On daf 6a, the gemara is seeking a case whereby rabbanan would be mechayev someone for hotz'oh, regardless of any intervening actions between akiroh and hanochoh in order to explain the position of rabbanan on 5b that someone who is motzi derech stiv is chayav.
The first case--that it is similar to ma'avir chefetz beyond 4 amos--is rejected, becasue in the case of motzi derech stiv, he can do hanocho in the stiv (a makom p'tur), whereas he cannot do so in reshus ha'rabim where beyond 4 amos no makom p'tur exists.
The next suggestion is a case within 4 amos. By raising this case, the gemara seems to find a case where a makom p'tur exists, as in the case on daf 5, and the man in nevertheless chayav. The rebuttal confuses me, because I don't understand Rashi's pshat. The gemara says that in the case of metaltel within 4 amos, "legabei d'hai gavra makom p'tur hu, le'kulei alma makom chiyuv hu", which I learn as: For the man in reshus ha'rabim, within those 4 amos he has a makom p'tur. However, for anyone else carrying in reshus ha'rabim, those 4 amos are not necessarily a makom p'tur. In fact, they may very well be a makom chiyuv. Thus, the status of those 4 amos is variable; it is dependent upon the person carrying in reshus harabim, mah she'ein ken regarding the stiv of daf 5, where l'kulei alma it is a makom p'tur.
However, I cannot fit my pshat to Rashi. Worse, I cannot figure out what Rashi's pshat there is.
Thank you very much for your help.
David Peto, Toronto, Canada
Rashi is basically saying what you understand him to be saying, but from a different angle. Rashi says that this Makom is a Makom Chiyuv if one should take an object from a place four Amos from here and then put it down here.