(a)We have already quoted Rav Bibi bar Abaye's She'eilah, whether someone who stuck bread into a lit oven on Shabbos is permitted to remove it, before he becomes Chayav Chatas. What forces us to suggest that the She'eilah pertains to a second man, who wants to spare his friend from a Chiyuv Chatas, rather than to the man who actually stuck the bread in the oven?
(b)Why does the Gemara not want to learn that he stuck the bread in the oven be'Meizid?
(c)On what grounds do we reject the above contention that it is indeed a second man who is in question?
(d)How do we finally explain Rav Bibi's She'eilah?
(a)We have already quoted Rav Bibi bar Abaye's She'eilah, whether someone who stuck bread into a lit oven on Shabbos is permitted to remove it, before he becomes Chayav Chatas. The reason that we suggest that the She'eilah pertains to a second man, who wants to spare his friend from a Chiyuv Chatas, rather than to the man who actually stuck the bread in the oven is - because of the following problem: Since we are speaking be'Shogeg (i.e. with regard to preventing him from bringing a Chatas), there are two possibilities: Either he is not aware of what he has done, in which case what is the point in permitting him to remove the bread? Or he is aware of what he has done, in which case he cannot be called a Shogeg, and he will not be Chayav a Chatas anyway (because one is not called a Shogeg unless he is unaware of his sin from the beginning of the transgression until the end - in this case, until after the bread is fully baked)?
(b)Nor does the Gemara want to establish the She'eilah in a case of Meizid - since Rav Bibi expressly said 'Kodem she'Yavo li'Yedei Isur Chatas'.
(c)The Gemara then goes on to reject the contention that it is another man whom we are permitting to remove the bread from the oven - because of the principle 've'Chi Omrim Lo le'Adam Chatei (even by an Isur de'Rabbanan) Kedei she'Yizkeh Chaveiro' (to be spared from transgressing even an Isur Sekilah)? - See Tosfos DH ve'Chi'.
(d)We conclude that Rav Bibi's She'eilah speaks in a case of Meizid (and not Shogeg, as we learned until now), and his statement must be re-worded, to read 'Kodem she'Yavo li'Yedei Isur Sekilah.
(a)The object which is being transferred in our Mishnah, is placed in the poor or the rich man's hand. What problem do we have with that?
(b)We want to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that someone who throws an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav. What are we assuming Rebbi Akiva's reasoning to be, and at what height must the object be traveling?
(c)What do the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva hold?
(a)The object which is being transferred in our Mishnah is placed in the poor or the rich man's hand. The problem with this is - how can one be Chayav for taking out of, or putting into, someone's hands on Shabbos, when both the Akirah and the Hanachah of an object must be from a 'Makom Chashuv, and onto a Makom Chashuv?
(b)We want to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that someone who throws an object from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav. We are assuming that when Rebbi Akiva obligates someone who throws from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another, via a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is speaking at a height of below ten Tefachim, and that the thrower is Chayav because of the principle of 'Kelutah ke'Mi she'Hunchah Dami' - meaning that as soon as the object reaches the airspace of a certain domain it is as if it is resting on the floor of that domain. Consequently, in our case, he will consider the object, which is passing through the Reshus ha'Rabim, to have rested on the street, and the thrower will be Chayav.
(c)The Rabbanan hold that 'Kelutah La'av Ke'mi she'Hunchah Dami'.(Incidentally, according to this interpretation), both will agree that, above ten Tefachim, the thrower will be Patur).
(a)How else could we explain the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan, in a way that would prevent us from establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, to answer our original Kashya?
(b)What is the Gemara's objection to this answer (establishing our Mishnah vis-a-vis both Akirah and Hanachah like Rebbi Akiva)?
(a)One could also establish the Machlokes at above ten Tefachim - and they would be arguing over whether we learn the Din of Zorek (throwing) from Moshit (handing over): Rebbi Akiva holds that, just as when someone hands over an object to his friend (from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another via a Reshus ha'Rabim) at a height of above ten Tefachim, he is Chayav (as we shall see in Perek ha'Zorek), so too, will he be Chayav if he throws it above ten Tefachim; the Rabbanan, on the other hand, do not learn Zorek from Moshit.
(b)We have only proved that Rebbi Akiva does not require the Hanachah to be onto to a Makom Chashuv, but who says that the Akirah does not need to be from a Makom Chashuv (seeing as he says nothing about being Chayav two Chata'os, only one)?
(a)The Gemara then tries to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi. Why can this not be referring to the Beraisa which discusses someone who throws something which lands on a tiny 'Ziz', where Rebbi holds Chayav? How does the Gemara explain the basis of that Machlokes?
(b)The Gemara then tries to connect our Mishnah with Rebbi in the Beraisa of 'Zarak me'Reshus ha'Rabim li'Reshus ha'Rabim, u'Reshus ha'Yachid be'Emtza, Rebbi Mechayev, va'Chachamim Potrin'. How many Chata'os will he have to bring according to Rebbi, and how will that solve our problem of 'Makom Chashuv'?
(c)How do we reject this explanation too (by establishing the Beraisa by a roofed Reshus ha'Yachid)?
(d)So why can our Mishnah also not be speaking when there is a roof?
(a)We then try to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi. This cannot be referring to the Beraisa which discusses someone who throws something which lands on a tiny 'Ziz', where Rebbi holds Chayav - because that Beraisa speaks when someone threw less than four Amos in the street, and it landed on the tip of a branch (the Ziz in the Beraisa) which protruded into the street from a tree which grew in a Reshus ha'Yachid. Rebbi considers the branch as being in the same Reshus as the tree, whereas the Rabbanan do not.
(b)The Gemara then tries to connect our Mishnah with Rebbi in the Beraisa of 'Zarak me'Reshus ha'Rabim li'Reshus ha'Rabim, u'Reshus ha'Yachid be'Emtza, Rebbi Mechayev, va'Chachamim Potrin'. According to Rebbi - he will have to bring two Chata'os, one for throwing from the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, and the other for throwing from the Reshus ha'Yachid into the Reshus ha'Rabim. So we see that Rebbi does not require a Makom Chashuv, either for the Akirah or for the Hanachah. Consequently, the author of our Mishnah would appear to be Rebbi.
(c)We reject this explanation too - by establishing the Reshus ha'Yachid in the Beraisa as being roofed, in which case Rebbi maintains 'Beisa Ke'ma'an de'Malya Dami' (we reckon the house as if it was solid). Consequently, one did, in effect, make an Akirah and a Hanachah in a Makom Chashuv.
(d)Establishing our Mishnah of Ashir and Ani too, by a roofed Reshus, will not solve our problem, since Rebbi's Chidush is confined to a Reshus ha'Yachid, and our Mishnah speaks about a Reshus ha'Rabim, too (which, according to Rebbi, would lose its status as a Reshus ha'Rabim).
(a)From where do we know that Rebbi's Chidush of 'Beisa ka'Ma'an de'Malya Dami' does not apply to a covered Reshus ha'Rabim?
(a)We know that Rebbi's Chidush of 'Beisa ka'Ma'an de'Malya Dami' does not apply to a covered Reshus ha'Rabim - from Rav, who is quoted as saying that someone who carries an object four Amos in a covered street is Patur, since it is not similar to the camp of Yisrael in the desert - from which we can see, that a covered street is considered, not a Reshus ha'Yachid, but a Karmelis.