Alternative text: Some texts say "10 Sukos." If so, the last Sukah was at the cliff.

Explanation: Perhaps this was due to weakness, so he will not need to return, and he can lodge there.

Question: In Eruvin (51a), we say "like this is all Shovsei Shabbos."

Explanation: The 2000 Amos of Techum Shabbos, and carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, to all of them we give the diagonal. (E.g. one may walk 2000 Amos or carry four Amos to the west, and also to the north, which is seven fifth of this distance along the northwest diagonal (2800 or 5.6 Amos).

R. Tam's opinion: No matter which direction one goes in, we give him the diagonal, and he may go on Shabbos the diagonal of 2000.

Whenever the Gemara mentions a pillar four by four [Tefachim], this is not precise. We need a square whose side is like the diagonal of four by four, i.e. five and three fifths.

Implied question: Regarding a hive (Shabbos 8a), it says that the width is six. It did not say four, like everywhere else!

Answer: Everywhere else we discuss a square, so it sufficed to say four, and we know that the diagonal is included, like everywhere;

However, a hive is round. If it would have said four, this would have connoted in every direction, for a hive has no diagonal.

Question #1: Our Sugya is difficult for R. Tam. It connotes that Techum Shabbos is a Mil, and no more, like Rashi proved.

Answer: We could say that it is a mere Siman that it is a Mil, just like in every place it says 2000, even though we give also the diagonal;

Also here, it says a Mil, even though we give also the diagonal.

Question #2: We learn corners for Shabbos from the cities of the Leviyim. Those cities receive only according to the corners of the world (i.e. northeast, southeast...), like it says in Eruvin 56b!

Rashbam's opinion: If one goes from east to west, or from north to south, we do not give to him corners. However, one who goes from southwest to northeast, we give to him corners.

Consequence: If a pillar in Reshus ha'Rabim is 10 [Tefachim] tall and four by four wide, if its sides are aligned with the directions of the world (east-west and north-south), and one threw and it landed on it, he is liable;

If its diagonal is aligned with the directions of the world (east-west or north-south), one is liable only if its sides are five and three fifths.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara ask like which Tana is our Mishnah, which also says "except for the last one"?

Suggestion: Perhaps the text of the Gemara says "d'Tanan", like some texts were altered to say, and indeed, we ask about [who authored] our Mishnah!

Rejection: If so, why do we ask about the Seifa? We could have proven from the Reisha that our Mishnah is like R. Meir!

It says that from Yerushalayim to the cliff was 90 Ris, seven and a half to each Mil. This is like R. Meir, who says that it was 12 Mil away!

Answer: The text says "d'Tanya". It is the Seifa of the Beraisa we brought. It is after the argument of R. Meir, R. Yehudah and R. Yosi. This is why the Gemara was astounded;

R. Meir was mentioned in the Reisha, and then R. Yehudah and then R. Yosi. It would seem that ["except for the last one"] is the conclusion of R. Yosi's words!

Therefore, we needed to teach that it is like the first Tana, i.e. R. Meir.

Support: We find like this in Sanhedrin (6b), "he judged the case" is like the first Tana. It says similarly also in Bava Basra 25b.

The original text: This was the text here and in Pesachim 65b.

Objection (Rashi): We must delete this, for in several places in Menachos it was taught "he brings it up and is Maktir it in a Kli Shares", and the Gemara did not ask "is he Maktir it in a Kli Shares?!"

Answer #1 (Rashi here): Rather, the text says "do you think that he is Maktir it?!" Can he be Maktir it immediately? He is still wearing the Bigdei Lavan. Haktarah is in Bigdei Zahav outside!

The Gemara answered "he put it in a bowl in order to burn it when the time will come.

Answer #2 (Rashi in Pesachim): The Gemara asked "do you think that he is Maktir it?!" He himself does not burn them.

We were discussing a Zar! Before this, we discussed flaying, which is Kosher through a Zar.

The Gemara answered "he put it in a bowl in order to burn it through a Kohen."

Defense (of the original text - R. Tam): The Gemara did not ask about a Minchah "do you think [that he is Maktir it] in a Kli Shares?!", because one might have thought that a Minchah is different, since it requires Kidush in a Kli;

Since he is Mekadesh it in a Kli Shares, he brings it up to the Mizbe'ach in the Kli Shares in which it was put, in order to be Maktir it.

However, here and in Pesachim, it is a proper question "do you think [that he is Maktir it] in a Kli Shares?!" Is there any obligation for it to be in a Kli Shares at all?!

Objection (R. Shmuel of Vardon): In Sotah (15a), the Gemara asks this regarding a Minchah!

It was taught that he brings it up to the Mizbe'ach in the Kli Shares and is Maktir it. The Gemara [asked, and] answered "it should say in order to be Maktir it."

Conclusion: We need not change the text. Since the Gemara asked once in Sotah regarding a Minchah, and answered, it was not concerned to ask another time about a Minchah.

Implied question: Regarding a Zevach, the Gemara asked in Pesachim, and asked again here!

Answer: There it discusses sheep. Here it discusses bulls. However, all Menachos are considered like one [so it need not asked again regarding different Menachos].

Implied question: In Sotah, some texts say in a Beraisa "he brings it up and is Maktir it in a Kli Shares, salts it, and puts it on the fire."

Answer: This is fine according to Rashi's Perush. The Gemara asked "do you think that he is Maktir it in a Kli Shares?!", i.e. like it is in the Kli Shares, without salt?

The Gemara answered "it should say in order to be Maktir it", i.e. after salting.

Tosfos' opinion: The Gemara asked properly "do you think [that he is Maktir it] in a bowl? Is it an obligation to take it to the Mizbe'ach in a bowl?!

Granted, when he tore them and removed the Eimurim, he put them in a bowl, and not on the floor, so Kodshei Shamayim will not be disgraced, like a Nevelah;

However, when he brings them up to the Mizbe'ach, he can put them in his hands.

Since this was taught regarding the Seder of Yom Kipur, this connotes this is the Seder, and one cannot do otherwise;

Therefore, we asked "is it an obligation to do so, to bring them up in a bowl?!"

Also in Pesachim, the entire Seder of Korban Pesach is taught - Shechitah, Kabalas Dam, taking it [to the Mizbe'ach] and Zerikah, flaying, and Haktarah.

Therefore, we asked in astonishment, since it is taught this way regarding the Seder of Pesach, this shows that it is an obligation to be Maktir them in a bowl!

Similarly, in Sotah, it taught the Seder of Menachos, how one brings his Minchah from his house. The entire Seder is taught, until "he brings it up and is Maktir it in a Kli Shares."

Therefore, we asked, since it is taught this way regarding the Seder of Minchah, this shows that it is an obligation;

However, elsewhere we do not ask this.