(a)What was Rav Chisda afraid of when he met Rav Sheshes?
(b)What was Rav Sheshes afraid of when he met Rav Chisda?
(a)Rav Sheshes was an outstanding expert in Mishnayos. Rav Chisda was afraid that he would present him with a discrepancy between two Mishnayos, which he would be unable to answer.
(b)And Rav Sheshes was afraid that Rav Chisda, who was an Amkan (a man of great depth) would pose questions that would leave him stymied. Incidentally, this distinction appears to coincide with the difference between Rav Yosef - who (blind like Rav Sheshes), is referred to as 'Sinai'), and Rabah - whose title is 'Oker Harim'.
(a)What did Rav Chisda ask Rav Sheshes, with regard to the two houses on opposite sides of the street, when gentiles built two Mechitzos on Shabbos, blocking off the street at both ends, to form a courtyard joining the two houses?
(b)Why is this no She'eilah according to those who hold that Bitul Reshus does not help from one Chatzer to another?
(c)What then, is the She'eilah (according to those who that it does?
(d)How did Rav Sheshes resolve the She'eilah?
(a)Rav Chisda asked Rav Sheshes (with regard to the two houses on opposite sides of the street, when gentiles built two Mechitzos on Shabbos, blocking off the street at both ends, to form a courtyard joining the two houses) - whether Bitul Reshus on the part of one of the houses will permit the residents of the other one to carry from their house to the 'Chatzer', seeing as a Mechitzah that is made on Shabbos is Kasher.
(b)Those who hold that Bitul Reshus does not help from one Chatzer to another - are of the opinion that before one can be Mevatel Reshus, two things are required: that the one (Chatzer or house) forbids the other, and that they could have made an Eruv before Shabbos. Since here neither is applicable, it goes without saying that Bitul Reshus will not be effective.
(c)The She'eilah therefore, is according to those who hold that Bitul Reshus does help from one Chatzer to another - because since they do not require the two courtyards to forbid each other, perhaps they do not require the possibility if making an Eruv either, or perhaps they do require at least one of the two factors.
(d)Rav Sheshes replied - that Bitul Reshus will not be effective, like the latter side of the Sha'aleh.
(a)He also asked him about a gentile who died on Shabbos. According to which opinion is the answer to this She'eilah too, obvious?
(b)So the She'eilah is confined to those who hold that renting the gentile's Reshus is forbidden on Shabbos. What is the She'eilah?
(c)Rav Sheshes holds Me'arvin. Why does Rav Hamnuna disagree?
(a)It is obvious that - according to those who permit renting the gentile's Reshus on Shabbos (which also then requires Bitul Reshus), Bitul Reshus alone (upon the gentile's death) will certainly be permissible.
(b)The She'eilah is according to those who hold that renting the gentile's Reshus is forbidden on Shabbos - Maybe that is because two things are required, renting from the gentile and Bitul Reshus; whereas here (where the gentile died) where it is only Bitul Reshus that is needed, maybe Bitul Reshus is permitted; or perhaps there is no difference.
(c)Rav Hamnuna holds Ein Mevatlin - not having rented the gentile's Reshus before Shabbos, they would not have been able to make an Eruv; and whenever it is not possible to make an Eruv, Bitul Reshus does nor help either.
(a)A gentile who owns a small doorway leading from his house in the Mavoy out to the fields, does not forbid the other Jewish residents of the Mavoy to carry there. Why is that? Does it apply even if he uses the Mavoy extensively?
(b)What must the minimum size of his entrance be?
(c)Some say that this applies even to a case where the entrance leads out to a mere Karfaf. What do Rabah and Rav Chisda say about that?
(a)A gentile who owns a small doorway leading from his house in the Mavoy out to the fields, does not forbid the other Jewish residents of the Mavoy to carry there - because he prefers his own exit to the fields, considering the regular exit to be a secondary one. And this will apply even if he uses the Mavoy regularly.
(b)The minimum size of his entrance must be four Tefachim by four Tefachim.
(c)Rabah and Rav Chisda say - that for a Karpaf to prevent the gentile from forbidding the Jewish residents from carrying in the Mavoy, it must be more than a Beis Sasayim (because then it is sufficiently Chashuv to render it important in the eyes of the gentile), but not if it is less than that.
(a)In a similar case where a Jew who has his own entrance leading out to the area behind the Mavoy and who forgot to participate in the Eruv, the Din is exactly the reverse. Why is that?
(b)How is it that a Karpaf of less than a Beis Sasayim which is not Chashuv by a gentile, is Chashuv by a Jew?
(a)With regard to a Jew who has his own entrance leading out to the area behind the Mavoy and who forgot to participate in the Eruv, the Din is exactly the reverse - by a Karpaf that is more than a Beis Sasayim (which is not Hukaf le'Dirah), he will forbid the other residents to carry, since he is not permitted to carry there, he does not consider it sufficiently important to over-ride his part of the Mavoy, which he therefore retains; whereas if it is less than that, he does (in which case he will relinquish his entrance in the Mavoy, and will not therefore forbid the other residents).
(b)As far as a Jew is concerned, a small Karpaf is Chashuv on Shabbos - because he does not have to carry heavy goods there, and for the purpose of relaxing on Shabbos, it is very useful.
(a)Ula quoting Rebbi Yochanan rules that one is Chayav for throwing from the street into a Karpaf that was not Hukaf le'Dirah. Why?
(b)Then why is it forbidden to carry there?
(a)One is Chayav for throwing from the street into a Karpaf that was not Hukaf le'Dirah (according to Ula quoting Rebbi Yochanan) - because a Karpaf that was not Hukaf le'Dirah is considered a proper Reshus ha'Yachid mi'd'Oraysa.
(b)It is the Rabbanan who nevertheless forbade carrying there - because people do not live there, and it will be confused with a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a)May one throw (less than four Amos) from the sea on to a rock that is less than ten Tefachim high and which has an area of more than a Beis Sasayim?
(b)What does the Beraisa therefore mean when it writes 'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim', and why does this leave us with a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?
(c)Rava establishes the statement ('Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim') on the Reisha (with regard to a rock that is ten Tefachim high, by adding to the Beraisa, in a way that dispenses with the Kashya. How does he do this?
(d)Rav Ashi goes one step further - he leaves the Beraisa intact; and in spite of this, he vindicates Rebbi Yochanan. According to him, why is it forbidden to throw four Amos on the surface of a Karpaf that is more than a Beis Sasayim, but permitted Lechatchilah to throw from the sea on to a rock that is higher than ten Tefachim and more than a Beis Sasayim?
(a)It is permitted to throw (less than four Amos) from the sea on to a rock that is less than ten Tefachim high and which has an area of more than a Beis Sasayim - because, says the Beraisa, one is throwing from a Karmelis to a Karmelis.
(b)When the Beraisa writes 'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim' - it is referring, not to the Seifa, but to the Reisha, to tell us that although it is forbidden to carry from the sea on to a rock that is less than a Beis Sasayim, it is permitted to do so if the rock is more than a Beis Sasayim, because then, it is no longer a Reshus ha'Yachid, but a Karmelis - not like Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that mi'd'Oraysa, it remains a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(c)Rava learns that 'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim' refers not to the Beraisa, but to what we infer from the Beraisa: 'Ha be'Socho (i.e. not from the sea), Metaltelin; ve'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim', because the Rabbanan gave this the Din of a Karmelis, as we explained above.
(d)According to Rav Ashi - it should really be forbidden to throw from the sea on to a rock that is higher than ten Tefachim and more than a Beis Sasayim, just like it is forbidden to carry four Amos on its surface. However, Chazal did not include this case in the decree - since, whereas throwing four Amos on its surface is common, throwing from the sea on to dry land is not, 'u'Milsa de'Lo Shechi'ach, Lo Gazru Bah Rabbanan'.
(a)The hot water to wash the baby after the Bris spilt. On what grounds did (the Gemara initially think that) Rabah permitted them to fetch hot water from his house to the house where the baby was, despite the fact that they had not made an Eruv?
(b)It transpired that even a Shituf Mavo'os did not exist either. What did Rabah instruct them to do?
(c)Why did Rav Yosef not let Abaye query Rabah's ruling?
(a)The Gemara initially thought that Rabah permitted them to fetch hot water from his house to the house where the baby was, despite the fact that they had not made an Eruv - because the Chatzeros had made a Shituf Mavo'os, which would suffice for the Chatzeros, too.
(b)Rabah then instructed them to ask a gentile to fetch the hot water from his house.
(c)Rav Yosef did not let Abaye query Rabah's ruling - because, in matters which are de'Rabbanan, one acts first, and asks questions afterwards.
(a)What was Abaye's query?
(b)How did Rav Yosef dispense with it?
(a)Abaye wanted to query Rabah from the Din of Haza'ah (the sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah), which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, yet it does not over-ride Shabbos, even if it is for the sake of a Mitzvah (such as in order to bring the Korban Pesach) - so how could Rabah permit the Isur de'Rabbanan of Amirah le'Nochri for the sake of the Mitzvah of Bris Milah?
(b)Rav Yosef dispensed with Abaye's Kashya - by pointing out that, whereas Haza'ah is an action, Amirah le'Nochri is only words, and a Mitzvah does over-ride an Isur de'Rabbanan which only involves words (This is known as a Shevus d'Shevus be'Makom Mitzvah).