1)

(a)Yehudah Amar Shmuel needs to tell us that Rebbi Meir (the Tana Kama of our Mishnah) declares even someone who carries out one seed, Chayav (even though he has already given the Shi'ur of seeds as a Kol she'Hu) - because we might have otherwise construed 'Kol she'Hu' to mean - less than a ki'Gerogeres (i.e. a relative Kol she'Hu), but at least a k'Zayis. Therefore Shmuel needs to inform us that one is Chayav for even one single seed - a literal Kol she'Hu.

(b)Despite our Mishnah rendering a person Chayav because of his personal designation (as we explained with regard to 'ha'Matzni'a'), it does not follow that because someone can make something Chashuv through his intention (Lehachmir), he can also negate the natural Shi'ur (Lehakel), by deciding not to carry out each piece separately. In such a case we would apply the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Bnei Adam', and he will be Chayav in spite of his designation.

(c)Rava's Chidush (in telling us that someone who carries out a ki'Gerogeres to eat, and then, before putting it down, he decides that he wants to sow it, is Chayav) - is that, although the Akirah and the Hanachah are performed with two different Machshavos, he is nevertheless Chayav, since both Machshavos were be'Chiyuv.

2)

(a)Rava's She'eilah (regarding whether someone who is carrying out half a ki'Gerogeres of seeds, and then, after they swell to more than a ki'Gerogeres, he decides to eat them, will be Chayav after putting them down) is - whether one is Chayav for a Machshavah which is Mechayev at the time of the Hanachah, but which would not have been Mechayev had he had that same Machshavah at the time of the Akirah, or whether he is Chayav, because, had he remained with his original Machshavah and not changed his mind, he would have been Chayav.

(b)Our She'eilah when someone carries out a ki'Gerogeres to eat, the food shrinks and he decides to sow it before placing it, is - whether even if the ruling in the previous case was Chayav, that is only because of the Sevara 'had he remained with his original intention ... ' but in this case, where, had he remained with his original intention, he would have been Patur, maybe he is indeed Patur.

(c)Assuming that we rule Lehachmir in the two previous She'eilos (because we go after what it is now), Rava then asks whether 'Yesh Dichuy le'Inyan Shabbos O Lo'. The case is - where one carried out ki'Gerog'ros for eating and whilst he was carrying it contracted to less than a Shi'ur before swelling to its original size.

(d)And the She'eilah is - whether we apply the principle of 'Yesh Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' (once rejected, always rejected) by Shabbos (since he could have put it down when it became less than a ki'Gerogeres (thereby negating the Akirah) or not.

3)

(a)Rava's She'eilah (regarding someone who throws a k'Zayis of Terumah into a Tamei house), is meaningless as it stands, because, for Tum'as Ochlin, one requires a k'Beitzah, and for Shabbos, a ki'Gerogeres so what is the significance of the k'Zayis?

(b)So we establish the She'eilah when there is already less than a k'Beitzah of food lying in the house, only he threw the k'Zayis of Terumah into a Tamei house, to land beside less than a Kebeitzah of food. Do we say that, since his throwing is effective regarding Tum'as Ochlin, to render both pieces together Tamei (see Tosfos, top of 91b), it is also effective regarding the Isur of Shabbos, or not.

(c)Rav Nachman tried to answer him from a Beraisa (regarding the Shi'ur of carrying on Shabbos) 'Aba Shaul Omer, Sh'tei ha'Lechem ve'Lechem ha'Panim Shi'uran ki'Gerogeres'. But surely if we say 'Migu' in such a case, then why does Aba Shaul give the Shiur for carrying the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim on Shabbos as a ki'Gerogeres? Why do we not say that, since the Shi'ur for the Isur of Yotze (taking them out of the walls of the Azarah), is a k'Zayis, he should be Chayav for carrying on Shabbos too, with the Shi'ur of a k'Zayis, even though it is less than a Ki'Gerogeres.

(d)We reject this proof however, because there, he is Chayav for Yotze, as soon as the Korban leaves the Azarah, whereas the Chiyuv Shabbos only comes when the loaves enter the Reshus ha'Rabim - and 'Migu' is only applicable by two La'avin which take effect simultaneously, like those in Rava's She'eilah.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that 'Chazar ve'Hichniso, Eino Chayav Ela ke'Shi'uro'. This ought to be obvious - due to the principle 'Machshavah Mevateles Machshavah'.

(b)To answer this Kashya, we establish our Mishnah - when the owner threw it into the larder, only not together with the other seeds, but at the side. We would have thought that, until he actually mixes it with the other seeds, it still retains the status of a seed to be sown. Therefore, the Mishnah comes to teach us that, by throwing it back into the larder, he returns it to the status of a food.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, someone carries out food from the house and places it on the threshold between the Reshus ha'Yachid and the Reshus ha'Rabim, before ...

1. ... someone else picks it up and takes it out - both the first man and the second one are Patur (since neither of them completed the Melachah).

2. ... picking it up and completing what he began - he is Patur (because he did not complete the Melachah in one go).

(b)The Mishnah says that if someone carries a box full of fruit, and places it halfway between the Reshus ha'Yachid the Reshus ha'Rabim - he is Patur, even if most of the fruit is outside, unless he places the entire box outside.

(c)The Reisha of the Mishnah cannot be talking about a threshold which is ...

1. ... a Reshus ha'Rabim - because if it were, why would whoever placed it down there not be Chayav?

2. ... a Reshus ha'Yachid - because then why would finally carried it out not be Chayav?

6)

(a)The Mishnah must therefore be talking about - a threshold which is a Karmelis ...

(b)... which is a threshold that between three and nine Tefachim high and four by four Tefachim.

(c)And the Chidush of the Mishnah lies in the inference - that had he not placed the fruit there, but carried it straight through, he would be Chayav, despite the fact that he passed through a Karmelis (which would have rendered him Patur had he put it down there).

(d)The author of the Mishnah cannot therefore be Ben Azai, who maintains that 'Mehalech ke'Omed' (every step taken whilst walking, is like stopping), in which case someone who walks through a Karmelis can never be Chayav.

7)

(a)Chizkiyah establishes the box of fruits in our Mishnah by cucumbers and pumpkins - because if it contained small fruit, then he would be Chayav for each individual fruit that is actually outside. This is because he holds 'Agad Kli Lo Sh'mei Eged' (the Kli does not bind all its contents, to cause them to be considered as if they were all still inside).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan holds - 'Agad Kli Shemei Eged', in which case, as long as part of the box is still inside he will always be Patur, even if it contains mustard-seeds.

(c)The ...

1. ... Seifa of the Mishnah 'Ad she'Yotzi es Kol ha'Kupah' poses a Kashya on Chizkiyah - because it implies that as long as part of the box is inside, even if all the fruit is outside, he is Patur, whereas the ...

2. ... Reisha 'Af al Pi she'Rov Peiros mi'ba'Chutz, Patur' - implying that if all the fruit was outside, even though the box was still inside, he would be Chayav, poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(d)We amend the Mishnah in a way that concurs with ...

1. ... Chizkiyah - by establishing the Mishnah by cucumbers and pumpkins (which will not go out before the box does), even adding this into the text of the Mishnah, which then continues - 'Aval Melei'ah Chardal, Na'aseh K'mi she'Hotzi es Kol ha'Kupah, ve'Chayav'.

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan - by establishing that 'Rov Peiros' does not come to preclude 'Kol Peiros' (but rather comes to incorporate them), and by then concluding with 'Ad she'Yotzi es Kol ha'Kupah'.

8)

(a)The Beraisa 'ha'Motzi Kupas ha'Ruchlin ve'Nasnah Al Iskupah ha'Chitzonah, Af al Pi she'Rov Minim ba'Chutz, Patur ad she'Yotzi es Kol ha'Kupah' creates a problem for Chizkiyah - because we initially understood that the Tana is speaking about little bundles of spices, yet it writes that he is Patur unless he carries out the entire box. Now according to Chizkiyah, why should he not be Chayav for all the bundles that are already outside?

(b)Chizkiyah will answer - that the Beraisa is speaking, not about bundles of small spices, but about long spices, like cinnamon, which remain partially inside with the box (which is why he is Patur until the entire box is outside).

9)

(a)If someone steals a purse on Shabbos, he is liable for theft and loss (in spite of the fact that he is Chayav Misah for breaking Shabbos) - because the Chilul Shabbos, for which he is Chayav Misah, came only when he carried it into the street, whereas the liability for theft and loss came as soon as he picked it up.

(b)If, instead of picking up the purse, he dragged it out into the street, he will be Patur from paying - since the Chiyuv to pay and the Chilul Shabbos occurred simultaneously (as he dragged the purse into the street).

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan, asks Rav Bibi bar Abaye - he ought to be Chayav, in the latter case, since he only became Chayav for Chilul Shabbos, when the entire purse reached the Reshus ha'Rabim, whereas the Chiyuv for stealing occurred as soon as the opening of the purse reached the street (because the Geneivah takes effect as soon as one is able to withdraw the contents of the purse (and the principle of 'Agad Kli Sh'mei Eged' is a concept that applies to Shabbos, but not to theft).

(d)According to Rebbi Yochanan, wee answer - the Beraisa speaks when the back of the purse was dragged into the street first, and the opening, last.