(a)We have learnt that if one planted trees in the majority of the enclosure (of more than a Beis Sasayim), it has the Din of a Chatzer and is permitted. According to Rav Yehudah quoting Avimi, this speaks when they are planted 'Itztabla'os'. What does that mean?
(b)What does Rav Nachman hold in this regard?
(c)What must one do if any case that the enclosure preceded the dwelling?
1)
(a)The 'Itztabla'os' required by Rav Yehudah - means that the trees are planted in neat rows, so that it is pleasant to sit there.
(b)According to Rav Nachman, however the trees are planted, one may carry there.
(c)If the enclosure preceded the dwelling - one can rectify this by first making a breach of more than ten Amos, and then repairing the excess of ten Amos. In this way, he has made a wall for the sake of the dwelling.
2)
(a)What is Chizkiyah's She'eilah on the Mishnah in Kelim 'Kol K'lei Ba'alei-Batim Shi'uran ke'Rimonim'?
(b)'Sandal she'Nifsekah Achas me'Oznav, ve'Tiknah, Tamei Medras'. It is not at first clear, why the shoe becomes Tahor when the second strap tears, since the first strap has already been repaired by then. How did Chizkiyah explain this?
(c)How did Rebbi Yochanan resolve Chizkiyah's initial She'eilah from Chizkiyah's own explanation of the Mishnah in Kelim?
(d)Did Chizkiyah accept Rebbi Yochanan's explanation? What did he have to say about Rebbi Yochanan (two versions)?
2)
(a)Chizkiyah asked what the Din will be if a wooden vessel has a hole the size of a k'Zayis, which is repaired, and then another hole the size of a k'Zayis is made next to the spot where the first hole had been. And this happened a few times, until the total area holed and repaired is more than that of a pomegranate (the size that will render a private wooden vessel Tahor). Do we contend with the repairs that were effected each time, before the new hole appeared - in which case, the vessel will remain Tamei; or do we ignore them, in which case, it will be Tahor.
(b)'Sandal she'Nifsekah Achas me'Oznav, ve'Tiknah, Tamei Medras', yet it becomes Tahor when the second strap tears (despite the fact that the first strap has already been repaired at that time), explains Chizkiyah - because the strap was repaired only after the shoe became Tamei Medras, and we say 'Panim Chadashos Ba'u le'Kahn', meaning that this is not the original shoe whose strap broke, so the new strap has not rectified the tear. Consequently, when the second strap tears, it is as if both of the original straps had broken, and it is now Tahor from Medras.
(c)Rebbi Yochanan resolved Chizkiyah's original She'eilah from the above Mishnah in Kelim, using Chizkiyah's own explanation: If we can apply the argument 'Panim Chadashos Ba'u le'Kahn' (and ignore the repaired strap of the sandal), there, why should we not also apply it here - and the vessel will be Tahor.
(d)Chizkiyah was duly impressed with Rebbi Yochanan's answer. He declared that Rebbi Yochanan was not a human being (only an angel). Others quote him as saying that Rebbi Yochanan was indeed (the epitome of) a human being.
3)
(a)What does the Gemara resolve with regard to ten independent breaches that occurred at intervals, when each breach was repaired before the next one occurred?
3)
(a)Here too (with regard to ten independent breaches that occurred at intervals when each breach was repaired before the next one occurred) - we will apply Chizkiyah's logic, and say 'Panim Chadashos Ba'u le'Kahn', and ignore the repairs, to add up the breaches of more than ten Amos. Consequently, it will be permitted to carry in the enclosure.
4)
(a)What is the Din of a Rachbah behind a house which is more than a Beis Sasayim, and why is that?
(b)If the Rachbah has a door leading from the house, one may carry there. Under what condition is that?
(c)What is the Chidush?
4)
(a)The wall of a Rachbah behind a house which is more than a Beis Sasayim (and which has no entrance) - is considered not Hukaf le'Dirah, and it is prohibited to carry there more than four Amos.
(b)Carrying is only permitted in the Rachbah - if there is a door from the house that preceded the wall around the Rachbah.
(c)The Chidush will be in a case when there is a wood-barn between the house and the Rachbah. We may well have thought that, when the owner opened the door from his house, he was doing so for the sake of the wood-barn, and not for the Rachbah (or perhaps, that is the impression that we get of what he is doing, and it should be Asur because of Mar'is ha'Ayin). The Chidush is that, since he said that he is opening the door for the Rachbah, we believe him (or that we do not contend with Mar'is ha'Ayin here), and carrying in the Rachbah is permitted.
24b----------------------------------------24b
5)
(a)If an enclosure that was more than a Beis Sasayim and that was built adjoining the dwelling, became filled with water, does that have the Din of an enclosure that has been sown, or of one in which trees were planted?
(b)Initially, the Gemara lays down two conditions under which one may carry there. What are they?
(c)Which of these conditions is not accepted, and why is that?
5)
(a)If the enclosure that was more than a Beis Sasayim and that was built adjoining the dwelling, became filled with water - it has the Din of an enclosure in which trees were planted, and carrying there remains permitted.
(b)The two conditions initially laid down by the Gemara (for an area of more than a Beis Sasayim which was Hukaf le'Dirah, but which became water-logged) are a. that the water must be usable; b. that the area which is water-logged should not cover more than a Beis Sasayim.
(c)The Gemara rejects the second condition - As long as the water is fit for use, it concludes, one is permitted to carry there, even if the area that is water-logged is more than a Beis Sasayim. It can be compared, either to a pile of fruit lying in a field, which does not negate the status of the field - even if it covers an entire Beis Kur; or to a large pit of whatever size, that is filled with fruit, and from which it is permitted to help oneself on Shabbos. Either way, the water is not considered any worse than the fruit.
6)
(a)What was the case of that Rachbah in Pum Nahara? Why was it considered a Karmelis?
(b)What problem did it present with regard to the path at one end, and to the Mavoy on the other (as well as to itself)?
(c)Why is this case worse than the Mavoy which opened into the Rachbah on Daf 7b, which did not require any Tikun?
(d)What would have been the simplest thing to do under the circumstances, and why did they not do it?
6)
(a)That Rachbah in Pum Nahara - opened fully into a Mavoy (which ran into a Reshus ha'Rabim) at one end, and into a path that ran through the vine-yards, and ended up by a river with high embankments at the other. Since it was not Hukaf le'Dirah, it had the Din of a Karmelis.
(b)Since both the path on the one side and the Mavoy on the other opened fully into the Rachbah, carrying in both was prohibited, since that is the Din by any form of Reshus ha'Yachid that opens fully into a Karmelis. The people of the town now wished to carry in all three Reshuyos, and wondered how they could change the status of the Rachbah .
(c)The Mavoy which opened into the Rachbah on Daf 7b - did not require any Tikun because it was initially Hukaf le'Dirah, whereas the Rachbah of Pum Nahara was not.
(d)The simplest thing to do (Halachically) - would have been to breach one of the walls of the Rachbah to a length of more than ten Amos, and to repair at least the excess (of ten Amos). For practical reasons however (since it was a strong stone wall), that possibility was ruled out.
7)
(a)Why could they not rectify the Rachbah by simply erecting a wall above the river-bank, to serve as a Mechitzah for the Rachbah at the other end of the path.
(b)How would putting up a Tzuras ha'Pesach at the entrance of the Rachbah - where the path led into it, be effective?
(c)Then why did they not do that?
7)
(a)Erecting a wall above the river-bank, to serve as a Mechitzah for the Rachbah at the other end of the path - was not an acceptable solution - because that would have meant building one wall on top of another (the river bank, which already served as a wall, to render the path a Reshus ha'Yachid), and one wall on top of another is ineffective.
(b)Erecting a Tzuras ha'Pesach (at the entrance of the Rachbah, where the path led into it) would have solved the problem - because we would have said that, since the Tzuras ha'Pesach would be effective to permit carrying in the path, by providing it with a third wall, it will serve simultaneously, to transform the Rachbah into a Hukaf le'Dirah.
(c)They did not do this however - because seeing as the entrance in question was so narrow, it would have been knocked down by the camels that were constantly passing through it.
8)
(a)Abaye suggested putting up a Lechi at the entrance of the path (where it led into the Rachbah) - which could be knocked into the ground, so as not to suffer the same fate as a Tzuras ha'Pesach would, and which would be effective due to a 'Migu' (similar to the one which we mentioned in 7b). Why would a Lechi not work without the 'Migu'?
(b)On what grounds does Rava object to Abaye's suggestion?
8)
(a)If not for the 'Migu', placing a Lechi by the entrance of the path to the Rachbah would have had no effect - since the walls were already erected before the placing of the Lechi, and building up the entrance for the purpose of dwelling is useless; what is needed, is building up the wall for the purpose of dwelling, and that can only be achieved by breaking down a wall in excess of ten Amos etc., as we learnt earlier.
(b)Rava objects to Abaye's suggestion - on the grounds that, not realizing that this path is different from the normal path that does not have a river-bank at the other end, people will think that it is in order to place a Lechi at one end of any path which leads into a Rachbah, even when the other end leads into a street or a Karmelis.
9)
(a)Rava therefore concluded that they should place a Lechi at the end of the Mavoy, where it led into the Rachbah. Was that the only Tikun that was required there?
(b)On what basis did the Lechi help rectify the Rachbah?
(c)What did the Lechi permit unanimously?
(d)What did the Lechi definitely not permit?
9)
(a)When Rava concluded that they should place a Lechi at the end of the Mavoy, where it led into the Rachbah - it went without saying that the other end of the Mavoy (where it led into the street) required a Tzuras ha'Pesach (as we learnt above on Daf 7a).
(b)The Lechi helped rectify the Rachbah - on the basis of a 'Migu': since the Lechi was effective in permitting the Mavoy, it would also be effective in permitting the Rachbah.
(c)What the Lechi definitely permitted - was to carry in the Mavoy and in the Rachbah.
(d)What it did definitely not permit - was to carry in the path through the vine-yards (for the reason mentioned in 8b).
10)
(a)Rav Acha and Ravina argued about whether the Lechi permitted carrying from the Mavoy to the Rechavah or vice-versa. What is the reason of the one who maintained ...
1. ... that it did?
2. ... that it did not?
10)
(a)The reason of the one who ...
1. ... permitted carrying from the Mavoy to the Rachbah and vice-versa - is because there was no-one living in the Rachbah to forbid carrying in the Mavoy. Nor did the people who used the path forbid it, any more than the people living in a small Chatzer will forbid carrying in a large Chatzer which opens into it.
2. ...forbade it - is because people were likely to move into the Rachbah, and the local residents, not realizing this, will continue to carry there as before.
