(a)Abaye validates a Sukah which instead of walls, has four one-Tefach beams - one running along each side of the ceiling (Rashi Sukah 18b - Note: Rashi on Daf 93a explained that the Sukah already has two regular walls - see Daf 92b, answer to 10a, but that does not appear to conform with our Sugya); Rava renders it invalid. How does the Gemara initially connect their Machlokes with that of Rav and Shmuel regarding a porch in a valley?
(b)The Gemara concludes that Abaye and Rava both hold like Rav. Why then, does Rava invalidate the Sukah?
(a)Abaye, who validates a Sukah which instead of walls, has four one-Tefach beams on all four sides, appears to follows the opinion of Rav (who permits 'Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem' on all four sides, and Rava, who invalidates it, appears to hold like Shmuel.
(b)Rava maintains that he too, holds like Rav. - Rav however, agrees that we will not say 'Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem' here, since the beams were not put up for the sake of a Sukah (even though real walls do not need to be put up for the sake of a Sukah, 'Pi Tikra' walls do).
(a)Rebbi Yosi holds that one cannot differentiate between this Shabbos and the next - with regard to a courtyard whose walls were breached etc. Does he mean to be lenient (to permit even subsequent Shabbasos) or strict (to forbid even the Shabbos when it occurred)?
(b)Rav Chiya bar Yosef rules like Rebbi Yosi; Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yehudah. How do we reconcile Shmuel's ruling here with what he said elsewhere: that although he rules like Rebbi Yehudah in all matters of Eruv, he does not rule like him in matters of Mechitzah, such as the case of the Mavoy, whose Lechi or Korah were removed, where Rebbi Yehudah permitted carrying on that Shabbos?
(a)Rebbi Yosi, who holds (with regard to a courtyard whose walls were breached) that one cannot differentiate between this Shabbos and the next - comes to be Machmir, to say that, just as next Shabbos it will certainly be forbidden to carry there, so too, is it forbidden this Shabbos.
(b)When Shmuel said that he did not rule like Rebbi Yehudah in matters of Mechitzah, such as the case of the Mavoy, whose Lechi or Korah were removed, where Rebbi Yehudah permitted carrying on that Shabbos - that was with regard to a Mavoy that opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim, where an Isur d'Oraysa is involved; whereas our case, where he does rule like Rebbi Yehudah, speaks about a Chatzer that opens into a Karmelis, which only involves an Isur d'Oraysa.
(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits carrying underneath an attic that is built between two houses, or underneath a bridge. For which two reasons might he permit it?
(b)How do we know that Rebbi Yehudah holds that two Mechitzos are sufficient mid'Oraisa?
(c)And how do we prove Rabah (who establishes Rebbi Yehudah's reason in the Reisha because of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem') correct, from the Seifa ('v'Od Amar Rebbi Yehudah, Me'arvin l'Mavoy ha'Mefulash')?
(d)What do the Rabanan hold in the above cases, and what is their reason?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits carrying underneath an attic that is built between two houses, or underneath a bridge - either because he holds that two Mechitzos are d'Oraysa, or because, in his opinion, 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem', applies even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b)We know that Rebbi Yehudah holds that two Mechitzos are sufficient mid'Oraysa - from the Beraisa where he permits the area in a Reshus ha'Rabim between two houses (one on either side of the street) with just two Lechayayin or two Koros.
(c)If Rebbi Yehudah's reason for permitting carrying under the bridge in the Reisha would be because he holds that two Mechitzos are d'Oraysa - then why does the Tana need to add 've'Od Amar Rebbi Yehudah Me'arvin l'Mavoy ha'Mefulash'? Isn't that the same as the Reisha? But if his reason in the Reisha is because of 'Pi Tikrah' ... , as Rabah claims, then the Tana is justified in adding that the same will apply by a Mavoy ha'Mefulash (where 'Pi Tikrah' ... does not apply), because in any case, he holds that two Mechitzos are d'Oraysa.
(d)The Rabanan hold 1. that one cannot be Matir a Reshus ha'Rabim by means of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem', and 2. that mid'Oraisa, at least three Mechitzos are required.
(a)According to the Tana Kama, what should one do if finds Tefilin lying in a field, and why is that?
(b)Why does this not apply to new Tefilin? How will one know that they are new?
(c)In which cases must one just stand guard over the Tefilin until nightfall, and only then carry them home?
(d)When will this not apply?
(a)According to the Tana Kama, someone who finds Tefilin lying in a field - should put them on and carry them home like that way, even if it means walking through the town with them.
(b)This does not however, apply to new Tefilin (whose Kesher has not yet been tied) - because it is not clear that they were made to be worn as Tefilin. Perhaps they were made to be worn as a Kemi'ah (an amulet), in which case they do not have the Kedushah of Tefilin and are not considered a Tachshit, and one will be Chayav for carrying them, even if he is wearing them.
(c)If one finds many pairs of Tefilin tied together - one just stand guard over them until nightfall, and only then does one carry them home
(d)In time of danger however, one covers them and leaves.
(a)Rebbi Shimon permits carrying the Tefilin by making a human chain, and then handing them from one person to the next. Where must this stop?
(b)What else does he permit in this way?
(c)On what grounds do the Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, who permits transporting a barrel of wine from outside the Techum using this same method?
(a)The human chain (handing the Tefilin down the line, each one carrying them less than four Amos) must stop before they enter the city.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah also permits handing a baby who was born in the field in this way to be passed from one person to the next till they reach the town.
(c)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, who permits transporting a barrel of wine from outside the Techum in this way - on the grounds that the barrel may not be taken beyond the Techum of the owner - by anybody.
(a)Rebbi Meir permits saving as many clothes from a fire on Shabbos as one can wear. Does this mean that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Meir? Does the Tana Kama hold 'Shabbos Zman Tefilin Hu' or not?
(a)Rebbi Meir permits saving as many clothes from a fire on Shabbos as one can wear - since during the week wearing any number of clothes. Even he will agree however, that one is restricted to saving only one pair of Tefilin, since (because he Shabbos Zman Tefilin Hu) putting on more than one pair of Tefilin will not be permitted any more than it would be during the week.
(a)Why does Raban Gamliel permit saving two pairs of Tefilin at a time?
(b)Why just two?
(c)Is there a proof from Rav Huna (who permits wrapping the Tefilin Shel Rosh around the arm, when he comes in from the fields carrying loads on his head) that there is room on the arm too, for two pairs of Tefilin?
(d)So how do we know that there is?
(a)At this stage, the Gemara presumes that, whoever holds that Shabbos is ZmanTefilin, will not permit the saving of more than one pair of Tefilin at a time (because of 'Bal Tosif', as we shall soon see). Consequently, Raban Gamliel, who permits the saving of two pairs at a time - must hold that 'Shabbos La'av Zman Tefilin (and he permits two pairs of Tefilin, because they do not constitute 'Bal Tosif').
(b)Nevertheless, Raban Gamliel restricts this Mitzvah to two pairs (and no more), because he holds that Chazal only permitted saving Tefilin, Derech Malbush (the way that they are normally worn), and there is room on both the head and the arm to wear just two pairs of Tefilin, and no more. Consequently, saving more than that will not constitute Derech Malbush and will remain forbidden.
(c)There is no proof from Rav Huna, who permits wrapping the Tefilin Shel Rosh around the arm, that there is room on the arm too, for two pairs of Tefilin - because who says that he is talking about wearing them in the location of the Tefilin (nor is it clear why the Gemara thought that he was)!? Perhaps he is talking about wrapping them anywhere around the arm to spare them from being abused.
(d)We know that there is room on the arm too, for two pairs of Tefilin - because Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said so explicitly.
(a)Tefilin Shel Yad should be worn on the Kibores. What is the Kibores?
(b)And where should the Tefilin Shel Rosh be worn?
(a)The 'Kibores' is the muscle.
(b)The Tefilin Shel Rosh should be worn on the crown of the head, the equivalent spot where a baby's head is soft.
(a)The Gemara concludes that both the Tana Kama and Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah agree that there is place on the arm, as well as on the head, for two pairs of Tefilin. Assuming their dispute is based on whether 'Shabbos Zman Tefilin Hu or not, why does the Tana Kama restrict the Mitzvah of saving them to one pair only?
(b)Why is Raban Gamliel not concerned about that?
(c)Alternatively, they could be arguing over whether Mitzvos require Kavanah or not. If the Tana Kama holds that they do not require Kavanah, how will we explain their Machlokes?
(a)Assuming that the dispute between the Tana Kama and Raban Gamliel is based on whether 'Shabbos Zman Tefilin Hu' or not, the Tana Kama restricts the Mitzvah of saving them to one pair only - because otherwise, seeing as 'Shabbos Zman Tefilin Hu', he would transgress 'Bal Tosif' by wearing two pairs of Tefilin.
(b)Raban Gamliel does not contend with that problem, because according to him, 'Shabbos La'av Zman Tefilin Hu'.
(c)If the Tana Kama holds that Mitzvos do not require Kavanah - then someone who wears two pairs of Tefilin, will transgress 'Bal Tosif' even without Kavanah to perform the Mitzvah (just as one performs the Mitzvah itself without Kavanah). Raban Gamliel permits saving two pairs of Tefilin, because, just as, in his opinion, the Mitzvos require Kavanah, so too, will one not transgress 'Bal Tosif', unless he intends to perform the Mitzvah.