Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Avin rules that if someone fires an arrow four Amos on Shabbos, and the arrow tears someone's clothes in its flight, he is Patur from paying, despite the fact that the damage to the clothes preceded the Chilul Shabbos. Why is that?

(b) Why does Rav Chisda, who, we just saw, maintains that even according to Rebbi Nechunya ben ha'Kanah, someone who steals Cheilev and eats it will be Chayav to pay, because the theft preceded the eating, appear to clash with Rav Avin?

(c) We conclude however, that Rav Chisda may well agree with Rav Avin's ruling, on the grounds that whereas, in Rav Avin's case, it would have been impossible to place the arrow without picking it up, this is not the case by Cheilev, where it is possible to eat the Cheilev without picking it up, by bending down and eating it where it is.
What is the second distinction between the two cases?

(d) What is the difference between the two answers?

(a) The Beraisa speaks about someone who steals a purse on Shabbos.
What distinction does the Tana make between whether the thief picks it up to steal it or whether he drags it out of the owner's property?

(b) Why does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Rav Avin?

(c) We reject the suggestion that the Beraisa speaks when the thief picked up the purse having in mind to hide it (in the owner's domain), but then changed his mind to take it out (in which case, the picking-up cannot be deemed part of the carrying out), on the basis of a statement by Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who picks-up an article to move from one corner to another, and then decides to carry it out?

(d) So we establish the Beraisa when he did indeed pick up the purse with the intention of carrying it out. However, as he was walking with the purse, he stopped.
Why can this not mean that he stopped to adjust the purse? What then, does it mean?

3)

(a) Based on the Seifa of the Beraisa, which refers to when he dragged the purse out of the owner's domain, on what grounds do we reject the previous explanation (that the Tana speaks when he stopped to rest)?

(b) So we establish the Beraisa like ben Azai.
What does ben Azai say? How does this reconcile Rav Avin with the Beraisa?

(c) What would ben Azai have held had the thief thrown the purse instead of carrying it?

(d) Then why in the Seifa, did the Tana prefer to move on to a case of dragging rather than throwing?

(a) Having concluded that the Tana chose to speak about dragging the purse in the Seifa, because it is a bigger Chidush than throwing, how do we know that he must be speaking about a medium size purse, and not a large or a small one?

(b) What will be the problem if the domain into which he dragged the purse was ...

1. ... a Reshus ha'Rabim?
2. ... a Reshus ha'Yachid?

(c) Into which domain then, *did* he drag it?

(d) This can only go according to Rebbi Eliezer, but not according to the Rabbanan, who do not consider the side of the Reshus ha'Rabim as a Reshus ha'Rabim. What does Rebbi Eliezer say? How will we reconcile his explanation with the Beraisa?

(a) According to Rav Ashi, he actually drags the purse into the Reshus ha'Rabim.
How does the Beraisa speak according to him? What did Rava say about the hand of a person?

(b) This is Rav Acha's version of Rav Ashi's explanation. Ravina's version is even more radical.
How does he explain Rav Ashi?

(c) The Mishnah in Bava Kama states (regarding a thief stealing an animal from the owner's flock) 'Hayah Moshcho ve'Yotz'ei u'Meis bi'Reshus Ba'alim, Patur. Higbi'ho O she'Hotzi'o, Chayav'.
How does ...

1. ... Ravina extrapolate his explanation from the Reisha?
2. ... Rav Acha extrapolate his from the Seifa?

(d) How does ...

1. ... Rav Acha reconcile his explanation with the Reisha
2. ... Ravina reconcile his with the Seifa?

Next daf