Question (Rav Bivi bar Abaye - Mishnah): If one stole a wallet on Shabbos he must pay, because the theft was [once he picked it up,] before the Chilul Shabbos (taking it outside);

If he dragged the wallet [from Reshus ha'Yachid to a shoulder of Reshus ha'Rabim], he is exempt, because he acquires the theft at the same moment that he is Mechalel Shabbos.

If Eged Kli Shmei Eged, even if he dragged it the theft comes first (once the money is outside, for can remove it through the opening of the wallet; Chilul Shabbos is not until the entire wallet is outside)!

Answer: That assumes he was dragging it with the opening facing forward - however, the case is, he dragged it backwards (the opening is the last part to enter Reshus ha'Rabim, even if Lo Shmei Eged the theft and Chilul Shabbos occur at once).

Question: He can (Tosfos - easily) tear the wallet by the seams [and remove the money before the opening leaves]!

Answer: The case is, the wallet contains long ingots (pieces of silver; he acquires only after they are totally outside).

Question: Since there are laces, once the opening is outside he acquires, Chilul Shabbos is not until the laces are outside [if Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged]!

Answer #1: The case is, there are no laces.

Answer #2: The laces are wrapped around it (they are outside by the time the opening is outside).

(Rava): The Mishnah applies only to a basket full of cucumbers and gourds, but if it is full of mustard, he is liable.

Inference: He holds that Eged Kli Lo Shmei Eged [like Chizkiyah].

(Abaye): The Mishnah applies even to a basket full of mustard.

Inference: He holds that Eged Kli Shmei Eged [like R. Yochanan].

Abaye and Rava both retracted and switched their opinions, contradicting what they taught [previously] elsewhere (Tosfos - the Gemara has a tradition that the above teaching was last):

(Abaye): If one was Motzi produce to Reshus ha'Rabim in his hand [but part of his body is still in Reshus ha'Yachid] he is liable (Eged Yad Lo Shmei Eged); if he was Motzi in a Kli [and part of the Kli is still inside] he is exempt (Eged Kli Shmei Eged);

(Rava): If he was Motzi in his hand he is exempt; if he was Motzi in a Kli he is liable.

Resolution: The opinions must be switched - Rava is Mechayev if he was Motzi in his hand.

Question (Mishnah): If the Ba'al ha'Bayis takes an object [from inside] and sticks it outside, and the Oni takes it from his hand, or if the Oni puts an object in the Ba'al ha'Bayis' hand (outside) and the Ba'al ha'Bayis withdraws his hand, both are exempt.

Answer: There, his hand is three Tefachim above the ground (he is exempt because the object is not considered at rest, not on account of Eged Yad), here it is within three.

(Mishnah): One is liable for Hotza'ah whether he was Motzi in his right or left hand, his bosom or on his shoulder, because this is how Benei Kehas carried (Rashi - from Kehas we learn carrying on the shoulder - we need not find sources for the others, they are normal ways of carrying; Rav Hai Gaon, citing Yerushalmi - Elazar used to carry four things at once in these four ways).

One is exempt if he was Motzi on the back of his hand (Tosfos' text; our text - awkwardly, i.e.) on his foot, in his mouth, elbow, ear, or hair, in his moneybelt when the opening faced down, between his belt and cloak, in the hem (Aruch - sleeve) of his cloak, in his shoe or sandal, because he was not Motzi normally. (We do not discuss Hotza'ah of food in the mouth, that is normal.)

(Gemara - R. Elazar): If one was Motzi something more than 10 Tefachim above the ground he is liable, for this is how Benei Kehas carried. (Rambam - he teaches about carrying on the shoulder, like Benei Kehas, lest one [assume that since Reshus ha'Rabim only extends 10 Tefachim off the ground, one is exempt for a load within 10, and] limit the Mishnah to discuss one whose shoulder is within 10 of the ground (i.e. a midget) or a load that hangs within 10. Rashi - he teaches about carrying by hand - the Mishnah already teaches about carrying on the shoulder [even if the load is totally above 10; Ritva - one is obviously liable for this, since it rests on his shoulder and he is on the ground].)

Question: What is the source of this? (Me'iri - we ask the Tana's source to obligate above 10 on the shoulder - all the more so one is liable for in the hand, it is the primary way to carry.)

Answer #1: "Al ha'Mishkan v'Al ha'Mizbe'ach Soviv" - this equates the Mizbe'ach to the Mishkan:

Just like the Mishkan was 10 Amos tall - "Eser Amos Orech ha'Karesh" - also the Mizbe'ach was 10 tall;

(Rav): "Va'Yifros Es ha'Ohel Al ha'Mishkan" - Moshe spread the curtains over the Mishkan - this teaches that Leviyim were 10 Amos tall. (We assume that all Leviyim were like Moshe. Rav Hai Gaon's text, brought in Rashba - the Leviyim had to be 10 Amos tall to cover the Mizbe'ach - "U'Forsu Alav Kesuy Or Tachash" (Bamidbar 4:14), we do not learn from Moshe.)

We have a tradition - when something is carried on poles, a third is above [the poles], two thirds are below.

Since they carried the Mizbe'ach on their shoulders (about nine Amos above the ground), and only two thirds of it (less than seven Amos) were below, the bottom was more than two Amos, i.e. more than 10 Tefachim above the ground.

Answer #2: We learn from the Aron (even if the Leviyim were our height, i.e. three Amos (18 Tefachim) up to the shoulder. Rashi - in any case, we must say that the Leviyim who carried the Mizbe'ach were about seven Amos, for this much was below the poles - nevertheless, we assume that Nos'ei ha'Aron were our height. Alternatively, one could say that Answer #2 is according to the opinion that the Mizbe'ach was only three Amos tall (like the simple understanding of Shemos 27:1), and Leviyim (except for Moshe) were our height - PF.)

The Aron was nine Tefachim tall, the Kapores (its cover) was one Tefach; When something is carried on poles, two thirds are below (in this case less than seven Tefachim, therefore, the bottom was more than 10 Tefachim high).

Question: Why doesn't Answer #2 learn from Moshe that Leviyim were 10 Amos tall?

Answer: There was a special reason why he was tall:

The Shechinah only rests on a Chacham who is mighty, wealthy, and tall.

(Rav): If one was Motzi on his head [without holding it] he is liable, for this is how people in Hutzal carry [jugs of water].

Objection: Do people in Hutzal comprise the majority of the world, that they determine what is normal?!

Correction: Rather, if someone from Hutzal was Motzi on his head he is liable, for this is how people in his city carry.

Objection: We should not be concerned for his conduct, the Halachah is based on normal people!

Correction: Rather, if someone was Motzi on his head he is exempt;

Question: But this is how people in Hutzal carry!

Answer: We are not concerned for them, the Halachah is based on normal people.

(Mishnah): If someone intended to carry something in front of himself and it swung around to his back, he is exempt;

If he intended to carry it in back and it swung around to his front, he is liable (this will be explained).

In truth, they said that a woman wearing [and carrying something in] a Sinar (short pants under her garment) is liable in either case, because it normally goes back and forth.

R. Yehudah says, also letter carriers are liable in this way

(Gemara) Question: When he intended for in front and it went in back he is exempt, for his intent was not fulfilled - the same should apply when he intended for in back and it went in front!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): We must say that different Tana'im taught these clauses.

Answer #2 (Rava): This is not difficult - when he intended for in front and it went in back he is exempt, for he intended to guard it well and he guarded it poorly - the other way around he is liable, for he intended to guard it poorly and he guarded it well!

Question (Rava): The inferences contradict each other!

The Reisha exempts when he intended for in front and it went in back - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be liable;

The Seifa is Mechayev when he intended for in back and it went in front - but had he intended for in back and it went in back, he would be exempt!

Answer #1 (R. Elazar): We must say that different Tana'im taught these clauses.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): This is not difficult - the Seifa teaches a bigger Chidush:

[The inference from] the Reisha is Mechayev when he intended for in back and it went in back - his intent was fulfilled;

In the Seifa he intended for in back and it went in front - one might have thought he is exempt because his intent was not fulfilled - the Seifa teaches unlike this, he is liable because he intended to guard it poorly and he guarded it well!

Tana'im argue about when he intended for in back and it went in back:

(Beraisa): If one was Motzi coins in his moneybelt when the opening faced up, he is liable;

If the opening faced down, R. Yehudah is Mechayev, Chachamim exempt.

R. Yehudah: Don't you agree that if he intended for in back and it went in back, he is liable!

Chachamim: Don't you agree that if he was Motzi in back of his hand (alternatively - awkwardly) [or] on his foot, he is exempt!

R. Yehudah: I had one proof for myself, Chachamim had one proof for themselves - neither of us could answer the other's proof.

Suggestion: Since he said 'Don't you agree [that if he intended for in back and it went in back, he is liable]', this implies that Chachamim exempt!

Rejection: If so, since they said 'Don't you agree that if he was Motzi in back of his hand or on his foot, he is exempt', you must say that R. Yehudah is Mechayev - but this is not so!

(Beraisa): If he was Motzi in back of his hand or on his foot, all agree that he is exempt.

Retraction: Rather, all agree that if he intended for in back and it went in back, he is liable; all agree that if he was Motzi in back of his hand or on his foot, he is exempt;

They argue about if one was Motzi coins in his moneybelt when the opening faced down - R. Yehudah equates this intent for in back and it went in back; Chachamim equate this to Hotza'ah in back of his hand or on his foot.

(Mishnah): In truth, they said that a woman...

(Beraisa): Whenever it says 'In truth, they said', this is a tradition [from Moshe from Sinai].

R. Yehudah says, also letter carriers are liable in this way.

(Beraisa): This is because the king's couriers also carry this way (Tosfos - the letter goes back and forth; Rashi - their intent is not fulfilled, i.e. they must give letters to [other] couriers to whom they did not originally intend to give).

(Mishnah): If one was Motzi a loaf to Reshus ha'Rabim he is liable;

If two people were Motzi it, they are exempt;

If one person could not Motzi it and two people were Motzi it, they are liable;

R. Shimon exempts.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): If two people did a Melachah together, and either one of them could have done it himself, R. Meir is Mechayev, R. Yehudah and R. Shimon exempt;

If neither of them could have done it himself, R. Yehudah and R. Meir Mechayev, R. Shimon exempts;

If one of them could have done it himself but not the other, all agree that he is liable (this will be explained).

Support (Beraisa): If one was Motzi a loaf to Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable;

R. Meir says, if two people were Motzi it, they are liable;

R. Yehudah says, if one person could not Motzi it and two were Motzi it, they are liable; if not, they are exempt;

R. Shimon exempts.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): "Ba'Asosah" - one who does the entire [transgression], not one who does part;

Suggestion: Perhaps two who did Melachah together are liable, e.g. they held a pitchfork and turned over grain (made piles), or held a pointed Kli and evened the warp threads, or held a quill and wrote, or held a reed and were Motzi it to Reshus ha'Rabim!

Rejection: "Ba'Asosah" - one who does it all, not one who does part.