Source of Dispute #2 (Part 3): And we can also prove that Rebbi Yehudah holds Patur, from the Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Keilim', Shabbos, 122a, (which our Sugya will cite shortly 'One may take a hand-needle to remove a splinter', which the Gemara understands goes according to everybody ...

Proof (Part 1): Like the Gemara in Shabbos, 157a, where we say that even Rebbi Shimon concedes to 'Muktzah Machmas Chesaron Kis', like we learned in the Mishnah 'All vessels may be taken on Shabbos except for a large saw and a plowing-peg'.

Proof (Part 2): Now from where does the Gemara know that Rebbi Shimon concedes that, unless we simply assume that, since we do not find anyone disputing the S'tam Mishnah, nobody does!

Source of Dispute #2 (Part 4): And since Rebbi Yehudah declares Chayav a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah, it would be impossible for him to permit taking a hand-needle in order to remove a splinter, unless he held 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah, Patur'.

Implied Question: Even though we say in Perek Kirah (Shabos, 42a) that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', and in Perek Safek Achal (Kerisos, 19b) Rav Nachman concludes that, according to Shmuel 'Leave the children, seeing as 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah' is Chayav ... (as we quoted earlier)? ...

Answer: ... he is not it because he holds like that; but according to those who do.

Proof (Part 1): Because in Perek ha'Oreg (Shabbos, 107a) Shmuel states that the term 'Patur on Shabbos always means Patur Aval Asur - with only three exceptions, one of which is 'Meifis Mursa' (squeezing the pus out of a boil), which we know is Patur and Mutar from the Mishnah which permits taking a hand-needle on Shabbos in order to remove a splinter ...

Proof (Part 2): And since one is (unanimously) permitted to remove a splinter, Mekalkel ba'Chaburah must be Patur, because, as far as 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah' is concerned, Shmuel holds that one is Chayav.

Clarification (Part 1): When we rule (in the second Perek of Shabbos) like Rebbi Shimon regarding Gereirah (dragging a bench), it is not a case of Shigegas Sekilah, because even if one were to make a groove, it would be ke'le'Achar-Yad' (in an unusual manner), as the Gemara explains in Perek Kirah (ibid. Daf 46a & 46b).

Clarification (Part 2): What's more, it is a Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

Clarification (Part 3): Moreover, even Rebbi Yehudah concedes that every 'Eino Miskaven' that is not P'sik Reisheih is Patur mi'd'Oraysa, since it is not 'Meleches Machsheves.

Precedent #1: And so it seems from the Gemara in Yoma, 34a, with regard to metal bars, where we describe the case there as Tzeiruf (smelting) de'Rabanan, since it was not done intentionally, in which case it is not 'Meleches Machsheves', and which they permitted on account of the principle 'Ein Sh'vus ba'Mikdash'.

Precedent #2: And this is also evident in Perek ha'Matzni'a with regard to 'Someone who sweeps or settles the dust' that the Rabanan who hold like Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', nevertheless exempt him, even in the event that he fills in the holes (in the ground).

Precedent #3: Likewise, in Perek Safek Achal (Kerisos, 20a) where the Gemara rules that 'Mis'asek she'Eino Miskaven li'Melachah, is Patur' - how much more so where he merely intends to drag a bench!

Implied Question: Then why does Rebbi Yehudah in Kerisos declare Chayav someone who intends to extinguish the top ones, and the bottom ones became ignited by themselves?

Answer: Because that is considered 'P'sik Reisha' (inevitable), and is therefore 'Meleches Machsheves, seeing as he knows that it will ignite.

Rebbi Shimon's Reason (Part 1): Whereas Rebbi Shimon rules that he is Patur because it is not 'Tzerichah le'Gufah', and not because he requires 'Meleches Machsheves'.

Rebbi Shimon's Reason (Part 2): This is because, since Rebbi Shimon declares Chayav 'Mekalkel ba'Hav'arah', and the reason that Mekalkel is Patur by other Melachos is because it is not 'Meleches Machsheves', as is evident in the first Perek of Chagigah, 10a, it is clear that he is not concerned about 'Meleches Machsheves', when it comes to Hav'arah.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara (in the first Perek of Kesuvos) permit the first Bi'ah on Shabbos, if it for one's personal benefit, even if we maintain that the blood an intrinsic part of a person?

Answer: Because it is not Tzerichah le'Gufah.

Implied Question: And the reason that Rebbi Eliezer (in Perek ha'Matzni'a) declares Chayav someone who sweeps or who settles the dust, cannot be because he considers it 'P'sik Reisha', seeing as Rebbi Shimon permits it Lechatchilah ...

Answer (Part 1): ... but because he considers sweeping and settling the dust a Tikun akin to building, even there where he does not fill in the holes.

Answer (Part 2): ... this in turn, is because one is Chayav for building for the smallest act, as we find (Ibid.) with regard to 'plaiting the hair and placing a pack on one's face' ...

Clarification: ... and the reason that, at the end of Perek Kirah 47b, the Gemara would have permitted moving a lit lamp on Shabbos, were it not for the fact that it is a Basis le'Davar ha'Asur, is because should it inadvertently blow out, it will be 'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara in Perek Kirah explains that, on the one hand, regarding 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven' Shmuel holds like Rebbi Shimon, whilst, on the other, he holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'.

Question (Part 2): And since he holds like Rebbi Yehudah regarding 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah', how can he ever permit 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', which the Gemara there (on 41b) permits in a case where one removes a kettle from the stove in order to pour into it water to cool it down (even if there is a Shi'ur to strengthen the kettle (Tzeiruf), which is a Shogeg of Sekilah (as the Gemara rules earlier with regard to removing a blister or a splinter from one's father's skin)?

Answer: The reason that our Sugya forbids removing a blister or a thorn from one's father's skin is because we are afraid that once one has begun to take it out, it will move in a way that renders it 'P'sik Reisha', and having begun to remove it, he will not stop in the middle. Whereas other cases of 'Davar she'Ein Miskaven', which are not so readily subject to P'sik Reisha', are permitted.

Implied Question: Why does Shmuel then concede that one is permitted to remove a splinter on Shabbos, even though it is a 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah'?

Answer: Because he holds 'Mekalkel ba'Chaburah' is Patur.

Clarification #1: The Gemara wants to learn from here a warning against striking one's father, which we cannot learn from "Pen Yosif", since there is no Mitzvah to strike him.

Clarification #2: And the Gemara will shortly imply that even where he is being taken out to be killed, the warning rendering the son Chayav applies, since Rav Chisda establishes it where they are coaxing him to go out.

Implied Question: And even though we have a principle 'Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din' ....

Answer: ... that is confined to Malkos.

Question: How can we learn B'no from a Kal va'Chomer from somebody else, seeing as, in the case where they are coaxing him to go out and he refuses, somebody else is not Chayav for striking him?

Answer: Perhaps it is merely a 'Giluy Milsa' (a revelation) that in principle, "Pen Yosif" applies even to one's son, even though "Arba'im Yakenu" does not.

Question: In Perek ha'Chovel (Bava Kama, 86b & 87a), Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asks what the Din will be there where Reuven shamed Shimon and he died. and the Gemara leaves the She'eilah unresolved, whilst here the Gemara asks from it as if it was obvious.

Explanation #1: Some Sefarim have the text 've'ha'Amar Rav Sheishes, "Biysho Yashein, Chayav" (omitting the word 'u'Meis').

Refutation #1: That is not correct however, firstly because what has 'Yashein' got to do with someone who is being taken out to be killed?

Refutation #2: And secondly, what is Rav Sheishes coming to teach us, as the Mishnah in Perek ha'Chovel has already taught us 'Someone who shames a sleeping person is Chayav'.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam has the text 've'ha'Amar Rav Sheishes "Biysho Chayav" ' - with reference to someone who is being taken out to be killed.

Refutation of Question: However, the fact that the Gemara in Perek ha'Chovel does not cite the ruling of Rav Sheishes is not really such a Kashya ...

Precedent: ... because in similar vein, the Gemara in Perek Ein Bein ha'Mudar (Nedarim, 35b & 36a) asks 'whether the Kohanim are our agents or the agents of Hashem'. And it does not cite the opinion of Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who rules in the first Perek of Kidushin, 23b & 24a, that they are Hash-m's agents, because otherwise, how can it be that our agents can do for us something that we cannot do ourselves?

Question: Why is the La'av of "Pen Yosif" subject to Malkos, bearing in mind that it is a La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din, since it incorporates a warning for someone who strikes his father, as we learned in the Sifri and in the Yerushalmi.

Clarification: The Tana could have said 'because the Torah writes "be'Amcha" ', like we just said 'bi'Mekuyam she'be'Amcha'.

Question: Whereas Makeh is only Chayav Chenek, Mekalel is Chayav Sekilah?

Answer: We are currently learning from the Kal va'Chomer that Makeh Aviv is Chayav Sekilah.

Question: There is however a Kashya on the conclusion, where we learn that someone who curses one's parents after they are dead is Chayav. Why do we not learn that we do not treat she'Lo ke'Amcha like Amcha (by Makeh), from Mekalel, who is Chayav for after death, even though Makeh is Patur, since we need "Nefesh" (like we learned earlier on Daf 84b - 'until he makes a wound')?

Tosfos already explained this in Perek Arba Misos - earlier on Daf 66a DH 'Lerabos'.

Clarification (Part 1): It is not entirely like a Yisrael, seeing as the ox of a Yisrael that gores that of a Kuti is Patur, because the Torah penalized them, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Perek Arba'ah va'Chamishah (Bava Kama, 37b).

Clarification (Part 2): They are like a Yisrael however, inasmuch as a Shor Tam that belongs to a Kuti that gores one belonging to a Yisrael pays for only half the damage, whereas a Mu'ad pays full damages.

Clarification (Part 3): Whilst the ox of a Nochri that gores that of a Yisrael pays full damages, irrespective as to whether it is a Tam or a Mu'ad.

Clarification: Because the Torah writes "ve'Nimtza be'Yado".

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a,, 10b (in connection with both Get and Geneivah) require two Pesukim to learn that "be'Yado" is La'av Davka, and that the same applies to 'his roof, his courtyard and his enclosure' ...

Answer: Perhaps here too, there is an extra Ribuy (inclusion).

Suggestion #1: Perhaps he will be Chayav even he lifted it up in the owner's domain, like we find in Perek Merubeh (Bava Kama, 79b & 80a) with regard to Geneivah - as the Mishnah states there 'If he was pulling the animal out ... '.

Suggestion #2: Or perhaps here, where Rebbi Shimon exempts someone who sells the person to relatives, since he needs to be taken out of the domain of "his brother" completely, how much more so will the kidnapping not be effective as long as he is still in the domain of the owner.