Explanation: Because now we discuss [the answer of] Rabah, [Abaye] challenged Rabah, but the question is also against Rav Yehudah, who established the Reisha like R. Shimon.

Question: Abaye does not distinguish between Karmelis and Reshus ha'Rabim below (99a) regarding "one may not stand in Reshus ha'Yachid and drink in Reshus ha'Rabim"!

The Gemara asked "what is the law of Karmelis", and Abaye said "it is the same"!

Suggestion: Perhaps here only for Kisvei ha'Kodesh it is permitted, due to disgrace, but for other matters it is forbidden.

Rejection: Below (103a) it connotes that there is no Shevus (Isur mid'Rabanan) at all in a porch of Karmelis, [in the Sugya of] cutting a wart, for it says "didn't we establish it to discuss a porch of Karmelis, and Reshus ha'Rabim is in front of it? Since he is holding it in his hand, there is not even Shevus";

If there were Shevus, we would not permit for Kisvei ha'Kodesh, because [Shevus about a Kadosh matter, which is like] Shevus of the Mikdash is not permitted outside the Mikdash!

Answer (Ri): There is more reason to decree about drinking, lest he bring it to himself;

Similarly regarding a needle inserted in his garment, which we forbid to go out with during the day (shortly before Shabbos) lest he go out with it after dark. We bring this [Isur] regarding the case below [of standing in one Reshus and drinking in another different Reshus], in Shabbos (11b)...

In these cases there is more reason to make a decree for a decree than here.

Question: Since I explained that we do not discuss only a Sefer here, why did it mention a Sefer, rather than other matters?

Observation: According to the version that concludes that Stam Kisvei ha'Kodesh, a person peruses them, this is fine. It discusses specifically a Sefer.

Answer: It mentioned a Sefer to teach that from the top of the roof, he may not roll it to himself, to teach unlike R. Shimon, who says that no Shevus is enforced [when it could entail disgrace] to Kisvei ha'Kodesh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Derech Alav" is above 10 [Tefachim], which is Mekom Petur.

Question #1 (Ri): Rather than bringing from Rava, we should bring from the first Tana of (who argues with) Ben Azai, who said in Shabbos (5b) that one who is Motzi from a store (Reshus ha'Yachid) to the market (a Reshus ha'Rabim) via a Stav (a place of platforms where merchants sit), he is liable. This is through Mekom Petur!

You are forced to say that he had heard that Beraisa, for below he brings Ben Azai's opinion!

Question #2: Below (99a), regarding one may stand in Reshus ha'Yachid and move [items] in Reshus ha'Rabim, as long as he is not Motzi outside four Amos...

... The Gemara says "if he was Motzi, he is Chayav Chatas. Let us say that this supports Rava, who said that if one transfers an item..."

Rashi explained there that also our Mishnah discusses one who stands on the roof, which is above 10, like the case of Rava, who discusses one who transfers Derech Alav.

Summation of question: No one mentioned a roof! Our Mishnah taught Reshus ha'Yachid, and not a roof!

Question #3: In Shabbos (8b), regarding one may stand on a porch... it concludes "as long as he does not take from the Ba'al ha'Bayis (in Reshus ha'Yachid) and give to the Oni (in Reshus ha'Rabim), or from the Oni and give to the Ba'al ha'Bayis. If he took and gave, all three of them are exempt";

The Gemara says "let us say that this refutes Rava, who said that if one transfers an item..."

What was the question? We should say that Rava holds like Rabanan of Ben Azai!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Derech Alav is like R. Chananel explained in Shabbos (8b, printed on 9a), from his right hand to his left hand;

One might have thought that one who transfers from his right hand to his left hand via his body, it is considered resting. Even so, he is liable, for [his hand] moves.

Support: Now it is fine the case of one may stand on a porch here and below. It discusses one who stands in one place and does not move from his place, and he transfers from here to here via his body;

Therefore, it brings only Rava's teaching, even though he knew the Beraisa of Ben Azai;

Below, he discusses when he completes the Shi'ur of four [Amos] through throwing.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because he does not have a garment ready [to spread on the Sefer].

Rebuttal and Explanation #2: There was no need to explain like this. Even if he has a garment, for the same reason he may not roll it to himself, it is forbidden to spread any garment.

Implied question: He could have established it like R. Akiva, who holds that Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah (what is in the air, it is as if it is resting)!

Answer: He prefers establishing it even like Rabanan.

Implied question: If he stuck out his hand full of Peros outside, it says in Shabbos (3b) that he may not return it! (Also here it should be forbidden to return the Sefer, even if the wall is straight, and the Sefer did not rest!)

Answer: There is unlike here. There, we decree when his body is in Reshus ha'Yachid and his hand is in Reshus ha'Rabim, due to when his body and his hand are in Reshus ha'Rabim, and then there is an Isur Torah if he brings it back in, for it rested. (There can be an Isur Torah only if it was resting in Reshus ha'Rabim and not Agud to Reshus ha'Yachid, i.e. both his hand and body are in Reshus ha'Rabim with the item.)

However, here even if the entire Sefer was there, it still did not rest (totally in Reshus ha'Rabim, for he is holding it from Reshus ha'Yachid. We need not decree lest he jump down to Reshus ha'Rabim from the roof!)

Opinion #1: Even though here we do not want to establish Rava's teaching like one side of an argument of Tana'im, in any case you are forced to say that we find a Beraisa that argues with him, in Shabbos (97a) regarding one who throws from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Yachid and Reshus ha'Rabim is in the middle;

The Beraisa teaches that within three [Tefachim of the ground], all agree that he is liable.

Opinion #2: We can distinguish. Here, the item came from above three [Tefachim] to below three. Then, Rava requires that it rest on something;

However, there we discuss when the item was within three when it left his hand. Therefore, it is considered resting, for Rava agrees that one who takes something within three, it is as if it is resting on the ground, like is proven in Shabbos (80a).

Implied question: Why don't we consider something rolling as if it is resting, in Shabbos (100a)?

Answer: There, initially he threw it from above three.

Question: In Shabbos (97b), [the Gemara] wanted to say that R. Yehudah holds that Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, regarding one who throws from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, and it went four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim!

According to the conclusion there, it is fine. We establish it that he said "when it goes out to Reshus ha'Rabim, it should rest";

It is more reasonable to say there Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah, since he intended and wanted to it to rest there. However, here he does not want the Sefer to fall there. We should not say that it is as if it is resting.

However, according to the initial Havah Amina there that he is liable twice, and when he says "wherever it wants, it will rest there", it is difficult!

Answer: We can distinguish. There, he is not adamant about the item, where it will land. However, here he is adamant, and he wanted that it not rest there.

Question: However, according to Rava it is difficult. Even if he says "wherever it wants, it will rest there", Rava requires that it rest on something, and here that he is adamant, even if it rests on something, he is not liable, for his intent was not fulfilled!

Answer #1: We must say that according to the initial Havah Amina there, Rava's law is not true.

Answer #2: We can say like I explained above (Sof DH Neima), that there it was initially thrown within three.

Observation: If he takes out to a Karmelis or a Chatzer without an Eruv, according to Rava below (99a), who does not make a decree for a decree, obviously it is permitted. There was no need to teach this.

Opinion #1: And according to Abaye, who decrees, it is forbidden, just like one who took out to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Opinion #2: Since Abaye answers "really, he took out to Reshus ha'Rabim", this connotes that if he took out to a Karmelis or a Chatzer without an Eruv, it is permitted, even Kelim that do not break (when they fall).

Implied question: Below (99a), Abaye makes a decree for a decree!

Answer: We can distinguish like I explained above (98a DH Ela, that in some cases there is more reason to make a decree for a decree).

And above (84a), regarding people of the Chatzer and people of the Aliyah who forgot and were not Me'arev, it teaches that a ledge that juts out of a wall, within 10 [Tefachim] of the Aliyah is of the Aliyah, even if he put there Kelim that do not break.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If the ledge is along the entire length of the wall, he uses the entire ledge.

Question (Ri): That is the Seifa! It teaches that if there is a ledge under it, he uses it.

Explanation #2 (Ri): [The Reisha] teaches about holes in the wall, that he may use them.

Support: The expression "he uses the entire wall" connotes like this.

Explanation #1: Rashi connotes that when [the ledge] is four [Tefachim] wide, he may use it for Kelim that break. However, if it is not [four] wide, he may not use it, even for Kelim that break, for it is as if he overtly throws them.

Question (Ri): Since even when it is four wide, he may not use it for Kelim that do not break, if so, even if it is 100 Amos wide also, for regarding Shabbos, four wide is like 1000 wide!

Explanation #2 (Ri): When it is four wide, one may put on it even Kelim that do not break, and our Mishnah discusses when it is Mashehu wide.

Implied question: Why don't we establish it when it is four wide, and [it permits] all Kelim?

Answer: A Stam ledge is not four wide.

Observation: When the Gemara asked "if it is not four [wide], he should not use even opposite the window!", it could have asked that even below it, he should not use!

Implied question: Why didn't it answer that we discuss Kelim that break?

Answer: You are forced to say that we cannot establish it like this, since it does not permit the rest of the wall, only what is opposite the window.

Question: We know [the law] from the top [ledge]! We permit opposite the window, because the window completes the Shi'ur of four!

Answer: It needs to teach about the bottom ledge, to teach that even though it is not convenient to use, for the top interrupts, [even so it is permitted].