Previous daf

1)

(a) If it is the first man (the one who actually placed the bread in the oven), whom we are permitting to remove it before it bakes, we have the following problem: Since we are speaking be'Shogeg (to prevent him from bringing a Chatas), there are two possibilities: Either he is aware what he has done, or he is not.
If he is *not* aware that he is on the verge of breaking Shabbos, then what point is there in permiting him to remove the bread?
If, on the other hand, he *is* aware of what he has done, then that is not called Shogeg (and he will not be Chayav a Chatas anyway). Why not? Because he is not called a Shogeg unless he is unaware of his sin from the beginning of the transgression until the end (in this case, after the bread has baked)?

(b) Nor does the Gemara want to establish the Sha'aleh in a case of Meizid, since Rav Bibi expressly said 'Kodem she'Yavo li'Yedei Isur *Chatas*'.

(c) The Gemara then goes on to reject the contentionthat it is another man whom we are permitting to remove the bread from the oven, because of the principle 've'Chi Omrim Lo le'Adam Chatei (even an Isur de'Rabbanan) Kedei she'Yizkeh Chaveiro' (to be spared from transgressing even an Isur Sekilah)?
According to Tosfos (d.h. ve'Chi') this principle only applies if the first person transgressed on purpose.

(d) The Gemara concludes that Rav Bibi's Sha'aleh speaks in a case of Meizid, and his statement must be re-worded, to read 'Kodem she'Yavo li'Yedei Isur *Sekilah*.

(a) How can one be Chayav for taking out of, or putting into, someone's hands on Shabbos, when both the Akirah and the Hanachah of an object must be from a 'Makom Chashuv, or into it (respectively)?

(b) We are assuming that when Rebbi Akiva is Mechayev someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another, via a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is speaking at a height of below ten Tefachim, and that the thrower is Chayav because of the principle of 'Kelutah ke'Mi she'Hunchah Dami' - meaning that as soon as the object reaches the airspace of a certain domain it is as if it is resting on the floor of that domain. Consequently, in this case, the object, which is passing through the Reshus ha'Rabim, is considered to have rested on the street, and the thrower will be Chayav.

(c) The Rabbanan hold that 'Kelutah La'av Ke'mi she'Hunchah Dami'. (Incidentally, according to this interpretation), they will both agree that, *above* ten Tefachim, the thrower will be Patur).

3)

(a) One could also establish the Machlokes at above ten Tefachim, in which case they would be arguing over whether we learn the Din of Zorek from Moshit (i.e. throwing from that of handing over): Rebbi Akiva holds that, just as when someone *hands over* an object to his friend (from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim) at a height of above ten Tefachim, he is Chayav (as we shall see in Perek ha'Zorek), so too, will the same apply to someone who *throws* it above ten Tefachim (under the same circumstances); the Rabbanan do not learn Zorek from Moshit.

(b) We have only proved that Rebbi Akiva does not require the *Hanachah* to be on to a Makom Chashuv, but who says that the *Akirah* does not need to be from a Makom Chashuv? (After all, Rebbi Akiva says nothing about being Chayav *two* Chata'os, only *one*?)

(a) The Gemara establishes the Beraisa of someone who throws something on to a tiny 'Ziz', by a tree which is standing in a Reshus ha'Yachid, with its branches protruding into the Reshus ha'Rabim - when someone threw less than four Amos in the street, and it landed on the tip of a branch. The Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim in that case, concerns whether we consider the branches as being in the same Reshus as the tree (Rebbi), in which case, he will be Chayav; or not (the Chachamim), and he will be Patur.
This of course, has nothing to do with our problem of Makom Chashuv.

(b) According to Rebbi, someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another via a Reshus ha'Yachid, will have to bring *two* Chata'os, one for throwing from the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, and the other for throwing from the Reshus ha'Yachid into the Reshus ha'Rabim. So we see that Rebbi requires a Makom Chashuv neither for the Akirah nor for the Hanachah. Consequently, the author of our Mishnah would appear to be Rebbi.

(c) He is only Chayav, according to Rebbi, for putting into, or from taking from a Makom which is not Chashuv in a Reshus ha'Yachid, when the Reshus ha'Yachid has a roof, and where Rebbi then maintains 'Beisa Ke'ma'an de'Malya Dami' (we reckon the house as if it was solid) - which in effect means that it really *is*, a Makom Chashuv.

(d) On the other hand, it will not help to establish our Mishnah of Ashir and Ani by a roofed Reshus, since Rebbi's Chidush is confined to a Reshus ha'Yachid, but not not pertain to a Reshus ha'Rabim (and our Mishnah speaks about both). How do we know this? Because Rav is quoted as saying that someone who carries an object four Amos in a covered street is Patur, since it is not similar to the camp of Yisrael in the desert - from which we can see, that a covered street is considered, not a Reshus ha'Yachid, but a Karmelis.