1)

(a)If someone drags a purse without straps which is full of money from the owner's domain to his own, and places it half in the owner's domain and half in his own, he will ...

1. ... acquire the money that is inside his domain - either if the opening of the purse is in his domain, or if it has loose stitches (see Tosfos, DH 'de'I'), which make it easy to open and take out the coins.

2. ... not acquire it however - if it neither has loose straps nor loose stitches.

(b)He will not acquire its contents however, even if it has stitches, if it contains long bars of silver (which he would not be able to take via the location of the stitches).

(c)The problem we still have with this is - that even if the purse contains silver, if it has straps, he will acquire the purse as soon as he reaches the opening of the purse, since he is now able to open it and to extract the silver, whereas as far as Shabbos is concerned, since the straps are still inside, the purse too, is considered to be inside, and the Melachah has not been completed.

(d)One answer we give is that the Tana is speaking in a case where there are no straps. The other - that its straps are wound round it (so that it is not possible to take out the purse without the straps.

2)

(a)We initially establish Rava like Chizkiyah ('Agad Kli Lo Sh'mei Eged'). Abaye holds - ('Agad Kli Sh'mei Eged') like Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)We conclude - that they actually switched opinions (and Rava holds like Rebbi Yochanan).

(c)In an independent Machlokes, Abaye holds that someone who transfers fruit into the street with his hand is Chayav; in a Kli, he is Patur. Rava says - 'be'Yad Patur, bi'Cheli, Chayav'.

(d)According to Rava, he is ...

1. ... Patur be'Yad - because he holds 'Agad Gufo Sh'mei Eged' (his hand goes after his body, which has not left the Reshus ha'Yachid).

2. ... Chayav bi'Cheli - because he holds 'Agad Kli Lo Sh'mei Eged' (like Chizkiyah).

(e)We reconcile Rava's latter ruling with our previous conclusion - by once again switching the opinions of Abaye and Rava (so that Rava holds like Rebbi Yochanan).

3)

(a)We will reconcile Rava ('be'Yad Chayav') with the Mishnah in the first Perek, which declares Patur , a poor man and a rich man who transfer bread or a basket from one domain to the other with their hands (which seems to hold 'Yado Basar Gufo Gereirah') - by establishing the latter when they are holding the basket and the bread above three Tefachim, whereas Rava is speaking below three Tefachim.

(b)The reason that he is ...

1. ... Patur when the hand is above three Tefachim is - because 'Agad Gufo Sh'mei Eged' (as we explained).

2. ... Chayav when the hand is lower than three Tefachim is - because (based on the principle of 'Levud'), whatever is within three Tefachim of the ground is considered as having as being on the ground.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules - that someone who carries with his left hand, in his bosom or on his shoulders is Chayav.

(b)We learn this from ...

1. ... the 'Masa Bnei Kehas' - who carried the holy vessels on their shoulders, and from ...

2. ... Elazar ha'Kohen - who carried the oil for the Menorah and the anointing oil - one in his right hand, and one in his left; the Ketores in his bosom, and the flour for Aharon's Minchas Chavitin (see Rashash) on his shoulder - a clear source for all of these being considered carrying on Shabbos.

(c)The Tana - declares Patur someone who carries on Shabbos 'ke'le'Achar Yad'.

(d)He includes in 'ke'le'Achar Yad', carrying with the back of one's hand, with one's feet, one's mouth, under the arm-pit, and in one's ear or hair. Besides carrying in one's shoe or sandal, the Mishnah includes in 'ke'le'Achar Yad' - carrying in a money-belt which is tied upside-down, between one's money-belt and one's shirt, and in the hem of his shirt.

5)

(a)Rebbi Elazar declares Chayav someone who carries above ten Tefachim. He is not speaking about carrying on one's shoulders (like the Mishnah is) - but about carrying something above ten Tefachim which hangs down to a point above ten Tefachim from the ground.

(b)Someone who throws above ten Tefachim - is not included in Rebbi Elazar's ruling . He is Patur (as we shall see in the next Perek [due to the fact that the air above ten Tefachim is not considered part of the Reshus ha'Rabim]).

(c)We learn from the juxtaposition of the Mizbe'ach and the Mishkan, that just as the Mishkan was ten Amos tall (which we know from the given height of the planks), so was the Mizbe'ach (in spite of the fact that the Torah gives the height of the Mizbe'ach as three Amos tall.

(d)Once we know that the height of the Mizbe'ach was ten Amos, and given the fact that the normal way to transport heavy loads is one third above the point of carrying and two thirds below, 6.6 Amos of the Mizbe'ach must have hung below their shoulders. If, as the Gemara currently contends, the Levi'im were ten Amos tall, then the base of the Mizbe'ach will still have been above three Amos (eighteen Tefachim, in fact) from the ground - proving Rebbi Elazar's statement.

6)

(a)Even assuming the Levi'im to have been three Amos tall, like their contemporaries, we can prove Rebbi Elazar's statement (that the Bnei Kehas carried above ten Tefachim) from the Aron - which was ten Tefachim tall, and which was also carried on the shoulders. Once again, two thirds of the Aron - 6.6 Tefachim - will have hung below the Levi'ims' shoulders, leaving over eleven Tefachim between the base of the Aron and the ground (since an average person is three Amos (eighteen Tefachim) not including his head.

(b)We cannot prove that the Levi'im were indeed ten Amos tall, from Moshe, who most certainly was (as we shall now see) - because he may well have been considerably taller than anybody else, since he was the greatest Navi of all times, and we have already learnt that the Shechinah only rests on someone who is a Talmid-Chacham, strong, wealthy and tall. So it does not necessarily follow that all the other Levi'im were as tall as him.

(c)We know that Moshe was at least ten Amos tall - because during the eight days of the Milu'im (inauguration of the Mishkan), he erected the Mishkan (which was ten Amos tall) single-handed.

(d)We reconcile the ten Amos that we ascribed to the Mizbe'ach with the Pasuk in Terumah, which gives its height as three Amos - by establishing the latter as referring to from the Sovev (the ledge) and upwards.

7)

(a)Rav quotes Rebbi Chiya as saying that someone who carries on his head should be Chayav, because that is what the men of Hutzal used to do. Since when are the men of Hutzal the majority of the world, we ask, that we should determine what is the norm by their standards?

(b)And by the same token, if someone from Hutzal carries in this manner - he will be Patur, since it is not he who sets the standard for the rest of the world, but the rest of the world that sets the standard for him.

(c)Rav really quoted Rebbi Chiya as saying - that (based on the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam') someone who carries on his head, is Patur, despite the fact that the Bnei Hutzal carry in that way.

8)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone intends to carry something in front of him, and it moves round to the back, he is Patur; whereas vice-versa, he will be Chayav.

(b)The reason that a woman is Chayeves whether the object that she attached to her underwear moved from the back to the front or from the front to the back, is because she knows at the outset that it will swivel round and doesn't really care how she carries it out.

(c)The Mekablei Pesakim were - dispatch-officers, whose task it was to hand the royal edicts to the runners. Sometimes would not find the runner he intended to give it to, so he would give it to another one (who was not as ideal or reliable as the man to whom he had intended to give it). They were nevertheless Chayav, because it was subject to the royal command, and had to be dispatched immediately (see also Aruch).

(d)The Tana introduces 'ha'Ishah Chogeres be'Sinar' with the words 'be'Emes Amru', which means - that the statement is Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, and cannot be queried.

(e)When Rebbi Elazar remarked on our Mishnah 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu, Lo Shanah Zu', he was referring to - the Tana's differentiating between an article that moved from the back to the front and one that moved from the front to the back.

9)

(a)Rava commented on Rebbi Elazar's remark - that it is unnecessary to make a Machlokes Tana'im out of this issue, because the latter case is Patur, because he ended up downgrading the Shemirah, whereas the former case is Chayav because he ended upgrading it.

(b)To resolve the discrepancy in the inferences of the two sections of our Mishnah, where the Reisha implies that someone who deliberately carries behind him is Chayav, and the Seifa, that he is Patur, Rebbi Elazar explains - that the two statements are learned by different Tana'im (one Tana holds that someone who carries behind him is Chayav, while the other holds that he is Patur).

(c)The reason of those who say Patur is - because this is not the way that one normally transports articles.

(d)Rav Ashi does not consider this a discrepancy. In his opinion - there is more reason to be Mechayev someone who deliberately carries behind him, than someone who intends to carry behind him, and ends up inadvertently carrying in front of him - because the former at least did what he set out to do, whereas the latter did not.

10)

(a)And we cite a Beraisa which declares Chayav someone who carries something in his money-belt. Rebbi Yehudah rules that he is Chayav even if he wears it upside-down - because it is no worse than carrying behind him (which Rebbi Yehudah holds is Chayav).

(b)The Chachamim rule - that he is Patur.

(c)When Rebbi Yehudah asks the Chachamim whether they do not agree with him that someone who deliberately carries an article behind him is Chayav, they countered - by asking him whether he does not agree that someone who carries ke'le'Achar Yad is Patur.

(d)We initially extrapolate from Rebbi Yehudah's question - that the Chachamim do indeed argue with him, and hold that somebody who carries behind him is Patur (creating a Machlokes Tana'im regarding someone who carries behind him) we can deduce that the Rabbanan disagree with him, and hold that someone who carries behind him is Patur.

(e)We refute this proof however, from the Chachamim's counter question whether he does not agree with them that someone who carries ke'le'Achar Yad is Patur - where we cannot say that Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with them in this point (since we learned a Beraisa which specifically states that this ruling is unanimous).

11)

(a)We therefore retract from our original interpretation of the Machlokes. In fact, both Tana'im will agree that someone who ...

1. ... deliberately carries behind him - is Chayav.

2. ... carries ke'le'Achar-Yad - is Patur.

(b)And their bone of contention is whether carrying money in an upside-down money-belt is compared to carrying it behind him (Rebbi Yehudah) or to carrying 'ke'le'Achar Yado' (the Rabbanan).

(c)Regarding the Mekablei Pesakim discussed by Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, it applied to the king's scribes, who used to send their written messages via messengers.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules - that two people who carry a loaf into the street are Patur.

(b)The Tana Kama concedes that if they carry an object that neither of them could have carried on his own, they are Chayav - Rebbi Shimon declares him Patur.

13)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (or Abaye or the Tana of a Beraisa) states that in a case where two people carry an article into the street, and either of them could have carried it on his own, then Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon both declare him Patur, Rebbi Meir - Chayav.

(b)If neither could have carried it on his own, then Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir both declare him Chayav, Rebbi Shimon - Patur.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that in a case where one of them is able to carry it and the other one is not - one of them is Chayav (which one will be ascertained later).