OPINIONS: RASHI on the Mishnah (96a, DH veha'Moshit) writes that one is Chayav for an act of Moshit (handing an object to another person a distance of four Amos away in Reshus ha'Rabim) when the object is transferred at a height of at least ten Tefachim above the ground of Reshus ha'Rabim, because in the Mishkan it was done above ten Tefachim (when the pillars were passed from one wagon to another). Does Rashi mean that Moshit is Chayav only when it is done above ten Tefachim, or that Moshit is Chayav even when it is done above ten Tefachim, but one is also Chayav when it is down below ten Tefachim?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Lo Yalfinan) states that according to the opinion that says that the laws of Zorek (throwing in Reshus ha'Rabim) are not derived from the laws of Moshit, both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan agree that one is not Chayav for Zorek above ten Tefachim, as the end of the Mishnah states. However, if they agree that one is not Chayav for Zorek, then why does the Mishnah say "Keitzad," which implies that the Mishnah is explaining the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan that appears immediately before it in the Mishnah (TOSFOS)? Why does Rashi not explain simply that the Mishnah refers to Zorek below ten Tefachim, which is the case in which Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan argue? If that is what the Mishnah means, then the word "Keitzad" indeed refers to the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabanan!

It must be that Rashi maintains that if the Mishnah is discussing a case of one who throws below ten Tefachim, then one would be exempt even for Moshit. We see that according to Rashi, one who does an act of Moshit below ten Tefachim is exempt. The TOTZA'OS CHAYIM (#4) cites RABEINU CHANANEL (97a) who also says that Moshit does not apply below ten Tefachim.

(b) TOSFOS (4a, DH Aval) is in doubt with regard to this question.

(c) The TOTZA'OS CHAYIM (#4) infers from the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 13:18) that one is Chayav for an act of Moshit below ten Tefachim as well.

QUESTION: The Gemara proves that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it together with its Av, because he says that one is Chayav when he does the two acts of Shovet and Medakdek together.

If Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for doing a Toldah together with an Av, why does he specifically mention the two Melachos of Shovet and Medakdek? Furthermore, when the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah and say that one is not Chayav for a Toldah with its Av, why do they mention that Shovet and Medakdek are included in the Melachos of Meisach and Oreg?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Lo) answers that at this stage, when the Gemara asserts that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah even when he does it with its Av, the Gemara assumes that the Rabanan do not argue with Rebbi Yehudah. Even the Rabanan agree that one is Chayav when he performs a Toldah with its Av. They argue only in the case of one who does Shovet and Medakdek, because they maintain that these two Melachos are not Toldos at all, but rather they are the actual Av Melachos of Meisach and Oreg.

(b) Tosfos suggests another answer. The Rabanan mention Shovet and Medakdek only in response to Rebbi Yehudah. Their intention is to say that even if one maintains that one is Chayav for a Toldah with its Av, the acts of Shovet and Medakdek are different. Rebbi Yehudah mentions Shovet and Medakdek in order to teach that even in a case of these two Melachos, one will be Chayav for both the Toldah and the Av. (Based on the MAHARAM's understanding of Tosfos.)

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that if a person intended to throw an object four Amos and instead he threw eight Amos, he is exempt, because he did not intend for the object to fall there. How are we to reconcile this Gemara with the Gemara earlier (73a) in which Abaye and Rava argue with regard to a case in which one intended to throw two Amos and instead threw four Amos? According to the Gemara there, Abaye says that one is Chayav when he throws four Amos when he intended to throw only two!

(a) The Gemara earlier refers to a case in which the thrower wanted the object to rest "wherever it happened to fall" ("Kol Makom she'Tirtzeh, Tanu'ach"), as the Gemara earlier describes. (This appears to be the proper approach according to Rashi's understanding of the Sugya on 72b. See Chart #16.)

(b) The RITVA (73a) asks this question and answers, in the name of RABEINU TAM, that we must explain the Gemara there differently. It does not mean that he intended to throw the object two Amos but instead he threw it four Amos. Rather, the Gemara there means that he miscalculated the distance between him and the place where he wanted the object to rest, and he thought that the target area was two Amos away when it was really four Amos away. (This is consistent with Tosfos' understanding of the Sugya there. See Chart #16.)