Citation (34b - Mishnah): If [a person] burned a stack on Shabbos, he is exempt [from paying], for he is Chayav Misah. This is a case of Misah to this one, due to Shabbos, and money to this one, due to the stack! (Rashash - since he is Chayav Misah only if it was on Shabbos, we do not consider both Chiyuvim to be together.)

Conclusion: Rather, you are forced to say that it is considered Misah and money to one, since he is not Chayav Misah due to [an Aveirah against] a person, rather, to Shamayim;

Similarly, eating Terumah and tearing silk are considered Misah and money to one!

Defense (of Explanation #1 - Ri): Here is considered Misah to one and money to another because they are two actions - eating Terumah and tearing silk.

Similarly, Ploni had Bi'ah with Almoni's daughter are two testimonies. They could have testified about Ploni without the daughter, or about the daughter without Ploni, e.g. "Ploni had Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah", or "Plonis was Mezanah";

However, one who burned a stack, all the Chiyuvim are for one action. Therefore it is considered Misah and money to one.

Rebuttal (Rashba): Rav Yosef said in Sanhedrin (9b) that if the husband brought witnesses that his Kalah was Mezanah (during Eirusin), and her father brought witnesses who were Mezim the husband's witnesses, the husband's witnesses are killed and do not pay money;

If the husband brought [other] witnesses who were Mezim the father's witnesses, the father's witnesses are killed and pay money

They pay money to this one, i.e. the husband. They tried to make him lose the Kesuvah. They are Chayav Misah for [trying to kill] the [first] witnesses.

There, all their Chiyuvim are due to one false testimony!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rava holds that only regarding Edim Zomemim, he is liable Misah to this one and money to this one, because we must fulfill Hazamah (i.e. doing to the witnesses like they plotted) regarding every one;

However, regarding money and Mishah to one person, he is exempt, since we fulfill some Hazamah in him (through killing the witnesses).

However, in general Rava agrees that money to one and Misah to another is exempt, for when [he burned a stack and] a goat and tied slave were nearby [and the fire killed them], the Mishnah says that he is exempt;

In Bava Kama (22b), we establish this when different people own the goat and slave.

Support: Rava himself holds in Sanhedrin (74a) that if a Rodef (Ploni was pursuing David to kill him) broke Kelim, whether he broke David's Kelim or anyone else's, he is exempt, even though this is Misah due to David and money to the owner of the Kelim!

Rejection of Support: However, there regarding a Rodef, the text says Rabah. This is clear from Bava Kama (117b). In Sanhedrin (10a), the text is Rava.

Explanation #2 (continued): You are forced to say that all agree that Misah to this one and money to this one is exempt, for we learn that Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei is exempt from Lo Yihyeh Ason (if men were fighting, and one caused a woman to miscarry, he pays for the fetus only if no fatality resulted);

There, [if he killed her] it is Misah to her and money to her husband, for the children are his (her husband's)!

Answer (Ri): This is not a proof. There, since the fetuses are in the woman's body, it is considered Misah and money to one.

Support: In Sanhedrin (74a) we wanted to obligate when she did not die, even though one could have killed the man [to stop him from the Aveirah], for the verse discusses a mortal fight;

This is because it is Misah to this one, i.e. the man he wanted to kill, and money to the husband, and even so, when there is a fatality, he is exempt, because it is considered Misah and money to one, since [the fetuses] are in the woman's body, like I explained.

Explanation #3 (Riva): Everywhere, Misah to this one and money to this one is liable. The cases of [burning a stack and] a tied slave was there, and a Rodef, are different, for anyone may kill them. They are Chayav Misah to the entire world, also to the owner of the slave and Kelim;

Therefore, it is considered Misah and money to one.

Implied question: Initially, in Sanhedrin (74a) we considered a Rodef to be Misah to this one and money to this one!

Answer: In the conclusion [there], which says "rather, there is no difference", we retract from that reasoning. It means "rather, there is no difference, for it is Misah and money to one";

Here (eating Terumah) is considered Misah and money to one, just like one who burned a stack.

Question: We say in Bava Kama (70b) that one who stole and sold on Shabbos is exempt, e.g. if [the buyer] said "throw your stolen [animal] into my Chatzer and be Makneh (transfer ownership of) it to me";

Citation (70b) Question: Once the stolen object is in the airspace of the Chatzer, he acquires. He is not liable for Shabbos until it rests!

Question: What was the question? Akirah is needed for Hanachah, like it says here!

Answer: According to R. Tam, this is fine. He explained that one cannot pour a libation without lifting it, and even so Rav (Gitin 52b) said [that the Mishnah there obligates] actual Menasech, and he does not exempt due to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei;

He holds like R. Yirmeyah, that he acquired [liability for the wine] from when he lifted it, and he is not Chayav Misah until he pours [to idolatry].

R. Yirmeyah does not hold that lifting is a need of pouring, and similarly he does not hold that Akirah is a need of Hanachah.

Answer (cont.): He does not distinguish based on whether or not one can retract it. (Maharsha - seemingly, the question in Bava Kama was improper. Perhaps throwing is different, since one cannot retract it! Tosfos answers that according to Version #1 here (Akirah is a need of Hanachah), we do not distinguish at all based on ability to retract. The Gemara there holds like this.)

Support - Question: According to the version that one cannot have Hanachah without Akirah, why did R. Avin discuss throwing an arrow? He should discuss carrying [a knife, to teach that one is exempt even though he could stop it]!

Answer: Surely, [he holds that] these are the same. (Carrying is not a bigger Chidush than throwing.) The one who argues about carrying, argues also about throwing.

Explanation: According to R. Yirmeyah, it asks in Bava Kama (70b, that he acquires once it is above the Chatzer, but he is Chayav Misah only when it rests).

Support (for Answer (b)): However, if it were possible to pour without lifting, R. Yirmeyah would not argue with R. Avin;

In Bava Kama (117a) it connotes a little that R. Yirmeyah argues with R. Avin regarding "they retracted to say even one who is Menasech." (This shows that one cannot pour without lifting, like R. Tam said.)

It says there that initially they held like R. Avin (that Akirah is needed for Hanachah, and likewise lifting is needed for lifting, therefore he is exempt). At the end, they held like R. Yirmeyah (he is liable from when he lifted it. He is not Chayav Misah until he pours).

Rejection: We could say that initially they held that this is like R. Avin's case (throwing an arrow), and at the end, they held that it is like R. Yirmeyah (he is liable from when he lifted it. He is not Chayav Misah until he pours).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He could eat it less than three Tefachim [above the ground], so there is no Hagbahah.

Objection (Ri): What is the relevance of Hagbahah regarding something he holds in his hand or mouth?! (No other Kinyan is needed.)

The verse says "v'Nasan b'Yadah", and we say in Gitin (78a) that if [her husband] threw [a Get] into her basket, she is divorced. If it is tied to her, even if it does not hang [above the ground, rather, it rests on the ground, she is divorced], even though we discuss in her husband's Reshus!

Even the opinion that requires that it hangs, does not require that it is three Tefachim [above the ground]!

Explanation #2 (Ri): This means that he could crouch and eat it. If it was on the end of a rod, he could bow down and [through moving his head] insert it to his gullet.

Implied question: Here he did not eat it this way [rather, normally]! His lifting was a need of eating!

Answer: Even so, since he could be liable without Hagbahah, it is not [considered] a need of eating.

Observation: Likewise, we could have said that he could eat it without Hagbahah, e.g. if his friend inserted it [in his mouth].

Explanation: According to the version that [it is different when] if he wanted, he could retract it, this is no question at all;

However, we ask according to the version that there cannot be Hanachah without Akirah. Also here, there cannot be Hanachah without Hagbahah.

Implied question: He could drag it [without lifting it]!

Answer: This Akirah is like [any] other Akirah. In any case, the Isur begins from the time of Hagbahah;

If Ploni did the Akirah, Almoni would not be liable for Hanachah. It turns out that Akirah causes liability, and the liability extends until the time of Hanachah.

Question: According to R. Tam, Hagbahah acquires with less than three Tefachim. What was the question here? Since he acquired it before the Akirah began...

Akirah is only after he lifted it three Tefachim. Below three Tefachim [off the ground] is like Lavud [considered to be on the ground], like it says in Shabbos (80a) if one was Motzi a half-k'Grogeres, and then was Motzi another half-k'Grogeres to the same place, he is liable [if it is within three Tefachim of the ground].

If so, it is proper that he is liable, just like according to Ben Azai, who says that one who walks is like one who stops (at every step). He is liable because he acquired it before the Akirah began!

Answer (Rashba): He understands that one who steals a wallet is liable in every case, even if it is resting on a stick three Tefachim tall, in which case the Kinyan and Akirah come at once.

Question: Since we thought that he is liable for this Hotza'ah, the question returns. It is needed for Hotza'ah!

Answer: We were thinking that when he reconsidered and took it out, this is a second Akirah. (He acquired through the first Akirah, which was not needed for the Hotza'ah.)

Observation: Even if he were liable when he stopped to adjust the load, we could have asked that we should distinguish within this case itself (of stopping to adjust), between when he stopped [to adjust], and did not stop at all.

Implied question: A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that one who transfers four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is liable, like we say in Shabbos (96b). [Ben Azai] should learn from there [that one who walks is not considered like one who stops]!

Answer: There, he is in a place of Chiyuv. Ben Azai discusses one who goes from a store to a big road via a Stav (a place of platforms where merchants sit), which is Mekom Petur [mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan, it is a Karmelis.]

Answer #2: The Yerushalmi asks, according to Ben Azai, how is one liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, and answers that it discusses one who jumps.

Implied question: Why is throwing considered more the same matter [as walking] than dragging is?

Answer: Regarding both Motzi and Zorek, the Kinyan comes through Hagbahah, before he comes to a Chiyuv Hotza'ah;

If one drags, the Hotza'ah and Kinyan come together.

Implied question: Above, we asked that we should distinguish between [stopping] to rest and to adjust the load. Why didn't we give this answer (we need to teach about dragging)?

Answer #1: He held that teaching that [if he stopped] to adjust he is exempt, is a bigger Chidush than dragging.

Answer #2: Here [we suggested distinguishing walking from throwing], it is not totally within the same case. Above, [distinguishing stopping to rest and to adjust], it is totally within the same case, so we could not answer this (that we need to teach about dragging).

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (10a), one opinion holds that four Amos [around a person] acquire for him even in Reshus ha'Rabim!

Answer: That refers to a Metzi'ah, lest people come to fight, and regarding a Get, lest she be an Agunah (unable to remarry);

However, for a thief, there was no enactment that four Amos acquire for him in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question (Ri): In Bava Basra (86a), we say that things that are normally picked up are not acquired through Meshichah, rather, only through Hagbahah;

The Gemara asks from a wallet, which is normally picked up [and here we say that it is acquired through dragging, i.e. Meshichah], and answers that [it is very heavy, so] it requires a rope (it is normally dragged).

Inference: If we would say that things that are normally picked up are acquired through Meshichah, [the Beraisa] would be fine, even if it discusses a small wallet.

Summation of question: Why would this be fine? You are forced to say that we do not discuss a small wallet, for if so, why is he liable for Shabbos? This (dragging) is not the normal way of Hotza'ah!

Answer #1: It can be the normal way of Hotza'ah, even if it is small, e.g. if one takes it out from a tunnel. It is normal to drag it. It is acquired only through Hagbahah.

Answer #2: We could have asked "also according to you this is difficult!", but we did not ask. The Gemara is wont [not to ask this] in several places.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to what we asked above, that there is no liability for theft. Now we answer that there is an Isur Geneivah, like Rava taught.

Question #1 (Ri): The importance like a place that is four [by four Tefachim] pertains to Shabbos. What is the connection to Kinyan?

Question #2: We do not need any proof that his hand acquires. This is obvious. The Torah said "v'Nasan b'Yadah", like I explained above!

Question #3: Why don't we establish it even when he received it in his hand above three Tefachim, e.g. [next to] a porch three Tefachim tall, so there was no Hagbahah in Reshus ha'Yachid?

We would bring Rava's teaching Kinyan and Shabbos. (According to Rashi, Rava's teaching is needed even for Kinyan. Tosfos said that obviously, his hand acquires!)

Alternate text and Explanation #2: Rivam found an Ashkenazi text that says "alternatively, it is like Rava." The entire matter refers to Shabbos;

When he brought his hand below three, even though regarding Shabbos Hanachah is only on a place that is four [by four] he is liable for Shabbos when he brought his hand below three;

Below three we do not require a place that is four. It is like Lavud. It is as if it is resting on the ground.

Alternatively, it is even if his hand is above three, and it is like Rava, for his hand is considered like four by four.

Alternate text and Explanation #3: R. Tam's text does not say "a man's hand [...]", rather, only "and it is like Rava";

It comes to answer the need to teach one who was dragging it out, to teach that what is in his hand is not considered Eged (connected to the Reshus in which he stands);

For this we bring Rava, who said in Shabbos (92a) that Eged Yad is not considered Eged. We discuss when he remains inside, and stuck out one hand [to Reshus ha'Rabim], and with the other hand dragged it into it.

This is only when his hand is below three. If it is above three, it is considered Eged, for it is drawn after his body.

Objection (to Explanation #2): According to Explanation #2, the first answer (before Rav Ashi, that he took it to the side of Reshus ha'Rabim) is unlike Rava. All the Beraisos in Shabbos, and R. Yochanan (Shabbos 5a) are like Rava!

Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (84b) that Abaye and Rava both say that Meshichah does not acquire in Reshus ha'Rabim. (Does Ravina argue with them?)

Answer #1 (Ri): They do not argue with Ravina here. Ravina says that he acquires, i.e. to be liable for Onesim. However, he does not acquire that it is totally his.

Answer #2 (Ritzva): Ravina argues with them, for in Bava Kama (79a) regarding "if [the thief] gave the animal [to a Kohen] for [redemption of] his firstborn son, which the Seifa teaches, we can infer just like we infer here;

There, it was taught regarding Kinyan Meshichah, according to the first version that Rashi explained there;

And even according to the second version, it is proven there in the Gemara that the thief is liable only through a Meshichah proper for a Kinyan.

Implied question: We could have asked against the Reisha of our Mishnah, which teaches one who had Bi'ah with a Mamzeres, she has a fine. There, the Mishnah says that one is lashed for her!

Answer: We waited until the case of Bi'ah with one's sister to ask from the Reisha of the Mishnah there, for there Chayavei Lavin are taught after Chayavei Kerisos;

[Had we asked from Mamzeres,] we would have had to bring the entire Mishnah until "one who had Bi'ah with a Mamzeres."