1)
What does our Mishnah say about opening a new door or window in a Chatzer in which one resides?
Will it make any difference if one already has a Chazakah? Why is that?
May one enlarge an existing window or open two where one has a Chazakah on one?
On what condition is opening a door facing a door or a window facing a window permitted?
1)
Our Mishnah prohibits opening a new door or window opposite an existing one in which one resides ...
... even if one already has a Chazakah to do so (for reasons of Tz'niyus).
And the Tana also prohibits enlarging an existing window or opening two if one has a Chazakah on only one.
He permits opening a new door facing a door or a window however - if they are already facing a R'shus ha'Rabim.
2)
How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the Pasuk in Balak "And Bilam raised his eyes and he saw Yisrael dwelling according to their tribes"?
What makes Rami bar Chama think that it is only a door of four Amos that the Tana forbids to turn into one of eight, but that he permits turning one of two Amos into four?
On what grounds did Rava refute that explanation?
2)
Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk "And Bilam raised his eyes and he saw Yisrael dwelling according to their tribes" to mean that - he saw how the openings of their tents did not face each other, and he declared that they were worthy of having the Shechinah rest among them.
Rami bar Chama thought that it is only a door of four Amos that the Tana forbids to turn into one of eight - because he will then be taking up an extra four Amos (as we learned in the first Perek), but that he permits turning one of two Amos into four because everyone is permitted an entrance of four Amos anyway.
Rava refuted that explanation however - because the other residents can protest that, whereas they were able to guard themselves against any Hezek that results from the original space of two Amos, they will not able do so in a space of four Amos.
3)
What did Rami bar Chama say about turning a door of eight Amos into two doors of four each?
Why is that?
On what grounds did Rava disagree with Rami's explanation?
Why does the Tana permit opening a new door facing a door or a window, if it already faces a R'shus ha'Rabim?
3)
Rami bar Chama maintained that - turning a door of eight Amos into two doors of four each should be permitted...
... since he is not adding anything to the eight Amos that he already has in the Chatzer.
Rava disagreed with his explanation since - the other residents can claim that whereas they were able to keep out of his sight when he owned one doorway, they will not be able to, should he own two.
The Tana permits opening a new door facing a door or a window, if it already faces a R'shus ha'Rabim - because in any event, he has to be on his guard against passing pedestrians, who can peer into his house through the front door, and against horse and camel-riders, who can even peer into his windows.
4)
What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah forbid doing underneath the R'shus ha'Rabim?
What if he undertakes to pay for any damages that he causes?
On what condition does Rebbi Eliezer permit it?
On what grounds do the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer?
What is the basis of their Machlokes?
4)
The Tana Kama of our Mishnah - forbids digging pits underneath the R'shus ha'Rabim ...
... even if he undertakes to pay for any damages that he causes.
Rebbi Eliezer permits it - provided a wagon laden with stones can pass safely along the road.
The Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Eliezer - because it is now only immediate damage that concerns us, but that in the course of time, the earth may become wormy, causing the road on top to cave in.
Rebbi Eliezer however, does not contend with the future (as log as it will not cause damage now).
5)
On what condition may one build a ledge on one's wall that protrudes into the R'shus ha'Rabim?
Why is someone who purchases a wall from which ledges or Gezuztera'os jut out into the street not obligated to do that?
What did Rebbi Ami instruct a man from whose wall a ledge jutted out into the street to do?
What did he reply when the man queried him about a ledge that jutted out from his own wall into the Mavoy (alleyway) that ran past his Chatzer?
5)
One may build a ledge on one's wall that protrudes into the R'shus ha'Rabim only - if one moves the wall back into one's own domain, so that no part of the ledge juts into the street.
Someone who purchases a wall from which ledges or G'zuztera'os jut out into the street is not obligated to do that however - because if the seller would have claimed that he moved his wall back, and that he had been using it in that location for three years, he would have been believed. Consequently, Beis-Din make that claim on behalf of the purchaser ('To'anin le'Loke'ach', as we learned earlier in the Perek).
Rebbi Ami instructed a man from whose wall a ledge jutted out into the street - to cut it down.
When the man queried him about a ledge that jutted out from his own wall into the alleyway that ran past his Chatzer, he replied that - the residents of his Mavoy had all been Mochel (foregone), something which is not possible to occur in a R'shus ha'Rabim.
6)
On what grounds did people complain to Rebbi Yanai about the branches of a neighbor's tree that were hanging over the R'shus ha'Rabim?
When the man arrived in Beis-Din, Rebbi Yanai initially instructed him to go home and return the next day. What did he reply the following day, when the defendant queried his right to order him to cut down his tree, when he (Rebbi Yanai) himself was guilty of the same offense?
Why did Rebbi Yanai find it necessary to do what he did? Why could he not issue his ruling first and cut down his own tree later?
Why did Rebbi Yanai not cut down his tree earlier?
6)
People complained to Rebbi Yanai about the branches of a neighbor's tree that were hanging over the R'shus ha'Rabim - that threatened to harm passing camels and their riders.
When the man arrived in Beis-Din, Rebbi Yanai initially instructed him to go home and return the next day. The following day, when the defendant queried his right to order him to cut down his tree, on the grounds that he (Rebbi Yanai) was himself guilty of the same offense, he replied that - he had cut down his own tree the night before, and that the defendant should take his cue from him and do likewise.
Rebbi Yanai found it necessary to do what he did, rather than issue his ruling first and cut his own tree down later - on account of the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "Hiskosheshu ve'Koshu", which teaches us that one should first put one's own house in order, before starting with somebody else's.
And the reason that he did not cut down his tree earlier was - because initially, he thought that the tree was useful as a source of shade, and it was only after the people came and complained about his neighbor's tree that he realized that the people saw it as a hazard.
60b----------------------------------------60b
7)
If the owner of the wall that adjoined the R'shus ha'Rabim moved it back without actually fitting a ledge, Rebbi Yochanan permits him to add it at a later date. What does Resh Lakish say?
How does Rebbi Ya'akov amend their basic Machlokes? What other change does he make to their respective opinions?
According to the amended version, Rebbi Yochanan concurs with a statement of Rav Yehudah. What does Rav Yehudah say about a pathway that the public established between two fields?
On what grounds does Resh Lakish disagree with Rebbi Yochanan? Does he not concur with Rav Yehudah's ruling?
7)
If the owner of the wall that adjoined the R'shus ha'Rabim moved it back without actually fitting a ledge, Rebbi Yochanan permits him to add it at a later date. Resh Lakish - forbids it.
Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that in fact, both Amora'im agree that he may add ledges later, should he so wish, and they argue over whether he is permitted to rebuild his wall in its former position (without adding ledges [Resh Lakish]), or not (Rebbi Yochanan).
According to the amended version, Rebbi Yochanan concurs with a statement of Rav Yehudah, who says that - once the public have established a pathway between two fields, the owner may not change its location (because effectively, the pathway becomes public property).
Resh Lakish concurs with Rav Yehudah, but he argues with Rebbi Yochanan - because this case is different, inasmuch as the public still have use of the rest of the street.
8)
Why does the Beraisa forbid whitewashing one's house nowadays?
The Tana also prohibits Kiyur and Piyuch. 'Kiyur' is painting pictures using lime or whitewashing with lime that is slightly less bright. What is 'Piyuch'?
If, in the time of the Tana'im, someone purchased a Chazter already whitewashed, he could assume that it was from before the Churban, and leave it as it was. If the Chatzer collapsed, was he permitted to rebuild it?
How do we reconcile this with Rav Huna, who, as we learned earlier, permits someone who purchased a Chatzer with ledges that jut out into the street to rebuild it after it has fallen, on the basis of his Chazakah?
8)
The Beraisa forbids whitewashing one's house nowadays - in memory of the Churban Beis Hamikdash).
The Tana also prohibits Kiyur and Piyuch. 'Kiyur' is painting pictures on the walls of one's house using lime or whitewashing with lime that is slightly less bright. 'Piyuch' is - painting pictures using other color paints.
If, in the time of the Tana'im, someone purchased a Chazter already whitewashed, he could assume that it was from before the Churban, and leave it as it was. But if the Chatzer collapsed - he was not permitted to rebuild it.
To reconcile this with Rav Huna, who, as we learned earlier, permits someone who purchased a Chatzer with ledges that jut out into the street, to rebuild it, after it has fallen, on the basis of his Chazakah - we draw a distinction between money-issues, where the Chachamim are more lenient, and Isur, where they are more stringent.
9)
The Tana Kama of another Beraisa permits whitewashing one's house, provided one adds sand or straw. Why is that?
Rebbi Yehudah concedes that it is permitted if one adds sand, but not straw. Why not? What is 'Traksid'?
9)
The Tana Kama of another Beraisa permits whitewashing one's house, provided one added sand or straw - because they detract from the whiteness.
Rebbi Yehudah concedes that it is permitted if one adds sand, but not straw - because straw turns it into Traksid, which increases the strength of the building, thereby making up for the lack of whiteness.
10)
Why did the 'Perushim' (exceptionally righteous people), stop eating meat and drinking wine after the Churban of the second Beis-Hamikdash?
On what grounds did Rebbi Yehoshua ask them why, by the same token, they did not then desist from eating ...
... bread?
... fruit?
What did they answer Rebbi Yehoshua with regard to ...
... bread?
... fruit?
In which point did he catch them out? What ought they to have stopped partaking of, even according to their way of thinking?
10)
The 'Perushim' (exceptionally righteous people), stopped eating meat and drinking wine after the Churban of the second Beis-Hamikdash as a Zeicher le'Churban (to commemorate the destruction), since the Korbanos and the Nesachim (the wine-offering that accompanied most offerings) ceased to function.
Rebbi Yehoshua asked them why, by the same token, they did not then desist from eating ...
... bread - seeing as the Menachos too, ceased to function.
... fruit - since the Bikurim were no longer brought.
They answered Rebbi Yehoshua that there was no point in not eating ...
... bread - since they could always eat other fruit (presumably, in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that the 'tree' from which Adam ate was wheat).
... fruit - since even if they ceased to eat the seven fruits from which Bikurim were brought, they would be able to eat other species of fruit.
He caught them out however - when he asked them why they did not then desist from drinking water, since Nisuch ha'Mayim (on Succos) too, had been negated. (see Tosfos DH 'Mayim').
11)
So what is Rebbi Yehoshua's final word in this matter, based on the Pasuk in Malachi "ba'Me'eirah atem Ne'arim ... ha'Goy Kulo"?
What did the Navi mean when he wrote ...
... "ba'Me'eirah atem Ne'arim"? What curse did the people accept upon themselves?
... "ve'Osi atem Kov'im"?
... "ha'Goy Kulo"?
What do we learn from here?
11)
Rebbi Yehoshua final word in this matter, based on the Pasuk in Malachi "ba'Me'eirah atem Ne'arim ... ha'Goy Kulo" was that - Chazal only decreed that what most of the people would be able to keep, and that beyond that, one should not, so to speak, be frummer than them.
When the Navi wrote ...
... "ba'Me'eirah atem Ne'arim", he was referring to the curse - that the people had accepted upon themselves if they did not give T'rumos and Ma'asros (which they undertook to bring to the Beis-Hamikdash).
... "ve'Osi atem Kov'im", he meant that - in spite of that curse, they robbed Hash-m (by depriving the Kohanim and Levi'im of their dues), by not carrying out what they had undertaken.
... "ha'Goy Kulo" he meant that - the original undertaking had been on the part of the entire community (a sign that they were all, or at least most of them) able to abide by it.
We learn from here that - any decree must be one that the majority of the community can abide by.
12)
In fact, we conclude, one may whitewash one's house, as long as one leaves a small section blank. How much must one leave? Where must one leave it?
What additional decree did Chazal institute Zeicher le'Churban, with regard to ...
... one's food? How did Rav Papa define this?
... a woman's ornaments? How did Rav define this?
The Tana learns all this from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Im Eshkachech Yerushalayim, Tishkach Yemini ... ". What does he learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "Im Lo A'aleh es Yerushalayim al Rosh Simchasi", according to the interpretation of Rav Yitzchak?
How does he derive this from the Pasuk there "Lasum la'Aveilei Tziyon, Laseis lahem Pe'er Tachas Eifer"?
What happens to someone who mourns over the destruction of Yeushalayim?
12)
In fact, we conclude, one may whitewash one's house - provided one leaves one square Amah facing the main entrance (some say above the entrance) blank.
The additional decree that Chazal instituted Zeicher le'Churban, with regard to ...
... one's food is - leaving out one dish from the menu (which Rav Papa defines as 'Kasa de'Harsena' [a dish comprising fish fried in oil with flour]).
... a woman's ornaments is - not wearing one of her ornaments (which Rav defines as 'bas Tzid'a' [lime that they would apply to the temples in order to remove any excessive hair there]).
The Tana learns all this from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Im Eshkachech Yerushalayim, Tishkach Yemini ... ". And from the continuation of the Pasuk "Im Lo A'aleh es Yerushalayim al Rosh Simchasi" (according to the interpretation of Rav Yitzchak) he adds that - a Chasan should place burned ashes on the front of his head, there where Tefilin are normally worn.
He derives this from the Pasuk there "Lasum la'Aveilei Tziyon, Laseis lahem Pe'er Tachas Eifer" which teaches us that - when Hash-m comforts Yisrael, He will crown them with glory instead of ashes (from which we can extrapolate that, in connection with the Churban, one wears ashes instead of glory [a reference to Tefilin, which bear the title 'Keser Torah']).
Someone who mourns over the destruction of Yerushalayim - will merit to participate in its ultimate rejoicing.
13)
The Romans later issued a terrible decree concerning 'Shevu'a ha'Ben' or 'Yeshua ha'Ben'. What did that decree comprise?
What ought Chazal to have decreed?
Then why did they not do so?
On what principle is this based?
13)
The Romans later issued a terrible decree concerning 'Shevu'a ha'Ben' or 'Yeshua ha'Ben', meaning that they forbade B'ris Milah, or Pidyon ha'Ben, in which case Chazal ought to have decreed ...
... that people should no longer marry (see Tosfos DH 'Din Hu'), even if it meant that Yisrael would become extinct.
They did not do so however - because they knew that most people would not have been able to abide by it.
This is based on the principle - 'Mutav she'Yih'yu Shogegin, va'Al Yih'yu Mezidin' (it is better to let people sin inadvertently, than to implement a decree that will force them to sin on purpose [See Tosfos SH 'Mutav']).