(a)Rav Chanin bar Rava quotes Rav as saying 'Mavoy she'Nifratz mi'Tzido be'Eser, me'Rosho be'Arba'ah'. What is meant by the first part of the statement? Where exactly, is the breach?
(b)What is meant by the second part of the statement?
(c)Seeing as a breach of up to ten Amos at the side of the Mavoy is Kasher (because it is considered an entrance), why should it not also be considered part of the entrance when it is at the front of the Mavoy?
(d)Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Chanin bar Rava. According to him, both invalidate the Mavoy if they are four Tefachim. He attempts to prove his point from Rav, who once arrived in Damcharyah, where he disqualified a Mavoy because of a breach of four Tefachim in one of its side walls. How did Rav Chanin bar Rava refute that proof?
1)
(a)'Mavoy she'Nifratz mi'Tzido, be'Eser' - means that a breach of up to ten Amos along the length of the Mavoy does not invalidate the Mavoy, provided the first four Tefachim are still intact.
(b)'me'Rosho be'Arba'ah' - means - that if the breach occured in the section of ten Amos set up to rectify the entrance that was twenty Amos wide, then four Tefachim invalidate the Mavoy.
(c)The reason that a breach of four Tefachim is not considered an entrance (when it is at the side) is because people do not usually make their entrances at the side.
(d)When Rav disqualified a Mavoy in Damchari'ah (because of a breach of four Tefachim in one of its side walls) it was because the people of Damchari'ah were Amei ha'Aretz, and were not taking the Mitzvos too seriously, that he felt he needed to be strict with them (because strictly speaking, a breach that is not more than ten Amos does not disqualify the Mavoy) - 'like a person makes a fence around a breached open field, to protect it'.
2)
(a)The Gemara tries to prove Rav Huna's Din from the following case: If two Mavo'os leading off from two main roads (or from a bent Reshus ha'Rabim) meet at right angles (to form a square or a rectangle with the two sections of main road from which they branch off), they have a Din of a Mavoy Mefulash according to Rav, and of a Mavoy Sasum according to Shmuel. What are the ramifications of ...
1. ... Rav's interpretation?
2. ... Shmuel's interpretation (according to Rashi's original explanation)?
(b)Why must the Mavo'os be less than ten Amos wide?
(c)How does this prove Rav Huna's opinion?
(d)How does Rav Chanin bar Rava reject this proof?
2)
(a)Each of the two Mavo'os that lead off from the two main roads etc. ...
1. ... has the Din of a Mavoy Mefulash, according to Rav - and requires a Tzuras ha'Pesach at one end (in this case, in the middle) and a Lechi at the other (where it leads out into the main road.
2. ... has the Din of a Mavoy Sasum, according to Shmuel - and requires no more than a Lechi at the entrance to the main road.
(b)If the Mavoy would be more than ten Amos wide - how could Shmuel consider it to be Sasum.
(c)Consequently, Rav and Shmuel must be speaking about Mavo'os that are ten Amos wide and no more - so we see that, according to Rav, a breach that is not more than ten Amos, is considered a breach (which means that a breach of four Tefachim - the alternative to more than ten Amos - is a breach, like Rav Huna).
(d)Rav Chanin bar Rava rejects Rav Huna's proof - on the grounds that that case is worse, because the public from the two streets use the Mavoy to get from one main road to the other; therefore it loses its status of Mavoy already with a breach of four Tefachim.
3)
(a)According to Rav Chanin bar Rava, Rav considers the Mavoy to be a Mefulash due to a breach at the side, because it is open to the Reshus ha'Rabim, and therefore accessible to the people from the street; whereas Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, who permitted a breach in the side of a Mavoy up to ten Amos, are speaking when it is not accessible to the people from the street. How does Rav Huna, who disqualifies even a breach of four Tefachim when it is not accessible to the people from the street, explain Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi's Din?
3)
(a)Rav Huna, who disqualifies even a breach of four Tefachim when it is not accessible to the people from the street - will agree that, in Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi's case (a breach in the side of a Mavoy up to ten Amos), a breach of four Tefachim will not invalidate the Mavoy, because there at least, there are walls on either side of the breach, whereas the breach in the Mavoy Mefulash is completely open, with no walls at the side of the breach (so a breach four Tefachim is considered a breach).
4)
(a)Which four conditions are required for a street to be called a Reshus ha'Rabim?
(b)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, one makes an Eruv in a Reshus ha'Rabim by arranging a Tzuras ha'Pesach at the one end and Lechi or a Koreh at the other. Chananyah quotes a Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. What do
1. ... Beis Shamai hold?
2. ... Beis Hillel hold?
(c)The Gemara concludes that it is not possible to permit a Reshus ha'Rabim through an Eruv (except by encircling the town with walls). What then, is the Beraisa talking about?
4)
(a)A Reshus ha'Rabim, according to Rashi, must be sixteen Amos wide, must belong to a town with at least six hundred thousand inhabitants, which is not surrounded by a wall, and the street must run straight through it from one gate of the city to the other. (See also Amud 2, answer to 6a).
(b)
1. According to Beis Shamai - a Reshus ha'Rabim requires a door (which is kept closed) at either end.
2. According to Beis Hillel - it requires a door at one end and a Lechi or a Koreh at the other.
(c)The Gemara concludes that the Machlokes Tana'im currently under discussion - is not referring to a Reshus ha'Rabim (which requires a wall around it before it can be permitted), but about Mavo'os which open into them.
6b----------------------------------------6b
5)
(a)'Yeser al Ken Amar Rebbi Yehudah: Mi she'Hayah Shnei Batim mi'Sh'nei Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' etc. What Halachah is Rebbi Yehudah teaching here?
(b)What was his previous Chidush, to which he adds 'Yeser al Ken'?
(c)What did the Rabbanan say to Rebbi Yehudah?
(d)We know that the Rabbanan were not just disqualifying a Reshus ha'Rabim that is rectified in this way, but permitting a Reshus ha'Rabim by means of a door at one end and a Lechi or a Koreh at the other (like Beis Hillel) due to similar statements by Rabah bar bar Chanah and Ula. What did Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about Yerushalayim at night-time?
(e)What do we prove from there?
5)
(a)When Rebbi says: 'Mi she'Hayah Shnei Batim mi'Shnei Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' etc. - he is teaching us that someone who owns two houses, one on either side of the street, is permitted to carry in that section of the street by placing a Lechi or a Koreh at each end.
(b)Before that, Rebbi Yehudah was talking about someone who built a bridge across the street from the house on one side of the street to the house on the other. He is permitted, says Rebbi Yehudah, to carry underneath the bridge, because 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' - meaning that the side of the bridge that is ninety degrees to the ground, extends to the ground (on both sides of the bridge), to form two Halachic walls adjacent to the walls of his house, thereby forming a Reshus ha'Yachid of four walls in the middle of the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c)The Rabbanan said to Rebbi Yehudah - that one cannot be Me'arev a Reshus ha'Rabim in this manner.
(d)We know that the Rabbanan were not just disqualifying a Reshus ha'Rabim that is rectified in this way, but permitting a Reshus ha'Rabim by means of a door at one end and a Lechi or a Koreh at the other (like Beis Hillel) due to similar statements by Rabah bar bar Chanah and Ula. Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan said - that if not for the fact that the doors of Yerushalayim were shut at night-time, it would have a Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim ...
(e)... a proof that a Lechi and Koreh will not suffice to permit carrying in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and that doors that are closed are required to achieve that.
6)
(a)Why was one not Chayav for carrying in Yerushalayim on Shabbos?
(b)What Din did Yerushalayim have? What sort of Reshus was it?
6)
(a)One was not Chayav for carrying in Yerushalayim on Shabbos - because, besides the specifications mentioned above (in 4a), it had doors which were kept locked at night.
(b)Yerushalayim, like any walled city, had the Din of a Chatzer Me'ureves (provided the doors were closed when not actually being used), and one could carry in it by means of an Eruv Chatzeros.
7)
(a)According to Chananyah in Beis Hillel, does the door of the Mavoy need to be shut for the Eruv to be effective?
(b)Why is there no proof from Neherda'a, whose doors could not be shut due to the large amount of dust that had accumulated there - whilst Shmuel (who was Rav of Neherda'a) said nothing?
(c)Rav Nachman answered that they cleared away the dust. What does he mean by that?
7)
(a)According to Chananyah in Beis Hillel - the door of the Mavoy does not need to be shut for the Eruv to be effective.
(b)We cannot bring a proof from Neherda'a, whose doors could not be shut due to the large amount of dust that had accumulated - because those doors were permanently stuck - partially open and partially shut.
(c)When Rav Nachman said that they cleared away the dust - he meant to say that they did so in order enable them to be shut.
8)
(a)Regarding the bent Mavoy in Neherda'a, they followed the Chumra of Rav and the Chumra of Shmuel.
1. Which Chumra of Rav?
2. Which Chumra of Shmuel?
(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech"?
(c)Why does that leave us with a Kashya on the Poskim of Neherda'a?
8)
(a)Regarding the bent Mavoy in Neherda'a ...
1. ... they followed the Chumra of Rav - to consider it a Mavoy Mefulash.
2. ... and the Chumra of Shmuel - who ruled like Chananyah (who requires a door).
(b)We learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech" - that it is foolish to follow the Chumros of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
(c)Why then, did they follow the Chumra of both Rav and that of Shmuel in Neherda'a?
9)
(a)The Beraisa seems to contradict itself, when it first writes 'Le'olam Halachah ke'Beis Hillel', and then 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh'. The Gemara first answers that the first statement was made after the Bas-Kol, the second, before the Bas-Kol. What did the Bas-Kol announce?
(b)Is it possible to explain the Beraisa by establishing both statements after the Bas-Kol?
(c)In the Gemara's third answer, how does the Gemara interpret the statement 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh'?
9)
(a)The Bas-Kol announced 'Halachah ke'Beis-Hillel!'
(b)Yes, both statements could refer to after the Bas-Kol; however, 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh' - follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who maintains 'Ein Mashgichin be'Bas-Kol'.
(c)In its third answer, the Gemara explains that 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh' - is only an example, and that it pertains to any Machlokes between any other Tana'im or Amora'im except for that of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (because of the Bas-Kol).
