1)

(a)The Beraisa 'ha'Zorek me'Reshus ha'Rabim li'Reshus ha'Rabim, u'Reshus ha'Yachid be'Emtza, Arba Amos, Chayav' concludes - 'Pachos me'Arba Amos, Patur.

(b)The Reisha means - that if the article traversed a total of four Tefachim in two public domains (e.g. two Amos in one Reshus ha'Rabim, then across a Reshus ha'Yachid and two Amos in another Reshus ha'Rabim, the thrower is Chayav.

(c)The Tana comes to teach us that 'Reshuyos Mitztarfos' (two Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim a. plus two Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim b. combine to render the thrower Chayav). The Tana finds it necessary to teach us this - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, who holds that they do not (as we learned in 'ha'Motzi Yayin').

(d)The second Chidush he is coming to teach us is - that we do not say 'Kelutah K'mi she'Hunchah Dami' (because if we did, the thrower would not be Chayav).

2)

(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah ... Amar Rav exempts someone who carries in a covered street from a Chatas - because we do not find such a precedent for this in the campings in the Desert (which is the criterion for all the rules regarding carrying), and we therefore classify such a domain as a Karmelis.

(b)The basic problem with this, is - that the wagons that transported the Mishkan in the Desert were covered ...

(c)... with the planks (which they transported.

(d)Rav in the name of Rebbi Chiya stated that underneath them ('Tachteihen'), between them ('Tzideihen') and beside them ('Tzideihen') - had the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim.

3)

(a)

1. Tahteihen means - underneath the wagons (in spite of the planks, which we think covered the entire length of the wagon).

2. 'u'Veneihen' means - the five Amos space between the one wagon and the wagon next to it - to accommodate the extra two and a half Amos that each plank protruded from the wagon?

3. 've'Tzideihen' means the small space between the side of the wagon and the wheel plus the space taken up by the wheel.

(b)To reconcile Rav's statement (quoting Rebbi Chiya) that 'Tachteihen ' was considered a Reshus ha'Rabim, with his earlier statement, giving a covered Reshus ha'Rabim the status of a Karmelis - we explain 'Tachteihen' in his later statement as referring to the spaces between the planks (the space directly beneath the planks did indeed have the Din of a Karmelis, like we explained).

(c)The width of ...

1. ... each wagon without the wheels was - two and a half Amos.

2. ... each wheel was - one a quarter Amos.

4)

(a)

1. Each wagon was - five Amos long.

2. Each plank was - ten Amos long.

3. Each plank was - one Amah thick.

(b)Assuming the planks were arranged in three rows (each of one and a half Amos) on the wagon, then, if we divide the remaining half Amah into (the) two - (spaces between three rows) - each space will have consisted of a quarter of an Amah i.e. one a half Tefachim. Consequently, the planks will have been considered joined due to the principle of 'Levud'. So the question remains, why is that space considered a Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c)We answer that the planks were arranged (not width-wise, but) thickness-wise (each plank being one Amah thick). But even if they were, we insist, they would have been arranged in four rows, leaving a space of one Amah, to be divided into three spaces (i.e. two Tefachim for each space), so that 'Levud' would still apply, and the Kashya would not have been answered.

(d)It was necessary to arrange as many as many rows of planks as possible (resulting in less space between the rows) - due to the fact that each of the four wagons contained twelve planks, each of which was ten Amos long, making it necessary to minimize the number of planks in a row, to prevent them from toppling off as the wagons moved.

5)

(a)The answer to this question we explain, might well depend on the shape of the plank. Rebbi Nechemyah in a Beraisa holds that the planks were one Amah thick at the bottom and one Amah thick at the top. According to Rebbi Yehudah - they were tapered to the thickness of a k'Etzba (a finger breadth) at the top, leaving large gaps between the planks.

(b)Rav Kahana answers the Kashya on Rav according to Rebbi Nechemya, with the word 'be'Atba'i', which some translates as 'rings' - (otherwise known as 'Taba'os'). These served to house the poles, which, in turn, held the walls of the Mishkan firm, preventing them from swaying in the wind.

(c)And what Rav Kahana means is - that the four rows of planks could not have been arranged equidistant from each other, as we thought until now, because of the rings which protruded from each plank at the same point. They must therefore have been arranged in groups of two rows at either end of the wagon, with one of the rings facing outwards and the other one, inwards.

(d)This would leave an Amah space in the middle - answering the Kashya on Rav.

6)

(a)The problem with this interpretation of Rav Kahana's explanation is - why the rings should present the least problem in the first place. All they needed to do, was to slightly move the two inner rows of planks to avoid the rings from interfering with each other.

(b)We therefore explain 'be'Atba'i' to mean 'two together' (like we explained in the first version of 'Atba'i' - only we translate 'be'Atba'i' in that way, whereas the previous explanation did not. The word actually means a split piece of wood - like an old-fashioned wooden clothes-peg).

(c)The planks were carried - on four wagons.

(d)'Agalah Gufa Mekurah Hava'i' means - that the floor of the wagon was covered, in which that the original discrepancy in Rav returns.

(e)We answer - that the floors of the wagons were not completely covered; there were poles going across, but they were widely spaced.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the planks were one Amah thick at the base, but were tapered to only one finger breadth at the top (as we already learned). He learns this from the Pasuk in Terumah "Yihyu Samim el Rosho". Rebbi Nechemyah (according to whom the planks were rectangular shaped, one Amah thick at the base and one Amah at the top) learns from "Samim"- that each plank was made of one whole piece of wood, and not from two pieces and joined together.

(b)Rebbi Nechemyah, on the other hand, derives his explanation from the word "Yachdav", which Rebbi Yehudah interprets to mean - that all the planks were flush (that not one was out of line).

(c)The problem with Rebbi Yehudah's explanation is from the two corner planks of the west-wall of the Kodesh Kodshim - since now that the thickness of the planks was tapered and not the width, they would not stand flush with the north and south walls, but the top of the northernmost plank would protrude to the north of the northern wall, whilst the top of the southernmost plank would protrude to the south of the southern wall.

(d)In fact we reply, the two corner planks of the west side were tapered both in their thickness and in their width, to prevent their tops from protruding in either direction.

8)

(a)The 'Beri'ach ha'Tichon' was - the middle bolt that ran through the middle of all the planks on the south, west and north sides of the Mishkan. The bolt can only have been placed through a miracle, because it is otherwise impossible for wooden bolt to turn corners.

(b)Each of the curtains of the Mishkan measured twenty-eight by four Amos. Once the two groups of five curtains each had been stitched together and joined by means of loops and clasps, they measured twenty-eight by forty Amos.

(c)According to Rebbi Nechemyah, once they had draped the curtains across the top of the planks of the north and south walls - one Amah of the planks was left uncovered, beside the Amah of the socket.

(d)They placed the forty-Amos curtains along the length of the Mishkan (thirty Amos) and the Amah thickness of the planks of the west-wall, leaving nine Amos to cover the Western planks completely, although the sockets remained uncovered.

9)

(a)The 'Ohel' was - the second set of coverings made of goats' hair that covered the 'Mishkan'.

(b)Each of the eleven curtains that comprised the 'Ohel' was - thirty by four Amos. Consequently, once the two groups of five and six had been stitched together and joined by means of loops and clasps, the Ohel measured thirty by forty-four Amos.

(c)According to Rebbi Nechemyah ...

1. ... the extra two Amos of the width of the 'Ohel' covered the one Amah of planks on the north and south sides that were left uncovered by the 'Mishkan'.

2. ... two of the extra four Amos of its length hung down in front on the east side), like the veil of a modest bride, and the other two Amos hung down at the back, to cover the Amah of the sockets and one Amah with trailed on the ground.

(d)According to Rebbi Nechemyah, the Pasuk "Chatzi ha'Yeri'ah ha'Odefes Tisrach Achorei ha'Mishkan" means that the two Amos hung down lower than the curtains of the 'Mishkan', though only one of those Amos (a quarter of the extra curtain) actually trailed on the ground. Whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah (in whose opinion, the tops of the planks were tapered down to one finger breadth) the Pasuk means literally - that half of the extra four Amos trailed on the ground behind the Mishkan.

10)

(a)In light of what we just learned, Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael compares the Mishkan - to a woman walking in the market with her train trailing behind her.

(b)The planks were fitted into the silver sockets, without leaving any spaces between them - by cutting away some of the wood in two places at their base, to a depth of one Amah, to form two rectangular-shaped prongs which fitted into similar shaped holes in the silver sockets, enabling each plank to sit flush on top of two sockets.

(c)When the Tana compares the clasps and the loops to the stars in the sky, he is referring to the fifty sets of golden clasps and Techeles loops that joined the two groups of curtains comprising the 'Mishkan', and the fifty sets of copper clasps and (presumably Techeles) loops that joined the two groups of curtains that comprised the 'Ohel' (which we already alluded to above).