1)

(a)When quoting Tana'im, Rav Asi gave the smallest Shi'ur (regarding earthenware vessels) as vessels that let in liquid - he pointed out that there is a smaller hole than that (namely, 'Motzi Mashkeh', one that lets liquid out [i.e. that leak]), only that Shi'ur is confined to broken pieces of earthenware, and not to vessels ...

(b)... which become Pasul with even such small hole, because nobody brings a broken chard to place under a broken chard (as we learned earlier), as Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman explains.

(c)Ula refers to a Machlokes between two Amora'im in Eretz Yisrael (Rebbi Yossi bar Avin and Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida) regarding the size hole that will render seeds in a plant-pot Mechubar. One gives the Shi'ur as 'ke'Motzi Rimon', the otherm as 'k'Motzi Zayis'.

(d)To remind us that neither opinion gave the middle Shi'ur of ke'Motzi Zayis, Ula gave the Siman of 'Echad ha'Marbeh ve'Echad ha'Mam'it u'Vilevad ... (It doesn't matter whether one gives a lot or a little, what matters is that one devotes one's heart to Hash-m)'. The opening words of the Simon imply the two extremes, precluding the middle alternative.

2)

(a)Rav Chin'na bar Kahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer states that the Shi'ur of a hole in earthenware vessels is the size of an olive, to which Mar Keshisha b'rei de'Rabah adds that they are then like stone, marble or earth vessels - which are not subject to Tum'ah.

(b)And the Mishnah in Kelim, which specifies the size of a hole in vessels belonging to Ba'alei-Batim as that of a pomegranate, before the vessel loses its status - is talking (not about earthenware vessels but) about wooden vessels.

(c)For an earthenware vessel that is sealed to lose its power to protect what is inside it, he gives the Shi'ur as - 'ad she'Yipaches Rubo' (as we learned earlier).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who throws from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, or vice-versa - is Chayav.

(b)Rebbi Akiva adds 'ha'Zorek me'Reshus ha'Yachid li'Reshus ha'Yachid, u'Reshus ha'Rabim be'Emtza' to the above. The Chachamim however, rule - that he is Patur.

(c)Our Mishnah presents Reshus ha'Yachid in the form of Gezuztera'os - projections that protrude from of a wall, on which planks are placed, along which one would walk.

4)

(a)The Chachamim hold Patur by Zorek, irrespective of the juxtaposition of the two Reshus ha'Yachids and the Reshus ha'Rabim. Not so 'Moshit' (handing from one to the other) - where they concede to Rebbi Akiva that he is Chayav, provided the Reshus ha'Yachid to which one hands it is alongside the one where he is standing, but not if it is on the other side of the street.

(b)The reason for this distinction is - because, when loading or unloading the sections of the Mishkan onto or from the wagons, the Levi'im used to hand the planks along the street, from one wagon to another, but never across the street ...

(c)... since the Levi'im who dismantled the Mishkan were able to hand the planks to whichever of the two wagons standing before them side by side, so what would have been the point of the Levi'im handing planks to the Levi'im standing in the wagon next to theirs..

(d)One is not however, Chayav for Zorek - because a. it is higher than ten Tefachim, and b. they did not throw anything in the Mishkan (and the planks were too heavy to throw).

5)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayakhel "va'Yetzav Moshe, va'Ya'aviru Kol ba'Machaneh" - the Melachah of Hotza'ah (the prohibition of carrying from the Reshus ha'Yachid [from their private homes] to the Reshus ha'Rabim (the Machaneh Levi'ah).

(b)We know that Pasuk is speaking about the Isur Shabbos (and is not just to inform us that there was sufficient material for the Mishkan' and no more was needed) - from a Gezeirah Shavah "Ha'avarah" "Ha'avarah" - from Yom Kippur of Yovel, where the Torah writes in Behar "ve'Ha'avarta Shofar Teru'ah", from which we extrapolate that just as over there, there is an Isur on the day, so too here, we are speaking when there is an Isur on the day (See Tosfos DH 'u'Mimai').

(c)We now know the Isur of Hotza'ah. That of Hachnasah - we learn from a S'vara, because if one is Chayav for carrying from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, then why should one not be Chayav for carrying from a Reshus ha'Rabim to a Reshus ha'Yachid?

(d)The basic difference between them is - that Hotza'ah is an Av, and Hachnasah, a Toldah.

6)

(a)Whether one transgresses an Av or a Toldah, one is Chayav a Chatas, be'Shogeg, and Kares or Sekilah, be'Mezid, and the difference between them is - that someone who transgresses two different Avos or two Toldos of two different Avos, is Chayav two Chata'os; whereas for an Av and its Toldah, or for two Toldos of the same Av, one would be Chayav only one.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer- one is Chayav two Chata'os for transgressing an Av and its Toldah.

(c)According to Rebbi Eliezer, there really is no practical difference between an Av and a Toldah - other than that any significant Melachah that was performed in the Mishkan is referred to as an Av, and any Melachah that was not, or, even if it was, but it was not significant, is referred to as a Toldah.

7)

(a)The Mishnah later, rules that someone who throws four Amos on a wall above ten Tefachim, is Patur, below ten Tefachim, he is Chayav. This speaks - when he throws a sticky object, such as a dried fig, which then sticks to the side of the wall.

(b)He is Patur if it lands above ten Tefachim - because the air above ten Tefachim no longer belongs to the Reshus ha'Rabim, but is a Makom Petur.

(c)If it lands below ten Tefachim, he is Chayav, because it has landed in the Reshus ha'Rabim. It cannot be considered a Karmelis or a Makom Petur, since it has not landed on a specific area - only in the air (and a Karmelis and a Makom Petur are defined as specific areas).

8)

(a)We reject the suggestion that one is Chayav for throwing below ten Tefachim because ...

1. ... the weavers of the curtains would throw their needles to one another (Rebbi Yashiyah) - on the grounds that weavers do not use needles.

2. ... the people who sewed the curtains would throw their needles to each other (Rebbi Yashiyah) - since they probably worked one beside the other, and would therefore have been able to hand them to one another without throwing them.

3. ... the weavers would throw the shuttle between the walls of the weaving-loom (Rav Chisda) - a. because they would still be holding on to the thread, and one is not Chayav unless one leaves go of the end, b. because the space between the walls of the weaving-loom is no larger than a Makom Petur, for which one would not be Chayav anyway.

4. ... they would throw the shuttle to one another - since, seeing as they worked close to another, this would not have been necessary (as we explained in connection with those who sewed the curtains).

(b)Even though they sat one beside the other, they would avoid knocking each other - by sitting with their looms, in a staggered position.

(c)Luda (or Levi) learned from the Pasuk "Ish Ish mi'Melachto Asher Heimah Osim" - that each person who worked for the Mishkan was given his own tools, and that it was unnecessary to borrow from one another.

9)

(a)We have no suggestion as to how carrying four Amos in the street was performed in the Mishkan.

(b)We therefore immediately conclude that carrying four Amos in the street is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (and that is also the only genuine source for throwing four Amos in the street).

10)

(a)The Melachah which the 'Mekoshesh' might have transgressed is carrying four Amos in the street (Ma'avir), cutting wood (from the tree [Tolesh]) - and piling up wood (Me'amer).

(b)Rav found a Megilas S'tarim, in which Isi ben Yehudah wrote that there is one Melachah for which one is not Chayav Misah. Once we know for which Melachah the Mekoshesh was Chayav, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains, we know that this Melachah is not the one in question.

(c)A Megilas S'tarim - is notes which the Tana'im used to write secretly, and to hide - since writing Torah she'be'Al Peh in an official capacity, was initially prohibited.