Question (Ri): Below (105a), we say "what is the case of tearing in order to sew two stitches?", and answer that the garment had a protrusion! (It must be torn to enable sewing it evenly.)

Answer (Ri): In the Mishkan they were exceedingly professional. They were careful not to make a protrusion;

There, it does not say that if worms made a hole, for it discusses what is more common.

Also, there [it does not mention a worm hole in a curtain] for it wants to find a case of tearing in order to sew only two stitches. If worms made a hole in a curtain, one must tear the entire curtain from the beginning to the end, and there are many stitches.

Implied question: Now, we do not find in the Mishkan [tearing] in order to sew only two stitches! (Why is this an Av Melachah?)

Answer: It is reasonable that two stitches is an important amount.

Explanation #1 (Aruch): They argue about what Rav said in Mo'ed Katan (18a) that Paro was an Amgushi, for it says "he is going to the water" - one said that he went in order to do witchcraft, and one said he was Gedufi (a blaspheming idolater), for he made himself idolatry and said "the river is mine, and I made it (or made myself great)."

Rebuttal (Ri): It is unreasonable that Rav and Shmuel argue about what Rav said!

Note: In our texts in Mo'ed Katan, "Papa" is in round brackets (showing that it should be deleted). Surely Rav and Shmuel do not argue about the words of Rav Papa, who was born after they died! Perhaps the teaching was attributed to him because he mentions Amgusha in a teaching below (139a).

Explanation #2: Rather, they argue about Amgusha mentioned someplace, in a Mishnah or Beraisa.

Note: I did not find Amgusha mentioned in any Mishnah or Beraisa. It is brought in Targum Yonason (Shemos 7:15, 8:16), which is the source for the teaching about Paro!

Observation: According to the opinion (Rava) that he wounded it when it was alive, it is fine that [the Beraisa] mentioned one who traps a Chilazon, for it is normal to wound it immediately after trapping it, as long as it is alive;

It teaches that even though he wounded it alive, he is not liable for Netilas Neshamah (killing).

Even according to the opinion that establishes when he wounded it dead, it teaches that he is not liable for trapping it due to Netilas Neshamah.

Implied question: We say below (107b) that one who removes a fish from the sea, once [the size of a Sela] dries up [he is liable for Netilas Neshamah]!

Answer: Here, perhaps the Chilazon normally quivers [after it is wounded and hastens its own death. Therefore, he is not liable for Netilas Neshamah.]

Question: This requires investigation, for the Yerushalmi says that one who traps a Chilazon is not liable for trapping!

Implied suggestion: We do not ask according to R. Yehudah, who exempts Mekalkel b'Chaburah (one who ruins through wounding - below, 106a).

Rejection: We ask properly [even according to R. Yehudah. He agrees that] when there is something constructive [about the wounding], he is liable, like we say in Pesachim (73a);

Also here, there is something constructive about Netilas Neshamah, for it does not quiver to and fro, and it is easier to take the blood from it.

Observation: According to the conclusion that he prefers that it live longer [for then the dye is clearer], it is fine also according to R. Yehudah, for now there is nothing constructive at all [about Netilas Neshamah].

Remark: However, our Sugya is even according to R. Shimon, who obligates Mekalkel b'Chaburah, for we answer that he is Mis'asek regarding Netilas Neshamah (he is not engaged in it at all), and it did not say that he ruins.

Observation: Mis'asek is not precise, for Mis'asek in wounding is liable according to R. Shimon, for it says (Kerisus 19b) that babies (that one mistakenly circumcised on Shabbos, before eight days) are different. Since Mekalkel b'Chaburah is liable, also Mis'asek [b'Chaburah] is liable;

The reason is like he learns below (106a). Since a verse is needed to permit Milah, this implies that Mekalkel b'Chaburah is liable, even if it is not Melachah Machasheves. Elsewhere, Mekalkel is exempt only because [it is not] Melachah Machasheves, like it says in Chagigah (10b);

Mis'asek here is something that he does not intend for. Since he does not intend at all for Melachah, it is permitted even b'Chaburah, even though [b'Chaburah] does not require Melachah Machasheves;

This is like all Isurim in the Torah, to which Melachah Machasheves does not apply. Without intent is permitted, like it says that clothing vendors may sell normally (they may wear Kil'ayim to display it to buyers), as long as they do not intend in summer [to be shielded from the sun... - Kil'ayim 9:5]

Proof - Citation (Kesuvos 5b): If you will say that Dam (Besulim) is attached, does [a Chasan who has Bi'ah] need the blood (to verify that she was a virgin), or does he intend for his own pleasure?

Citation (cont.): And if you will say that he intends for his own pleasure, does the Halachah follow R. Yehudah, or R. Shimon? I.e. regarding Davar she'Eino Miskaven (like whom do we rule)?

And if you will say that the Halachah follow R. Yehudah for Davar she'Eino Miskaven, regarding Mekalkel, whom does the Halachah follow?

Inference: If the Halachah follows R. Shimon for Davar she'Eino Miskaven, there is no Safek about Mekalkel, for even if Mekalkel b'Chaburah is liable, since he does not intend, he is exempt.

Explanation: Even though it is a Pesik Reishei, about which R. Shimon agrees, here he is exempt, for it is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

Even regarding Mekalkel, R. Shimon exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, like it says in Sanhedrin (84b) "whom do we know that he obligates Mekalkel b'Chaburah? It is R. Shimon. He exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah!"

Opinion #1: R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, i.e. when he is pleased if it occurs, for then it is Tzerichah l'Gufah. However, regarding a matter that he does not care about, R. Shimon does not agree.

Opinion #2 (Rashi): R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, i.e. regarding a matter that he does not care whether or not it occurs.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. If one pruned [edible] reeds in another's field, R. Shimon exempts (below, 103a). There, he does not care whether or not [improvement] occurs. Rather, it is like I explained. (Chasam Sofer - Rashi holds that there are two kinds of Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah. If he does not care, he is exempt because it is not Melachah Machasheves, but regarding wounding, which need not be Melachah Machasheves, he is liable. If he is displeased if it occurs, he is exempt even regarding wounding, for it is unlike Melachah of the Mishkan. This answers also the coming question of Tosfos.)

Question: In Chagigah (10b), it connotes that R. Shimon exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah because he requires Melachah Machasheves. If so, b'Chaburah, for which he does not require Melachah Machasheves, Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah should be liable!

Question (Ri): In any case, he should be liable for removing the blood due to Netilas Neshamah!

Answer #1: The other Perush of Rashi (below, 107a) is correct. One who wounds [one of the eight Sheratzim listed in the Torah] is liable, for it is a Toldah of slaughtering, and he is liable for Netilas Neshamah;

Removing the blood is Netilas Neshamah, like it says "Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh." Therefore, for the eight Sheratzim, which have skin, he is liable when the blood gathers in one place, even if it did not leave. Since it gathered, ultimately it will leave, just now the skin holds it in;

Other Sheratzim, which have no skin, he is not liable until the blood leaves them. However, if the blood gathered and did not leave, he is not liable. Since it did not leave, it is destined to return;

If it was destined to leave, it would leave immediately, for there is no skin to hold it in.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Blood of the Chilazon, which is proper for dying, is deposited. One is not liable for this blood for Netilas Neshamah;

Also for other blood that comes out (with the blood for dying), he is not liable, for he is not pleased. (He prefers that it stay alive,) in order that the dye be clear.

Suggestion: Netilas Neshamah is weakening the matter he wounds.

Rejection: Regarding Dam Besulim, why does he need the woman to weaken?! Regarding Milah, why does he need the baby to weaken?!

Rather, removing the blood is called Netilas Neshamah, like I explained.

Explanation: We do not refer to Shochet of our Mishnah. Obviously, it is only due to Netilas Neshamah, for dying was taught explicitly in our Mishnah!

Rather, we refer to Shochet in general.

Pesak: From here, we cannot permit salting food, for salting is forbidden mid'Rabanan below (108b), and it is forbidden even on Yom Tov (Beitzah 11a).

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): He rubs the hide on the pillar to smooth it. The Yerushalmi connotes like this.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): He rubs the grounds between pillars of windows.

Rebuttal: This is wrong.

Explanation: He is not liable for cutting and smoothing, for the case is, it is already square and fixed, just he beautifies it and scratches lines for beauty, like rock quarriers do nowadays. Ri and Riva said so.

Question: We learn from the Reisha! The Mishnah says "one who does many Melachos like one Melachah, he is liable only once'!

Answer: Some say that it means as follows. [One who does many Melachos] like one Melachah, i.e. two Toldos from one Av, but for an Av and its Toldah, [one might have thought that] he is liable twice! [Harei Elu] teaches that this is not so.

Question: We know this from the count of the Reisha! We cannot say that the Tana omitted some, for he taught "these"!

Implied question: We can ask also that "Elu" of the Reisha teaches unlike R. Eliezer (who obligates for an Av and its Toldah)!

Answer: We can say that the Reisha said "Elu Avos" because it refers to what was taught above "he is liable for every Av Melachah"!

Answer: The count of the Reisha does not teach unlike R. Yehudah, for we can say that the Tana counts only important Melachos, but Shovet (evening the warp threads) and Medakdek (hitting the woof lest it be too taut), even though they are Melachos, he did not teach them, because they are not so clarified.

Support: We answer like this in Kidushin (16b) regarding "we give gifts to the following [cases of an Eved Ivri who goes free]." The Tana taught something that has a limit (when it will occur), but not something without a limit (e.g. death of an Amah's father).

Explanation: This is unlike R. Yehudah, who says below (90a) that even one who is Motzi any amount of idolatry [from Reshus to Reshus] is liable. Rather, it is like the first Tana, who argues with him. Rashi explained like this there.

Question (Rashba): It says here that the one who says [that one is not liable for Hotza'ah of] Dam Nidah, all the more so [he is exempt for] wood from an Asherah. What is his source?

Perhaps he [holds that our Tana] holds like R. Yehudah, and he obligates for wood of an Asherah, for one stores it away to burn it! (Pnei Yehoshua - our Mishnah cannot be R. Yehudah, for if so one would be liable also for Dam Nidah.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This that our Mishnah taught "anything proper..." that most people normally store, like this Shi'ur (that the Mishnah gives), anyone is liable for Hotza'ah, even an Ashir for whom this amount is not important.

Inference: R. Shimon obligates Stam people who normally store it, for this Shi'ur is important for them, and even if the person did not store it.

Implied question: Below (76b), he explained that these Shi'urim in our Mishnah are only for those who stored it before [Shabbos], and then took it out [on Shabbos]!

Answer (Ri): We can resolve his Perush. Below, he requires storing it [before Shabbos] for an Ashir, who normally would not store.