LIABILITY FOR LESS THAN K'GROGERES
(Rav Yehudah): R. Meir is Mechayev if one was Motzi even one wheat kernel for planting.
Objection: This is obvious, the Mishnah says 'any amount'!
Answer: One might have thought that it says this because he is liable for less than k'Grogeres, but it must be a k'Zayis - Rav Yehudah teaches, this is not so.
Question (Rav Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah): If everything depends on the intent of the Motzi, if one intended to Motzi his whole house [at once], is he exempt until he is Motzi it all [at once]?!
Answer: There, we are not concerned for his intent, the Halachah is based on normal people. (Ritva - one can Machshiv (consider important) something others do not Machshiv, for really all Machshiv it, just others do not toil on account of it - but one cannot say that anything less than his whole house is unimportant, for others Machshiv it.)
(Mishnah): Anyone else is not liable unless if he was Motzi a Shi'ur.
Our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar:
(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): The general rule is - if an item is not fitting to save, or if it is less than people save, and Reuven decided to save it, and Shimon was Motzi it, he is liable on account of Reuven's intent.
(Rava): If one was Motzi k'Grogeres to eat it, and [before putting it down] decided to plant it, or vice-versa, he is liable.
Objection: This is obvious - this is [at least] the Shi'ur for either of these!
Answer: One might have thought that he is not liable unless the Akirah and Hanachah were with the same intent - Rava teaches, this is not so.
Question #1 (Rava): If one was Motzi half a k'Grogeres to plant, and it inflated [to k'Grogeres], then he decided to eat it, what is the law?
Perhaps above [when he reconsidered in the middle] he is liable because there is a Shi'ur for either intent - but here, he was not Motzi a Shi'ur for eating!
Or, perhaps since he would have been Chayav for his original intent had he not reconsidered, he is liable even if he reconsidered!
Question #2 (Rava): If you will say the latter way - what is the law if he was Motzi a k'Grogeres to eat, and it shriveled, then he decided to plant it?
Had he not reconsidered, he would have been exempt - therefore, even though he reconsidered, he is exempt;
Or, perhaps we follow his intent now [at the time of Hanachah], he is liable!
Question #3 (Rava): If you will say that we follow his intent now, what is the law if he was Motzi a k'Grogeres to eat, and it shriveled, then it inflated again to k'Grogeres?
Regarding Shabbos, do we apply to the principle of Dichuy (if something became disqualified, it will never become qualified again - do we say, since when it shriveled he could not have been liable for Hanachah, he cannot be liable [for this Hotza'ah] even if it inflated again)?
These questions are not resolved (Rambam - each of the first two questions is resolved like the presumption of the following question).
RECEIVING AND LOSING IMPORTANCE
Question (Rava): If one threw a k'Zayis of Terumah into a Tamei house, what is the law?
Question: What does he ask about?
He does not ask about Shabbos, its Shi'ur is k'Grogeres!
He does not ask about Kabalas Tum'ah, its Shi'ur [for food] is k'Beitzah!
Answer: Really, he asks about Shabbos - the case is, less than k'Beitzah was in the house, the k'Zayis landed on it and completed the Shi'ur of k'Beitzah;
Since it completes the Shi'ur for Tum'ah [it has importance like k'Grogeres], so he is liable for Hotza'ah;
Or, perhaps a proper k'Grogeres is required?
Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa - Aba Sha'ul): The Shi'ur [regarding Hotza'ah] for Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim is k'Grogeres;
We do not say that since the Shi'ur for [lashes for eating] Yotzei (if either leaves the Azarah it becomes Pasul) is k'Zayis, also the Shi'ur for Shabbos is k'Zayis!
Rejection: There, it is Pasul once it left the Azarah, one is not liable regarding Shabbos until it enters Reshus ha'Rabim (therefore, a Shi'ur for Yotzei does not make one liable for Hotza'ah) - but here, the Hotza'ah and the Tum'ah occur at the same time (when it lands)!
(Mishnah): If he later decided not to plant it and took it back into his house, he is liable only for a Shi'ur.
Objection: This is obvious (he no longer considers it important, he is like anyone else)!
Answer (Abaye): The case is, he threw it into a storehouse, it is recognizable (it did not get mixed everything else there):
One might have thought, since it is recognizable, it is as if he stored it by itself - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so, he nullified his original intent.
(Mishnah): If one was Motzi food and put it on a ledge (this will be explained), he or anyone else who later was Motzi it is exempt, for the Melachah was not done at once.
If one put a basket full of produce on an outer ledge, even if most of the produce is outside, he is exempt unless he was Motzi the entire basket.
(Gemara) Question: What kind of ledge is discussed?
If it is Reshus ha'Rabim (it is nine Tefachim, people unload on it), he should be liable for putting it there;
Answer #1: It is Reshus ha'Yachid (it is 10 Tefachim tall and four by four wide).
Objection: The Mishnah exempts he or anyone else who later was Motzi it to Reshus ha'Rabim!
Answer #2: It is Karmelis (it is between three and nine Tefachim);
The Mishnah teaches that he is exempt only because it rested in the middle - otherwise, he is liable - it is unlike Ben Azai.
(Beraisa): If one was Motzi from a store (Reshus ha'Yachid) to the market (a Reshus ha'Rabim) via a Stav (a Karmelis), he is liable;
Ben Azai exempts.
(Mishnah): If one put a basket full of produce...
(Chizkiyah): This applies only to a basket full of cucumbers and gourds (they are long, part of each is still in Reshus ha'Yachid) - but if it is full of mustard [seeds], he is liable (some of them are totally outside).
Inference: He holds that Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged (if an object in one Reshus is in a Kli which is partially in a different Reshus, we do not consider the object to be partially in the Reshus of the Kli).
(R. Yochanan): The Mishnah applies even to a basket full of mustard.
Inference: He holds that Eged Kli Shmei Eged (it is as if the object is partially in the Reshus of the Kli).
(R. Zeira): The text of the Mishnah suggests unlike either of them!
It says 'He is exempt unless he was Motzi the entire basket' - this implies that even if he was Motzi all the produce, he is exempt [if part of the basket is inside], i.e. Eged Kli Shmei Eged, unlike Chizkiyah!
It says 'Even if most of the produce is outside' - this implies that if all the produce was outside, he would be liable, even if part of the basket is inside, i.e. Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged, unlike R. Yochanan!
Question: How will Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan answer these questions?
Answer - part 1: Chizkiyah explains, 'Unless he was Motzi the entire basket' refers to a basket full of cucumbers and gourds - but if it is full of mustard, it is as if he was Motzi the entire basket, he is liable.
Answer - part 2: R. Yochanan explains, 'Even if most of the produce is outside' - not only most, rather, even if all is outside, he is exempt, unless he was Motzi the entire basket.
Question (against Chizkiyah - Beraisa): If one was Motzi a peddler's box and put it on an outer ledge, even if most of the varieties are outside, he is exempt unless he was Motzi the entire box.
Suggestion: The box contains small bundles of wrapped fragrances, most of the varieties are totally outside.
Rejection: No, it contains long roots or cinnamon sticks, no variety is totally outside.