ERUVIN 16 - Dedicated by Dr. and Mrs. Doug Rabin of Clifton, N.J., with Tefilos that Leah Miryam bas Fruma should be Zocheh to a Refu'ah Sheleimah Meherah.
1)
(a)The Beraisa permits carrying inside a circle of a caravan encampment, provided the spaces between one camel and the next are not wide enough to fit a camel, and the spaces between one pile of saddles and the next are not wide enough to fit a pile of saddles etc. How does Rav Papa (who validates 'Parutz ke'Omed') explain this Beraisa?
(b)Why is a space of three Tefachim considered a breach (by sections of a wall that are less than three Tefachim), and less than that, not?
(c)What is the difference between the following cases:
1. A wall whose sections are less than three Tefachim;
2. A wall whose sections are between three and four Tefachim;
3. A wall whose sections are between four Tefachim and ten Amos;
4. A wall which contains a breach of more than ten Amos?
(d)Why should there be a difference between a breach of ten Amos and one of more than ten Amos?
1)
(a)Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua will explain this Beraisa (which invalidates Parutz ke'Omed) - like he explained the previous one - i.e. when the spaces referred to are liberal ones.
(b)A space of three Tefachim is considered a breach, less than that, not - because a breach of three Tefachim negates 'Levud'. Why? Because a kid-goat can get through, and whenever a kid-goat can get through, we do not say 'Levud'. However, if the breaches are less than three Tefachim, the wall remains Kasher even if the breaches exceed the wall, since 'Levud' joins the sections of wall as if there was no breach.
(c)
1. We have just described a wall whose sections are less than three Tefachim;
2. A wall whose sections are between three and four Tefachim is Kasher provided the breaches are not slightly more than the standing part of the wall - if they are, then the entire wall is Pasul;
3. A wall whose sections are between four Tefachim and ten Amos, remains Kasher provided the breaches are not slightly more that the standing part of the wall - if they are, then the part of the wall where the breaches are, is Pasul, the rest of the wall is Kasher;
4. A wall which contains a breach of more than ten Amos invalidates the entire wall.
(d)A breach of ten Amos - is considered an entrance, more than that is not.
2)
(a)When will even a breach of more than ten Amos be permitted?
(b)To which area of Halachah is the above Beraisa related?
(c)How does Rav Papa explain the phrase (written with regard to the Din of between three and four Tefachim) 'u'Bilevad she'Lo Yehei Bein Zeh la'Zeh ke'Milu'o'?
(d)How does the Gemara prove this answer from the wording of the following case (of between four Tefachim and ten Amos)?
2)
(a)A breach even of more than ten Amos is Kasher - if it is in the form of a Tzuras ha'Pesach - i.e. if it has a cross-beam lying across the top.
(b)The above Beraisa is related to Kil'ayim.
(c)Rav Papa explains the phrase (written with regard to the Din of between three and four Tefachim) 'u'Bilevad she'Lo Yehei Bein Zeh la'Zeh ke'Milu'o' - like he explained earlier Beraisos - namely, when the space referred to is a liberal one.
(d)The Gemara proves this answer from the next case in the Beraisa, which reads 'Im Hayah Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz, Af Keneged ha'Parutz Mutar' - from which we can infer 'Ha ke'Parutz, Mutar'.
3)
(a)According to Rav Papa, why does the Beraisa continue 've'Im Hayah Omed Merubah al ha'Parutz, Af Keneged ha'Parutz Mutar'? Why did it not say 've'Im Hayah Omed ke'Parutz, Mutar'?
(b)According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, why, in the Reisha, does the Beraisa say 've'Im Hayah Parutz Merubeh al ha'Omed, ... , Keneged ha'Parutz Asur'? Why did it not write 'Parutz ke'Omed, Asur'?
(c)According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, why does the Tana not combine the Din of a wall that is less than three Tefachim wall with one that is three Tefachim, since, in both cases, a breach of exactly three Tefachim will negate the wall?
3)
(a)The Beraisa continues 've'Im Hayah Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz, Af Keneged ha'Parutz Mutar' - in order to balance the Reisha which writes 'Parutz Merubeh al ha'Omed'.
(b)Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua applies the reverse logic: according to him, the Beraisa writes 've'Im Hayah Parutz Merubeh al ha'Omed' etc. in the Reisha, because of the Seifa, where it wants to write 've'Im Hayah *Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz' etc.
(c)The Tana does not combine the Din of less than three Tefachim wall with that of three Tefachim, according to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, in spite of the fact that, in both cases, a breach of exactly three Tefachim will negate the wall - because the reason for the one is not the same as that of the other: the reason for the former being Pasul is because kid-goats can get through, so that we do not say Levud; whereas the reason for the Pesul by the latter is because 'Parutz ke'Omed, Pasul'.
16b----------------------------------------16b
4)
(a)According to Abaye, the Reisha of the Beraisa (which specifies Levud up to three Tefachim) follows the opinion of the Rabbanan. How does he then explain the Seifa, which makes a distinction between a wall of less than four Tefachim and one of four Tefachim (which seems to follow the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - but in any event not the Rabbanan - see Tosfos DH 'Eima')?
(b)Rava establishes the Seifa like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. How does he then explain the Reisha, which holds of Levud only up to three Tefachim and not four?
(c)Why do we rule like Rav Papa, in spite of the Beraisa, which explicitly requires 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz'?
4)
(a)Abaye explains that the author of the entire Beraisa is the Rabbanan - Whereas the Shiur of Levud is three Tefachim, to forbid carrying by the wall (on account of a breach of Parutz ke'Omed),he contends, the gauge is up to four Tefachim (which is considered a Makom Chashuv).
(b)Rava equates Makom Chashuv with the Din of Levud. Consequently, the Din of Levud extends to just under four Tefachim, which is not a Makom Chashuv. That does not apply however, to a space near the ground. There, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will agree that Levud only extends as far as just under three Tefachim, because of the principle of 'Gedayim Bok'in Bo' (which explains the Reisha of the Beraisa).
(c)We rule like Rav Papa, in spite of the Beraisa that requires 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz' - due to the fact that our Mishnah implies that Parutz ke'Omed, Mutar (as we explained at the beginning of the Sugya, on Daf 15b)
5)
(a)How does one enclose an area with three ropes, to permit carrying inside it?
(b)That is a Mechitzas Arev. How does one arrange a Mechitzas Shesi?
(c)According to the Chachamim, although this Mishnah is a continuation of the Mishnah of an encampment, it nevertheless applies anywhere. What does Rebbi Yehudah say about that?
(d)What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah hold?
5)
(a)To enclose an area with three ropes - one needs to place them at a fraction under three Tefachim between each rope, with the ropes themselves adding up to just over one Tefach - to make a total height of ten Tefachim.
(b)A Mechitzas Arev - would consist of posts ten Tefachim high, stuck into the ground at intervals of less than three Tefachim apart.
(c)According to the Chachamim, although this Mishnah is a continuation of the Mishnah of an encampment, it nevertheless applies anywhere. Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that it applies to the members of an encampment exclusively.
(d)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds - that any Mechitzah which does not consist of both Shesi and Arev is not considered a Mechitzah (even in the case of an encampment).
6)
(a)Rav Hamnuna asks whether Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz (which is effective by a Mechitzas Shesi) is effective by a Mechitzas Arev - or whether a Mechitzas Arev must be completely closed. Why is there no proof from our Mishnah, which permits a Mechitzas Arev consisting of three ropes?
(b)The Gemara tries to resolve the She'eilah from the fact that the Mishnah permits only three ropes with a total thickness of one Tefach, which are three Tefachim apart. Why does it not permit three thin ropes including two spaces of just under three Tefachim, and the third space of just under four? How would this resolve our She'eilah?
(c)The Gemara rejects this proof on the grounds that, wherever the wider space was situated, there would be a problem. Why could the wider space not be ...
1. ... at the bottom?
2. ... at the top?
3. ... in the middle?
6)
(a)There is no proof from our Mishnah, which permits a Mechitzas Arev consisting of three ropes - that Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz is Kasher by a Mechitzas Arev, because the Mechitzas Arev of ropes is Kasher there because of Levud, and Levud is considered as if it was completely closed. Rav Humnuna's She'eilah, on the other hand, is in a case where the sections of wall as well as the breaches, are more than three Tefachim (where Levud does not apply).
(b)Had the Mishnah permitted three thin ropes including two spaces of just under three Tefachim, and the third space of just under four Tefachim - that would be Kasher due to the Omed (of six Tefachim) being more than the Merubeh - which would resolve Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah.
(c)If the space of just under four Tefachim would be ...
1. ... at the bottom - it would be Pasul because 'Gedayim Bok'in Bo'.
2. ... at the top - it would be Pasul because the space from the top rope up to the sky would combine with the more than three Tefachim space below it, to negate the rope.
3. ... in the middle - we could only say Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz by combining the Omed on both sides (and this nobody would suggest to be Kasher).
7)
(a)The Gemara establishes Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah by a mat of seven Tefachim plus, in which three Tefachim had been cut out. Where were the remaining four Tefachim plus, and how was the mat subsequently placed?
(b)According to Rav Ashi, the She'eilah concerns a Mechitzah Teluyah. What, according to him, is Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah?
(c)What is the Gemara's conclusion?
7)
(a)The mat of which we are speaking was placed - with the four Tefachim on top, and the three cut-out Tefachim (with a thin strip still remaining) at the bottom fixed within three Tefachim of the ground. Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah is now whether this Mechitzah will be Kasher, whether a Mechitzas Arev will be Kasher by means of 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz'.
(b)According to Rav Ashi, it is obvious that maintains that a Mechitzas Arev will be Kasher by means of 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz'. Rav Hamnuna's She'eilah is whether a Mechitzah Teluyah (a suspended Mechitzah) will be Kasher if there is full ten Tefachim of Mechitzah, but it does not reach to within three Tefachim from the ground - whether we say Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz vertically, like we say it horizontally).
(c)The Gemara concludes - that a Mechitzah Teluyah is a special concession that applies exclusively to water.
8)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah confines a Mechitzah of Shesi or Arev to an encampment. Does this mean that he totally rules out such a Mechitzah unless it is for an encampment?
(b)Rav Nachman initially made this distinction according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, with regard to an encampment. What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah say there? In which point does he argue with his father
(c)What do the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah hold?
8)
(a)When Rebbi Yehudah confines a Mechitzah of Shesi or Arev to an encampment - he is referring to allowing an unrestricted area. He will however, agree, that a Mechitzas Shesi or Arev will permit carrying up to a Beis Sasayim.
(b)Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah holds that any Mechitzah that does not consist of both Shesi and Arev (even that of an encampment) is not considered a Mechitzah - His father confines this to private Mechitzos, but not to that of an encampment.
(c)The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah hold - that, in all cases, a Mechitzas Shesi or Arev is effective for any area, even more a Beis Sasayim.
9)
(a)Rav Nachman quoting Shmuel, permits one Beis Sasayim (two Sa'ah) for one or for two people, and three for three. What problem does Rav Nachman have with his Rebbi's statement?
(b)How does he amend it?
(c)Why is he not concerned that Shmuel nevertheless rules like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah by one or two people?
9)
(a)If Shmuel permits one Beis Sasayim for one or for two people, and three (six Sa'ah) for three - he will be ruling like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah. Why does he not rule like the Rabbanan, asks Rav Nachman?
(b)He therefore amends Shmuel's statement to read that - one gives one or two a Beis Sasayim, but for three people, one gives them an unlimited area to walk.
(c)Rav Nachman was not concerned that Shmuel should rule Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah by one or two people, because Rebbi Yehudah only was of that opinion (to forbid individuals - not in a traveling caravan - to walk in an area more than a Beis Sasayim, by means of a Mechitzas Shesi or Arev). It was by three people (who are considered a caravan) that Rav Nachman was concerned that Shmuel should not rule like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
