Previous daf

1)

(a) We might have explained 'Kol Shehu' (regarding seeds) in our Mishnah - as meaning less than a Kigerogeres (i.e. a relative Kol she'Hu), but at least a Kezayis. Therefore Shmuel needs to inform us that one is even Chayav for carrying out just one single seed - a Kol she'Hu in the literal sense.

(b) No! It does not follow at all that, because someone can make something Chashuv through his intention (Lehachmir), he can also negate the natural Shiur (Lehakel), by deciding *not* to carry out each piece separately. In this case, we will apply the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel B'nei Adam', and he will be Chayav even if he *does*.

(c) Rava's Chidush (in telling us that someone who carries out a Kigerogeres to eat, and then, before putting it down, he decides that he wants to sow it, is Chayav) - is that, although the Akirah and the Hanachah were performed with two different Machshavos, he is nevertheless Chayav - since both Machshavos were be'Chiyuv.

(a) Rava's Sha'aleh (regarding someone who is carrying out half a Kigerogeres of seeds, and then, after it swells to more than a Kigerogeres, he decides to eat them, will he be Chayav after putting them down) - is: whether one is Chayav for a Machshavah which is Mechayev at the time of the Hanachah, but which would not have been Mechayav had he had that same Machshavah at the time of the Akirah , or whether he is Chayav, because, had he remained with his original Machshavah and not changed his mind, he would have been Chayav?

(b) The Gemara's Sha'aleh when someone carries out a Kigerogeres to eat, the food shrinks and he decides to sow it before placing it is: that even if the ruling in the previous case was Chayav, that is only because of the Sevara 'had he remained with his original intention' etc; but in this case, where, had he remained with his otiginal intention, he would have been Patur, maybe he is indeed Patur.

(c) Even if the ruling in the previous two Sha'alos is Chayav, that is because, at any given time, his current Machshavah causes his him to be Chayav. In this case however, where while he is carrying out the food to eat, it shrinks to less than a Kigerogeres, it is less than the Shiur required by his current Machshavah, so perhaps he will be Patur. The Sha'aleh is whether there is Dichuy by the Melachos of Shabbos or not.

(a) Rava Sha'aleh (regarding someone who threw a Kezayis into a Tamei house), is meaningless as it stands, because, for Tum'as Ochlin, one requires a Kebeitzah, and for Shabbos, a Kigerogeres.

(b) The Sha'aleh is: whether, if someone throws a Kezayis of Terumah into a Tamei house, to land beside less than a Kebeitzah of food. Do we say that, since his throwing is effective regarding Tum'as Ochlin, to render both pieces together Tamei (see Tosfos, top of 91b, why a Kezayis is necessary, and not even a Kol She'hu), it is also effective regarding the Isur of Shabbos, or not.

(c) If we say 'Migu' in such a case, then why does Aba Shaul give the Shiur for carrying the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos as a Kigerogeres? We ought to say that, since the Shiur for the Isur of Yotze (taking them out of the walls of the Azarah), is a Kezayis, he should be Chayav for carrying on Shabbos too, with the Shiur of a Kezayis, even though it is less than a Kigerogeres.

(d) The Gemara rejects that proof, because there, he is Chayav for Yotze, as soon as the Korban leaves the Azarah, whereas the Chiyuv Shabbos only comes when the the breads enter the Reshus ha'Rabim - and Migu is only applicable by two La'avin which become effective simultaneously, like in Rava's Sha'aleh.

4) Our Mishnah is speaking, not when he deliberately returned the seed in order to eat it, but when he threw it into the larder, not together with the other seeds, but at the side. We would have thought that, until he actually mixes it with the other seeds, it still retains its previous status - namely: that of a seed to be sown.
Therefore, the Mishnah comes to tell us that, by throwing it back into the larder, he returns it to its original status - that of a food.

5)

(a) Our Mishnah states that, if a second person picks up the food which the first person placed on the threshold between the Reshus ha'Yachid and the Reshus ha'Rabim, both the first man and the second one are Patur.

(b) The same will apply, even if it is the first man who picked up the food and carried it out. He too, is Patur, since he performed the Melachah in two parts.

(c) The Mishnah says that if someone carries a box full of fruit, and places it half in the Reshus ha'Yachid and half, in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Patur, even if most of the fruit is outside, unless he takes the entire box outside.

(a) The Mishnah must be talking about a threshold which is a Karmelis, because, if was a Reshus ha'Rabim, why should he be Patur when he places the fruit there? If, on the other hand, it was a Reshus ha'Yachid, then why would anyone who subsequently carried the fruit out, be Patur? But if we are speaking about a threshold which is a Karmelis, then the Mishnah is clear.

(b) The Chidush lies in the inference: that, had he not placed the fruit there, but carried it straight through, then he would be Chayav - despite the fact that he has passed through a Makom which is Patur.

(c) The author of the Mishnah can therefore not be Ben Azai, who maintains that 'Mehalech ke'Omed', and he will therefore be Patur in such a case.

(a) According to Chizkiyah, if the box contained small fruit, then he would be Chayav for each individual fruit which is actually outside, irrespective of the box, because he holds 'Agad Kli Lo Shemei Eged' - the Kli does not bind all its contents, to cause them to be considered as if they were all inside. But our Mishnah is speaking about cucumbers and pumpkins, which are long, and which explains why is Patur.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Agad Kli Shemei Eged'. Consequently, he will be Patur, even if the box contains small fruit - as long as part of the box is still inside.

(c) Our Mishnah says 'Ad she'Yotzi es Kol ha'Kupah' - implying that as long as part of the box is inside, even if all the fruit has gone out, he is also Patur - not like Chizkiyah?

(d) Our Mishnah says 'Af al Pi she'Rov Peiros mi'ba'Chutz, Patur' - referring to the majority of each fruit, and implying that if *all* the fruit was outside, even though the box was still inside, he would be Chayav - not like Rebbi Yochanan?

(a)

1. Chizkiyah establishes the Mishnah by cucumbers and pumpkins (which will not go out before the box does), even adding this into the text of the Mishnah, which then continues - 'Aval Melei'ah Chardal, Na'aseh Kemi she'Hotzi es Kol ha'Kupah, ve'Chayav'.
2. Rebbi Yochanan explains that, because the Mishnah terminates with the words 'Ad she'Yotzi es Kol ha'Kupah', when it writes 'Af al Pi she'Rov Peiros mi'ba'Chutz', it is as if it had written 'Rov Peiros, *va'Afilu Kol Peiros*'.

(b) The Gemara initially understood that the Beraisa is speaking about little bundles of spices, yet it writes that he is Patur unless he carries out the entire box? Now according to Chizkiyah, why should he not be Chayav for all those bundles that are outside already?

(c) Chizkiyah answers that the Beraisa is speaking, not about bundles of small spices, but about long spices, like cinnamon, which remain partially inside with the box - and that is why he is Patur.

(a) If someone steals a purse on Shabbos, he is Chayav to pay for it, should it get lost, because the Chilul Shabbos - for which he is Chayav Misah - came only when he carried it into the street, whereas the Chiyuv to pay, came as soon as he picked it up.

(b) If instead of picking up the purse, he dragged it out into the street, he will be Patur from paying, since the Chiyuv to pay and the Chilul Shabbos occurred simultaneously - as he dragged the purse into the street.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, he should be Chayav, in the latter case, since he only becomes Chayav for Chilul Shabbos, when the entire purse reaches the Reshus ha'Rabim, whereas the Chiyuv for stealing occurs as soon as the opening of the purse reaches the street (because the Chiyuv for Geneivah comes into effect as soon as one is able to withdraw the contents of the purse - and 'Agad Kli' etc. is a concept that applies to Shabbos, but not to theft).

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa speaks when the back of the purse was dragged into the street first, and the opening, last.

(a) A thief who places the stolen purse half in the owner's domain and half in his own, will acquire the money that is in his domain, either if the opening of the purse is in his domain, or if it has loose stitches (see Tosfos, DH 'de'I'), which make it easy to open the stitches and take out the money. If the purse has neither loose straps nor loose stitches, then he will not acquire it. If it contains long bars of silver, rather than money, then even if it has stitches, he will not acquire it either.

(b) Even if the purse contains silver, if it has straps, he will acquire the purse as soon as he reaches the opening of the purse, since he is now able to open it and to extract the silver, whereas as far as Shabbos is concerned, since the straps are still inside, the purse too, is considered to be inside, and the Melachah has not been completed.

(a) The Mishnah on Daf Beis, which says that the poor man or the rich man are Patur when they stretch their hand from one domain to the other, speak when the hand is higher than three Tefachim, whereas Rava, who says Chayav, is speaking about a hand that is lower than three Tefachim.

(b) The reason that he is Patur, when his hand is above three Tefachim, is because it is not considered Munach, and not because of the principle 'Yado Basar Gufo Gereirah' - of which Rava does not hold.

(c) The reason that he is Chayav when his hand is lower than three Tefachim, is because, according to Rava, a hand that is less than three Tefachim from the ground is considered to be Munach - following the principle of Levud (that whatever is less than three Tefachim, is considered joined.