1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules in a case where, after throwing a stone be'Shogeg on Shabbos ...

1. ... from one Reshus to another, somebody else or a dog caught it, or it got burned, before landing - that one is Patur, and the same applies to a case where one threw a stone ...

2. ... with the intention of wounding somebody or an animal, and remembered that it was Shabbos, before it hit the person or the animal.

(b)According to the principle cited by the Tana, if either the beginning of an act for which one is Chayav Chatas be'Shogeg is performed be'Meizid, or the end - he is Patur.

(c)He is Chayav Chatas - only if he is a Shogeg both at the beginning and the end.

(d)The problem with the Reisha ('ha'Zorek ve'Nizkar ... Kaltah Acher ... Patur'), which we initially assume to be one case is - the implication, that, if the stone would have landed, he would be Chayav, even though he remembered before it did so; whereas from the Seifa, it is clear that he is Patur unless the end, as well as the beginning is performed be'Shogeg.

2)

(a)The Reisha of the Mishnah: implies that if , after throwing the object and remembering that it is Shabbos, it falls to the ground, he is Chayav. But how can he be Chayav, we ask - when the Seifa states that the beginning and the end of a Melachah need to be be'Shogeg, before he can be Chayav.

(b)To resolve this discrepancy, Rav Kahana establishes the Seifa by 'Lachsa u'Misna' (which is a bent piece of wood, which is normally attached to the two barrels of wine, one on either side of the donkey, to hold them firmly together during transportation. And the Lachsa is attached to a piece of string ('Misna'), which he was holding when he threw the Lachsa.

(c)And the reason that he is Meizid in the Seifa, is - because he had the option of pulling the Lachsa back via the string, which is not so in our original case where (even though he remembered in the middle, there was nothing he could do about it, so) he remains a Shogeg.

(d)We reject this solution however, on the basis of 'Ogdo be'Yado' - which means that, since the thrower is still holding on to one end of the object that he is throwing, it would not be considered 'throwing', and he would be Patur, even if he was Shogeg all the way through.

3)

(a)We suggest that the Tana is talking where he intended, not to throw the stone, but to wound someone with it - in which case it would not matter that he is holding the other end of the weapon - since the Melachah of wounding does not require Akirah and Hanachah.

(b)We reject the answer that the Reisha is talking when ...

1. ... he intended to make a wound (and not just to throw the stone) however - because the Tana has already inserted that case in the Seifa.

2. ... he intended to carry the stone four Amos in the street, and not to throw it (Rava), on the grounds - that 'Zeh ha'K'lal' is clearly referring to throwing (since that is the case that precedes it), and not to carrying.

(c)Rava finally answers 'Tarti Katani', by which he means - that 'Kaltah Acher, Kaltah Kelev' are not connected to 'ha'Zorek ve'Nizkar', and in fact speak where he did not remember in the middle (hence he would be Chayav if the stone landed).

(d)Rav Ashi answers 'Chasuri Mechs'ra ... '. To reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa, he adds (after 'Kaltah Kelev ... Patur') 'Ha Nachah Chayav. Bameh Devarim Amurim she'Chazar ve'Shachach'. It is if he forgot again before the stone landed that he will be Chayav when it rests, but not otherwise.

4)

(a)Rabah and Rava argue over someone who carries two Amos be'Shogeg, two Amos be'Meizid ( ... he remembers that it is Shabbos) and another two Amos be'Shogeg. Both refer to the Machlokes Raban Gamliel and the Rabbanan. Raban Gamliel holds 'Ein Yedi'ah le'Chatzi Shi'ur' - meaning that if he performed two half-Melachos be'Shogeg, but had a Yedi'ah after the first half (after writing one letter or after carrying two Amos) will not exempt the perpetrator from a Chiyuv Chatas.

(b)Rabah holds in the current She'eilah that he is Patur - Rava, that he is Patur.

(c)According to ...

1. ... Rabah, even Rabban Gamliel will concede that he is Patur from a Korban - because unlike the case there, he completed the Melachah (the second two Amos) be'Meizid.

2. ... Rava, even the Rabbanan will concede that is Chayav a Korban - because here unlike there, it is not in his power to retract in the middle, combining the two half-Shegagos in spite of the Yedi'ah.

(d)We know that ...

1. ... Rava is speaking about throwing and not carrying - because, if he was speaking about carrying, why would it not be in his power to retract in the middle?

2. ... Rabah is speaking about carrying and not throwing - because if he was talking about throwing, then the Shi'ur would be completed Shogeg, and not Meizid (in other words, Rabah and Rava do not argue on this point).

5)

(a)The problem with Rava's ruling, that if someone throws an object into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is Chayav is - our Mishnah 'Kaltah be'Fi Kelev, Patur'.

(b)And we answer - that our Mishnah is speaking where he did not intend the object to land in the dog's mouth (and he is Patur because a dog's mouth does not have the Shi'ur of Hanachah [four Tefachim]), whereas Rava is speaking in a case where he intended the object to land in the dog's mouth, and he is Chayav, because his intention makes the dog's mouth Chashuv ('Achsheveih').

6)

(a)Rav Bibi bar Abaye supports this with a Mishnah in Kerisus, where the Tana Kama declares a Tamei person who ate Cheilev of Nosar of Mukdashin on Yom Kippur to bring one Asham and four Chata'os.

(b)The Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Meir, who adds a Chatas, in a case where it was also Shabbos - because he is Chayav for carrying, and not for eating (like the other Isurim).

(c)The problem with the last case is - that he ought not to be Chayav, since it is not common to carry out on one's mouth, in which case he ought to be Patur.

(d)We answer - that the fact that he wants to eat the food in his mouth, renders it Chashuv, Rav Bibi bar Abaye's proof that 'Achsheveih' creates a Chiyuv Chatas.

7)

(a)The Shi'ur for Binyan, Mesates, Makeh be'Patish (u've'Ma'atzad) and Kode'ach - is a Kol she'Hu.

(b)'Mesates' means smoothening the stones after they have been shaped, or cutting grooves in it. The definition of ...

1. ... 'Makeh be'Patish' in this case is - striking a stone that has been hewn from the mountainside and that requires only one stroke with a pick to detach it completely.

2. ... a 'Ma'atzad' is - an adz (a kind of ax).

3. ...'Kode'ach' is - boring a hole.

(c)The principle the Mishnah present to define a Melachah for which one is Chayav on Shabbos is - one which is expected to last without needing to add to it.

(d)Rabban Gamliel, who adds that a worker who bangs his hammer on the anvil whilst working, is also Chayav because of Makeh be'Patish, is coming to teach us - that although he is (only improving the tool being used and) not completing the work being performed - this nevertheless falls under the category of 'Makeh be'Patish'.

8)

(a)Initially, Rebbi Yirmiyah defines a Binyan Kol she'Hu as a poor man who digs a hole, to hide his Perutos. The source of this in connection with the construction of the Mishkan was - when the people who stitched the curtains would dig holes to store their needles.

(b)Abaye objects to this however, on the grounds - that the needles would rust if they were placed in the ground.

(c)He therefore it with regard to the small metal legs that a poor man would make for his earthenware oven. The equivalent Melachah in the Mishkan was - when the dyers ran short of dyed wool, they would manufacture a little oven, to place on it a small pot, to cook a small amount of dye.

(d)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov objects to Abaye's explanation - on the grounds that 'Ein Aniyus be'Makom Ashirus' (meaning that, since the Mishkan was the house of Hash-m, it is not befitting that there should be 'poverty (a shortage) in the place of wealth'. So they always made sure that there was plenty of everything to begin with.

(e)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov finally explains the Shi'ur of Kol she'Hu with regard to a hole that appears in a mansion, which a wealthy man would make a point of filling in. In the Mishkan too - if a worm made a hole in a plank, they would fill it in with lead.

9)

(a)Shmuel rules 'ha'Metzaded es ha'Even, Chayav', meaning - that someone who maneuvers a brick of a building in place is Chayav.

(b)We query Shmuel from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where one person places the brick, and another cements it, and where the Tana Kama rules - that only the latter is Chayav (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(c)We counter this with the Seifa - which rules that one is Chayav even for merely placing a brick (a ruling that is even more stringent than that of Shmuel).

(d)We conclude therefore, that there are actually three cases each with its own Din. One will be Chayav for placing a stone in the ...

1. ... bottom row - provided one maneuvers it in place (like Shmuel).

2. ... middle row - provided one also cements it (like the Reisha of the Beraisa).

3. ... top row - even if one merely places it (like the Seifa of the Beraisa).

10)

(a)Rav holds that Mesates, someone who makes a hole in a chicken-coop or who places a wedge in the handle of a spade, are all Chayav because of Boneh. The purpose of the hole in the chicken-coop is - to let out the foul air.

(b)According to Shmuel, they are all Chayav - because of Makeh be'Patish.

(c)Having presented their Machlokes by ...

1. ... Mesates, they nevertheless found it necessary to add the case of making a hole in a chicken-coop, which, we might otherwise have thought is Chayav because of Makeh be'Patish, even according to Rav - because, unless Mesates, it is not a process in building.

2. ... making a hole in a chicken-coop, they nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it by the case of a wedge in the handle of a spade - which is not similar to building, and which we might therefore have thought, is Chayav because of Makeh be'Patish, even according to Rav.

11)

(a)When Rav Nasan bar Oshaya asked Rebbi Yochanan with which Melachah Mesates is associated, he illustrated with his hands - Makeh be'Patish (like Shmuel).

(b)To reconcile his opinion with our Mishnah, he (and Shmuel) amend 'ha'Mesates, ve'ha'Makeh be'Patish ... ' to read 'ha'Mesates, ha'Makeh be'Patish ... ' (so that the Seifa merely explains the Reisha, rather than adding to it).