Distinction: However, the Reisha does not discuss a clasp on a rope.

Implied question: Even if he did not remember, he is exempt, since a dog caught it or it was burned! Why does it say that he remembered?

Answer: This teaches that even if he remembered, he is exempt only because a dog caught it or it burned, for it did not rest. Had it rested, he would be liable.

Explanation: The case of wounding discusses a clasp on a rope. (He holds the rope and could stop the clasp. Therefore, if he remembers before it wounds, he is exempt.)

Question #1 (Ri): Why did it need to teach the case of wounding? What is the difference between wounding and carrying?

Question #2: Also, according to Rava, who says that the Mishnah taught two matters, why did it teach the case of wounding? Since he taught that if he threw and remembered, he is exempt, the same applies to wounding. What is the difference?! (Chasam Sofer - one might have thought that one who threw is exempt when he remembers in the middle, for he wants it to rest before going four Amos, lest he be liable, therefore Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah applies. This does not apply to wounding. And one might have thought that carrying four Amos is a tradition, and it is even if he remembered in the middle.)

Implied question: This is not literally Chisurei Mechsara. We can explain the Mishnah like this, the way it was taught (without changing the text)!

Answer: Rather, in order to explain it, he calls it Chisurei Mechsara.

Implied question: When the Shi'ur completed, he was Mezid!

Answer: Since at the beginning of throwing he was Shogeg, and he cannot retract it, and also Hanachah was b'Shogeg, it is as if from the beginning to the end is one Shegagah.

Assertion: The text does not say "it was Nachah (rested) in a dog's mouth", for Nachah connotes by itself (the thrower did not intend for this);

This is like R. Yochanan said above (5a), that if he threw an item and it was Nach in his friend's hand, he is liable, and we conclude that the Chidush is, even though he did not specifically intend [that it land in his hand];

Here, [Rava] concludes that he intends, and his intent causes that it is considered an [important] place [for Hanachah].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It mentioned Shabbos, for he would not be liable for [Hotza'ah] on Yom Kipur, for there is no need for an Eruv and no [Isur] of Hotza'ah on Yom Kipur.

Rebuttal: This is not the conclusion in Kerisus (14a). Rafram explained so, but his words were rejected!

Explanation #2: We conclude that it mentioned Shabbos in order to increase the number of Chata'os, and obligate him even for Shabbos and Yom Kipur.

Explanation: All of the Chiyuvim come at once, for swallowing it is Hanachah, even though he is walking, like we say that writing letters is their Hanachah (to be liable for Hotza'ah of the ink).

Implied question: His mouth is above 10 [Tefachim], and it is not four wide!

Answer #1: It is Batel to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the shuttle used to weave curtains? It says above (96b) that it goes in a Mekom Petur (between the warp threads, so he is exempt)!

Answer: There, the place is fixed (so it is not Batel). It is like a basket. It says above (5a) that below 10 it is [Batel to] Reshus ha'Rabim;

Here, even above 10 [his mouth] is Batel to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Answer #2: One who carries above 10, this is like below 10, and it is considered to be resting in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: We must give a reason why building was taught after throwing and Hotza'ah!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He bangs the rock after quarrying (removing the small stones around what he wants to take from the mountain).

Rebuttal (Ri): There was no building of rocks in the Mishkan. The Tana would not abandon final Melachah of Kelim that was in the Mishkan, and discuss Makeh b'Patish of a rock, which was not in the Mishkan!

Explanation #2 (Ri): This Makeh b'Patish is the final bang on the Kli at the time of final Melachah.

Observation: Only here we need to explain that there was like this (a tiny amount of Binyan) in the Mishkan, for Binyan Kol she'Hu is not important;

However, one who is Motzi Kol she'Hu of pine oil or pepper (above, 90a), it is logical that he is liable.

Explanation: The text does not say "due to Makeh b'Patish", for in the conclusion, we establish it to discuss bottom rocks. Makeh b'Patish does not apply to them;

Also, [the text does not say so, because] we still discuss Binyan.

Explanation: The text does not say "R. Yosi says, even if he put on...", for if it says so, why does [the Gemara] say [to the Makshan "this is difficult also] according to you!"? Rabanan argue with [R. Yosi]! (According to this text, the Gemara should have said that Shmuel holds like R. Yosi. "Ul'Taimech" connotes "what you said is difficult.") Also in the Tosefta, it is not in the text.

Question #1: According to Rav, who says due to building, why did [the Mishnah] interrupt with Makeh b'Patish between quarrying rocks and drilling, which are both due to building?

Question #2: Also according to Shmuel, both should be taught together!

Implied question: We hold that Binyan does not apply to Kelim!

Answer (Ri): This is only regarding returning shutters, or a Menorah or rings. However, one is liable for total building of Kelim, just like for [building on] land.

Source: We say above (47a) regarding a bed of Tarsiyim that if he inserted forcefully, he is Chayav Chatas, and one who returns branches of a Menorah or [a flute] in a round horn [a musical instrument with holes] is Chayav Chatas. There is no difference between Kelim and land;

However, in a place where it is not wedged tightly and there is no professional skill [to do so], it is not considered Binyan in a Kli, and for land it is considered Binyan.

Implied question: In Eruvin (35a), regarding one who put [an Eruv] in a tower [and lost the key], Rabah and Rav Yosef establish this to discuss a wooden tower. (Chachamim are Machshir, for he could take it Bein ha'Shemashos without an Isur Torah. R. Eliezer disagrees);

[Chachamim] hold that [a tower] is a Kli, and there is no Binyan [or Stirah] in Kelim!

Answer: There we discuss a lock [on the tower] tied with ropes, like Abaye concludes in the end. (The Tana'im argue about whether one may take a knife to break them. Rabah and Rav Yosef) did not need to explain [that there is a lock tied with ropes], for it is obvious that we discuss this, for if not, Binyan and Stirah apply to Kelim!

Support: Abaye establishes it when there is a lock tied with ropes. It is like all tied seals on Kelim. [This implies that] if not, it would be forbidden!

Implied question: At the beginning of the Sugya, it asked "why [are Chachamim Machshir? Since he cannot access his Eruv, it is as if] he and his Eruv are in different places! A Stam tower is of wood; it is a Kli, like is proven in several places! (Just like the Torah forbids only total Binyan, it forbids only total Stirah!)

Answer: Initially it thought that we discuss when it is impossible to take the Eruv, if not through total Stirah.

Explanation (Ri): Shmuel does not consider [making a hole in a chicken coop] to be Boneh, because this opening is not considered to be for entrance and exit. (See below, 146a.)

Observation: Also from the first and last cases, we would not know the middle. (The previous Tosfos connotes that they argue about whether or not the opening is considered to be for entrance and exit. We cannot learn this from the other cases.)