1)
Rebbi Shimon differs radically from the Tana Kama, whose opinion we have just discussed. According to him, how many ...
... caves would Reuven need to dig for Shimon in the Chatzer?
... Kuchin would be required in each cave?
What are therefore the measurements of each cave?
Why, according to both opinions, does the Chatzer need to be six by six Amos.
And how many Chatzeros does Reuven need to dig, according to Rebbi Shimon?
1)
Rebbi Shimon differs radically from the Tana Kama, whose opinion we have just discussed. According to him, Reuven would need to dig ...
... four caves for Shimon in the Chatzer.
... thirteen Kuchin in each cave, four on each of the two walls adjacent to the Chatzer, three in the opposite wall and two additional ones which will be discussed in the Sugya.
The measurements of each cave will therefore be six by eight Amos.
According to both Tana'im, the Chatzer needs to be six by six Amos to accommodate the Aron and those carrying it.
Even Rebbi Shimon agrees that Reuven needs to dig only one Chatzer.
2)
The Tana first discusses the Din of a cave, then the Chatzer and then the two caves that flank the Chatzer. Why can we not extrapolate from this that according to the Tana Kama, Reuven has to dig three caves?
Then why does he begin with the Din of the cave, before that of the Chatzer?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says at the conclusion of our Mishnah 'ha'Kol K'fi ha'Sela'. What does he mean by that?
2)
The Tana first discusses the Din of a cave, then the Chatzer and then the two caves that flank the Chatzer from which we cannot extrapolate from this that according to the Tana Kama, Reuven has to dig three caves - because if that were so, the Kashya that we will ask later about the Kuchin overlapping according to Rebbi Shimon will pertain equally to the Tana Kama.
In fact, he chooses to begin with the Din of the cave before that of the Chatzer - because a Chatzer by definition, must lead on to something. Consequently if the cave did not precede the Chatzer, it cannot be referred to as a Chatzer.
When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says at the conclusion of our Mishnah 'ha'Kol K'fi ha'Sela', he means that - the number of Kuchin must be determined by the toughness of the rock (and cannot be fixed in the way that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon explain).
3)
The two extra Kuchin of Rabbi Shimon cannot be situated on the side adjoining the Chatzer, actually dug into the floor of the Chatzer, for two reasons, One of them is because ha'Misdashi L'hu'. What does this mean?
What is the second objection?
We object to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation that one digs them there, only vertically, like a bolt (so that the bodies are buried in a standing position) on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yochanan. How did Rebbi Yochanan refer to such a burial?
Where in fact, are those two extra Kuchin situated, according to Rebbi Yochanan?
3)
The two extra Kuchin, according to Raban Shimon, cannot be situated on the side adjoining the Chatzer, actually dug into the floor of the Chatzer, for two reasons, one of them because 'ha'Misdashi L'hu' which means that in that case the people who enter the Chatzer would be trampling (in an organized manner) on top of the two Kuchin that are dug into the Chatzer from the cave, which would be disrespectful (as opposed to those who walk over the caves en passant on their way to bury their Meis, which is more casual and less disrespectful).
The second objection is that - this would clash with the Mishnah in Ohalos 'Chatzer ha'Kever, ha'Omed be'Tocho Tahor' (Whoever stands inside the Chatzer of a gravesite, remains Tahor).
We object to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation that one digs them there, only vertically, like a bolt (so that the bodies are buried in a standing position) on the basis of a statement of Rebbi Yochanan who refers to such a burial as 'the burial of a donkey (and it is therefore not Kavod ha'Meis).
According to Rebbi Yochanan the two extra Kuchin - jut diagonally from the two corners between the opposite wall and the adjacent ones ('be'Keren Zavis').
101b----------------------------------------101b
4)
We query Rebbi Yochanan however, on the grounds that the (three) corner Kuchin are bound to touch each other ('ve'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi?'). How does Rav Ashi ...
... resolve this problem?
... prove his point?
How do other commentaries explain 'Keren Zavis'?
What do we then mean when we ask 've'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi'?
Then why does Reuven only dig these four Kuchin at a lower level? Why is he not obligated to dig another complete set of Kuchin underneath the first one?
Then why does the same problem not exist according to the two current explanations?
4)
We query Rebbi Yochanan however, on the grounds that the corner Kuchin are bound to touch ('ve'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi'). Rav Ashi ...
... resolves this problem by obligating Reuven to dig them one Amah lower than the rest of the Kuchin, and he ...
... proves his point from the fact that Rebbi Shimon requires four caves, which would be impossible without digging them at different levels to avoid the Kuchin in each respective cave from overlapping with the end Kuchin in the adjoining one.
Some commentaries explain 'Keren Zavis' to mean that the two additional caves in the corner of the Kuch, jut out at right-angles in the half-Amah at the extreme corner beside the entrance of the cave, between the wall of the entrance and the side adjacent to it, one cave below the other, as Rav Ashi explains.
When we ask 've'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi', we mean that the two additional Kuchin are bound to cross.
And the reason that Reuven only digs these four Kuchin at a lower level, and not another complete set of Kuchin underneath the first one is because Kuchin flanked along their entire length on both sides by other Kuchin (even at two levels) would weaken the earth in which they are dug, causing them to cave in.
The same problem does not exist according to the two current explanations is is not a problem according to the two current explanations however - since the four Kuchin in question, are only flanked at one point, where the earth is hard. .
5)
We reject this explanation however, for two reasons. One of them, because this does not fit the description of 'Keren Zavis'. What is the other?
Why can we not refute the latter reason on the grounds that he does nor want to dig one grave underneath the other?
In view of the previous two questions, how do we ...
... define 'be'Keren Zavis' of Rebbi Yochanan?
... explain the Kashya 've'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi'?
5)
We reject this explanation however, for two reasons a. because this does not fit the description 'Keren Zavis' - b. because if that were so, Reuven ought to dig Kuchin at two levels all along the cave.
We cannot refute the latter reason on the grounds that he does nor want to dig one Kuch underneath the other because in any event the two end adjacent Kuchin cannot be dug at the same level, seeing they are otherwise bound to overlap.
In view of the previous two questions, we ...
... define 'be'Keren Zavis' of Rebbi Yochanan as jutting out diagonally.
... 've'Ha Nag'i Kuchin Lehadadi?' to mean that each diagonal Kuch touches the two Kuchin on either side of it, one on each side of the cave.
6)
Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua tries to solve the problem with Rebbi Shimon by establishing that the four Kuchin along the two lengths of the caves are dug 'ka'Charuta'. What does he mean by that? What is 'Charuta'?
What is the advantage of this explanation?
6)
Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua tries to solve our problem with Rebbi Shimon by establishing that the four Kuchin along the two lengths of the caves are dug 'ka'Charuta' - like the branches of a date-palm (meaning that they all jut diagonally in the same direction from the cave).
... eliminating the need to dig additional Kuchin, either in the corners or at a second level.
7)
In spite of the advantage of Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua's explanation, we dismiss it as a joke. Why is that?
By how much does the hypotenuse of a triangle whose other two sides are equal, exceed them?
In that case, what exactly is the problem with Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua?
7)
In spite of the advantage of Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua's explanation, we dismiss it as a joke - since it would simply not be possible to fit the Kuchin into the space provided (as we will now explain).
The hypotenuse of a triangle whose other two sides are equal exceeds each of those two sides by one and two fifths.
Consequently, the problem with Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua is that - it is impossible to fit eight Kuchin (i.e. eight Amos for the Kuchin plus seven for the spaces in between) into eleven and a fifth Amos (the diagonal of a triangle whose other two sides are each eight Amos).
8)
We find another way of eliminating the need to dig two levels of Kuchin by citing Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi. What kind of Kuchin does Rav Shisha refer to later in the Sugya, which we can now apply to the four Kuchin in question?
Why is there not a problem with the fact that, when all's said and done, there will not be a space of an Amah between the Kuchin concerned and the full-size ones?
8)
We find another way of eliminating the need to dig two levels of Kuchin (according to Rebbi Shimon), by citing Rav Shisha b'rei d'Rav Idi, who will later in the Sugya refer to small Kuchin for Nefalim (still-born babies), which we now apply to the four Kuchin in question. Due to their narrow width and short length, these Kuchin do not encroach on the neighboring Kuchin in the one case, and on each other, in the other.
The fact that there is not a space of an Amah between the Kuchin concerned and the full-size ones is not a problem however - because, due to their smaller size, a narrow wall between them, however thin, will eliminate the danger of the one Kuch causing the other to cave in.