Summary:
רבא asked מ"ש because he assumed that the two חצרים were on two sides of a רה"ר or there was no רה"ר between them; however if they were בדיוטא אחת there is the issue of מושיט מרה"י לרה"י דרך רה"ר.
And do we then say to a person, ‘sin in order to benefit your friend’ - וכי אומרים לו לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חבירך
Summary:
We say חטא בשביל שיזכה חבירך if, a) he is causing the (greater) sin [and the act of the sin was not yet done], b) the sinner is not a פושע, c) it is a מצוה רבה or a מצוה דרבים.
Before he will come to transgress a סקילה prohibition - קודם שיבא לידי איסור סקילה
Summary:
There is no punishment for transgressing an איסור if בי"ד prohibits us from acting in a way to prevent this punishment. התראת ספק is only where an action is required to activate the punishment; if the איסור will be done unless an action is taken then it is not התראת ספק.
But we require an עקירה and a הנחה from a place that is four טפחים, etc. - 'והא בעינן עקירה והנחה מעל מקום ד
Summary:
The two sources from where we know that a מקום ד' על ד' טפחים is required for עקירה והנחה are:
1) Presumably no one places on object on a space less that 'ד , therefore we canassume that in the משכן this was the case as well.
2) There is a פסוק which says אל יצא איש ממקומו, which may be understood to mean that one should not carry out something from its place, since the פסוק refers to the resting place of the object with the word ממקומו, the פסוק is telling us that it requires a formal and significant resting place.
But higher than ten, everyone agrees that he is פטור, etc. - אבל למעלה מי' דברי הכל פטור
Summary:
תוספות initially proved that מושיט is 'חייב למטה מי from the fact that רבה concluded אבל למעלה מי' ד"ה פטור דלא ילפינן זורק ממושיט , instead of saying אבל למעלה מי' ד"ה חייב דילפינן זורק ממושיט, because if we would say the latter we would have the problem why the חכמים maintain פטור by 'זורק למטה מי. However 'תוס concludes that in reality there would be no difficulty if רבה would conclude למעלה מי' ד"ה חייב, because the מחלוקת is בזו כנגד זו, and therefore the real reason why the גמרא does not say למעלה מי' ד"ה חייב, is in order not to contradict the משנה in הזורק, which states clearly that הזורק פטור.
For ר"ע maintains we derive throwing from passing - דרבי עקיבא סבר ילפינן זורק ממושיט
Summary:
There are exceptions to rule that all תולדות of הוצאה have to be in the משכן, namely זורק, because it is so similar to מושיט (or מוציא), therefore it may be חייב even if was not in the משכן.
However below ten טפחים, all agree that he is חייב, because we assume that קלוטה כמי שהונחה; being contained in the airspace of a רשות, is considered as if it rests there - אבל למטה מי' דברי הכל חייב דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה
Summary:
It is preferable to reconcile a משנה with all known opinions, than to reconcile a ברייתא with any of these opinions.
For we maintain קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא, etc, - דאמרינן קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא
Summary:
תוספות offers three explanations why the גמרא assumed that רבה is of the opinion that the מחלוקת between ר"ע וחכמים is whether or not we say קלוטה, etc.
1. רבה said so explicitly in our גמרא, etc.
2. רבה must be certain of the reason behind the מחלוקת to state that the משנה is ר"ע and not the רבנן, for if רבה was not certain, then there is a third option, in which no one maintains קלוטה, etc .
3. The two concepts קלוטה and ילפינן זורק ממושיט contradict each other.
