through pressing need is designated eating. A LAMB'S MOUTHFUL OF EARS OF CORN. But it was taught: As much as a dried fig? — Both standards are identical. MOIST GARLIC OR ONION LEAVES TO THE SIZE OF A DRIED FIG, [OR] A GOAT'S MOUTHFUL OF DRY LEAVES. AND THEY DO NOT COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALIKE IN THEIR STANDARDS. R. Jose b. Hanina said: They do not combine for the more stringent, but they do combine for the more lenient [standard].  Yet can anything combine when their standards are not alike?  But surely we learnt: A garment  three [handbreadths] square, a sack  four square, a hide five square, and [reed] matting six square [are susceptible to uncleanness as midras].  Now it was taught thereon: A garment, sacking, a hide, and matting combine with each other.  And R. Simeon observed: What is the reason? Because they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting.  Thus the reason is that they are liable to the uncleanness of sitting;  but whatever is not liable to the uncleanness of sitting is not so? — Said Raba: