(a)Rav Yehudah explains that, according to Rebbi Meir, all roofs are an independent Reshus, so are Chatzeros and so are enclosures. Does this mean that Reuven may carry from his roof to Shimon's without an Eruv?
(b)Does this also apply to the residents of one Chatzer or enclosure carrying to another?
(c)When, according to Rebbi Meir, do different owners of the same Reshus require an Eruv?
(d)He forbids however, carrying from a roof to a Chatzer because of a decree of a pile in the Reshus ha'Rabim. How do we know that he also forbids carrying from a courtyard to an enclosure, and what is his reason for this?
(a)Rav Yehudah does indeed hold that, according to Rebbi Meir, one is permitted to carry vessels from one person's roof to another's without an Eruv.
(b)And the same applies to carrying from one person's courtyard or enclosure to another's.
(c)Rebbi Meir concedes however - that one requires a joint Eruv if Reuven wishes to carry from his house to Shimon's courtyard via his own.
(d)Rebbi Meir only argues with the Rabanan with regard to carrying from one Reshus to the same Reshus of another person (since their usage is the same), but not to a different one (since the usage of one differs from the usage of the other). Consequently, he will agree that carrying from a courtyard to an enclosure is forbidden.
(a)According to the Chachamim, says Rav Yehudah, roofs and courtyards are one Reshus. Does this mean that there is no division of ownership and that one may carry from Reuven's roof to Shimon's or from Reuven's roof to Shimon's courtyard?
(b)What then, do they permit?
(c)Why may one carry from a roof to a public Chatzer? Why is it not like carrying from the house to the Chatzer?
(d)What does Rebbi Shimon hold, according to Rav Yehudah?
(a)According to Rav Yehudah, the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir, who forbids the transfer from any high place to a low one or vice-versa - even in the same person's domain - because of a pile in the street). But that has nothing to do with carrying from one person's Reshus to another, which, like two houses belonging to two people, requires an Eruv - even according to the Chachamim.
(b)What they do permit is 1. the above cases when they belong to the same person; 2. from one public courtyard to another; 3. from a roof to a public courtyard.
(c)The usage of a roof is not as common as that of a house. That is why the Chachamim did not compare it completely to a house, and permitted carrying from it to a public Chatzer.
(d)According to Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Shimon gives all three Reshuyos the Din of one Reshus. Consequently, one may carry from a roof to a courtyard to an enclosure.
(a)'We learnt a Beraisa in support of Rav' (according to the Chachamim). What does the Beraisa say?
(b)What proof does the Gemara bring from Rebbi in a Beraisa for Rav Yehudah's interpretation of Rebbi Shimon?
(c)Why did the Rabanan reject Rebbi Yehudah's proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon, from his testimony that they once carried a Sefer-Torah from a courtyard to an enclosure via a roof and a second Chatzer?
(a)The Beraisa in support of Rav's opinion in the Rabanan reads: 'Kol Echad v'Echad Reshus l'Atzmo, v'Ein Metaltelin Bo Ela Arba'.
(b)Rebbi in a Beraisa, proved Rav Yehudah's interpretation of Rebbi Shimon, by giving testimony that, when they used to learn Torah by Rebbi Shimon in Tako'a, they used to carry the oil and the towel (for a bath) via the roofs, courtyards and enclosures.
(c)The Rabanan rejected Rebbi Yehudah's proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon, from his testimony that they once carried a Sefer-Torah from a courtyard to an enclosure via a roof and a second Chatzer - on the grounds that that took place in the time of danger, and does prove that it is permitted at other times.
PEREK HA'MOTZEI TEFILIN
(a)Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan rule like Rebbi Shimon completely; Rav restricts the ruling to a case where the neighboring courtyards did not make independent Eruvin, but not if they did. Why is that?
(b)Why are Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan not concerned about this?
(c)The Beraisa, explaining Rebbi Shimon, specifically forbids vessels that were in the house when Shabbos entered, to be moved from Chatzer to Chatzer. How will Rav, who establishes Rebbi Shimon when no Eruv was made, explain this Beraisa? How do the vessels get from the house to the courtyard?
(a)Rav restricts the ruling like Rebbi Shimon to a case where the neighboring courtyards did not make independent Eruvin. If they made an Eruv, he maintains, it will be forbidden to carry from one courtyard to another (even those vessels which rested in the courtyard) - because one may come to carry the vessels that rested in the house and are now lying in the courtyard (which even Rebbi Shimon forbids)
(b)Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan are not concerned about this - because Rebbi Shimon himself, in a similar case, did not issue such a decree: In the Mishnah in 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu', Rebbi Shimon forbids the outer courtyards which made an Eruv with the middle one, and permits the middle courtyard (in a case when they open into each other and also into the street), without decreeing the former because of the latter.
(c)Rav, who establishes Rebbi Shimon when no Eruv was made, explain the Beraisa, which forbids vessels that were moved from the house to the courtyard to be moved from to another courtyard - by various types of head-gear that he had carried to the courtyard by wearing them.
(a)How will Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan reconcile their opinion with the Beraisa, which considers a roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset one Reshus (to carry from one to another) when they did not make an Eruv, but not when they did (like Rav)?
(b)What is the proof for this from the fact that the Beraisa does not mention a Karpaf and a Mavoy together with the other cases?
(a)Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan explain the Beraisa, which considers a roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset one Reshus (to carry from one to another) when they did not make an Eruv, but not when they did - like the Rabanan, who even disagree with Rebbi Shimon regarding the three courtyards (refer to 4b), so they will certainly disagree with him here and decree by vessels that rested in the courtyard because of those that rested in the house, in a case when an Eruv was made.
(b)If the author of the Beraisa had been Rebbi Shimon, then it ought to have included a Karpaf and a Mavoy, together with a roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset (since they all have the same Din) - from the fact that the Beraisa omits them, it is clear that the author is the Rabanan, who consider only the cases listed as one Reshus, but not a Karpaf or Mavoy.
(a)In a case of five courtyards which open both into each other and into a Mavoy, and they forgot to make an Eruv, the Rabanan forbid carrying from the Chatzer to the Mavoy and vice-versa, under any circumstances; Rebbi Shimon permits carrying the vessels of the Chatzer in the Mavoy. What inference could we make that will leave us with a Kashya on Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan?
(b)How do they first answer the Kashya? Then why does the Beraisa use the Lashon 'Lo Ervu', implying finality?
(c)And what is now the significance of Rebbi Shimon's words 'Kol Zman she'Hein Shel Rabim v'Shachachu ... Gag v'Chatzer ... Reshus Achas Hen'?
(d)The Gemara gives an alternative answer: 'Rebbi Shimon l'Divreihem d'Rabanan Ka'amar'. What is he saying to them?
(a)The Beraisa implies that Rebbi Shimon permits carrying the vessels of the Chatzer in the Mavoy specifically when they forgot to make an Eruv referred to by the Tana Kama, from which we can infer that - if they would have made an Eruv, Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is forbidden to carry (like Rav).
(b)The Gemara initially answers that 'Lo Ervu' means that the courtyards did not make a combined Eruv (but not that they did not make independent ones). The Gemara's conclusion is that 'Lo Ervu' refers to Shituf and not to Eruv.
(c)Rebbi Shimon's words 'Kol Zman she'Hein Shel Rabim v'Shachechu ... Gag v'Chatzer ... Reshus Achas Hen' - is not the reason of the Heter, as we originally thought, but comes to teach us that Rebbi Shimon's leniency extends even to a case where there are many people, some of whom are very likely to forget and carry the vessels that were transferred from the house to the courtyard.
(d)'According to me', says Rebbi Shimon to the Rabanan, 'it makes no difference whether they made an Eruv or not. But as far as you are concerned, won't you at least admit that, where they did not make an Eruv, they will be permitted to carry vessels that did not come from the house'.
(a)What do the Rabanan reply to Rebbi Shimon's suggestion?
(b)The Rabanan's final words are 'u've'Mavoy Asur'. Does this constitute a proof for Rebbi Zeira, who says in Shabbos in the name of Rav, that in a Mavoy which did not make a Shituf, carrying is restricted to four Amos?
(c)In that case, this is the same as the Reisha, where they have already taught that carrying from the Chatzer to the Mavoy is prohibited? Why do they need to teach the same thing twice?
(a)The Rabanan's reply to Rebbi Shimon's suggestion - is that (although they do agree with him by a roof, a Chatzer, a porch and a Mirpeset) by a Karpaf and a Mavoy they do not differentiate between whether they made an Eruv or not; either way, carrying is forbidden, because they are considered a different Reshus.
(b)It is not clear that the text in the Rabanan ought to read 'u've'Mavoy Asur', which implies that carrying more than four Amos in a Mavoy that did not make a Shituf is forbidden (like Rebbi Zeira in Shabbos); - maybe the correct version ought to be 'u'leMavoy Asur', meaning that carrying from the courtyard to the Mavoy is forbidden, but vessels which rested in the Mavoy may be carried even more than four Amos.
(c)The Rabanan need to mention this twice - because otherwise, we would have thought that they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon by Ervu, but not by Lo Ervu (as we explained above); the Beraisa needs to inform us therefore, that they argue in both cases.