1)

A KORAH THAT DOES NOT REST ON THE WALLS OF THE MAVOY

(a)

Question (against both of them - R. Ada bar Masnah - Beraisa): If the Korah was Mashuchah or suspended (these will be explained) less than three Tefachim [from the walls], it permits; [if it was at least] three Tefachim [away], another Korah is needed.

1.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if it is less than four Tefachim, it permits. If not, it does not.

2.

Suggestion: 'Mashuchah' is outside the Mavoy [on pegs sticking out of the walls]. 'Suspended' is inside [in the middle. It does not reach the sides of the Mavoy.]

(b)

Answer #1 (Rava): No, both of these are inside. 'Mashuchah' does not reach one wall. 'Suspended' does not reach either wall;

1.

One might have thought that we apply Lavud to one side, but not to two. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. (We apply Lavud to both sides.)

(c)

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): No, the Korah is Mashuchah and suspended.

(d)

Question: What is the case?

(e)

Answer: One inserted a bent peg on top of each side wall of a Mavoy [at the opening]; the pegs go straight up less than three Tefachim, then bend inwards less than three Tefachim [each] to face each other; a Korah rests on top of them. (See Perush Chai, Perek 1 diagram 98, and see note 3 in Appendix. We say Chavut Rami and Lavud. It is as if the Korah was banged down to the height of the walls and reaches to the walls.)

1.

One might have thought that [in any particular case] we say Chavut Rami or Lavud, but not both. The Beraisa teaches that we say both.

2)

BEIN HA'LECHAYAYIM

(a)

(R. Zakai - Beraisa): The following are Karmelis: Bein ha'Lechayayim (the area parallel to the middle wall and even with the thickness of the Lechi), and under the Korah.

(b)

R. Yochanan: Do not teach this in the Beis Medrash!

(c)

(Abaye): Presumably, R. Yochanan objected to under the Korah (he permits), but he agrees that Bein ha'Lechayayim is forbidden.

(d)

(Rava): Also Bein ha'Lechayayim is permitted.

(e)

Support (Rava, for himself - Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If a place is not four by four [Tefachim], people in Reshus ha'Rabim or Reshus ha'Yachid may use it to unload, as long as they do not use it to transfer [from one Reshus to the other].

(f)

Rejection (Abaye): That is when it is three Tefachim tall. (It stands out, but Bein ha'Lechayayim does not.)

(g)

Support (Abaye, for himself - Rav Chama bar Gurya citing Rav): [If there is a pillar on each side of the opening of a Mavoy, the pillars count as Lechayayim;] the area between the pillars needs another Lechi [outside it] to permit it.

1.

Suggestion: The case is, it is four by four (it itself is a Karmelis)!

2.

Rejection: Rav Chanin bar Rava taught that Rav requires another Lechi to permit between the pillars even if it is not four by four.

(h)

Rejection (Rava): That is when it is open to a Karmelis.

(i)

Question: This implies that when it is open to Reshus ha'Rabim, it (between the pillars) is permitted [if less than four by four]. This is absurd! [Karmelis should not be more stringent than Reshus ha'Rabim.]

(j)

Answer: It is reasonable. (It itself would be a Karmelis if it was big enough.) When it opens to a Reshus (Karmelis) like itself, it completes the Shi'ur.

(k)

Question (against Rava - Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Rabah bar bar Chanah cited R. Yochanan to say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue about a Mavoy that has several Lechayayim (posts, from the opening towards the middle wall), successive Lechayayim are separated by [more than three but] less than four Tefachim of each other;

1.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel applies Lavud to a space up to four Tefachim [so all are considered like one long Lechi]. He permits [carrying] until the inner edge of the innermost Lechi. Chachamim do not apply Lavud [past three Tefachim, so the outermost Lechi stands by itself]. They permit until the inner edge of the outermost Lechi.

2.

All forbid Bein ha'Lechayayim!

(l)

Rejection #1 (Rava): Also this is when it is open to a Karmelis.

1.

Question: This implies that when it is open to a Reshus ha'Rabim it is permitted. This is absurd!

2.

Answer: It is reasonable. When it opens to a Reshus like itself, it completes the Shi'ur.

9b----------------------------------------9b

(m)

Rejection #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, the Lechayayim extend for four Amos. R. Shimon applies Lavud, so it is like one Lechi that extends four Amos. It is not considered a Lechi, rather, a Mavoy [wall]. Therefore, another Lechi is needed to permit [next to] it;

1.

Chachamim do not apply Lavud, so no other Lechi is needed to permit it.

3)

IS NIR'EH MIBA'CHUTZ V'SHAVAH MIBI'FNIM CONSIDERED A LECHI?

(a)

Question: [We assume that the Lechi in the opening sticks out a bit from the Mavoy, like is typical. Even if we consider all the Lechayayim like a wall of the Mavoy,] R. Shimon should permit, just like [an addition to the wall that is] Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim (noticeable only from the outside - see Perush Chai diagram, Perek 1 number 111, in the English Charts section) is considered a Lechi!

(b)

Answer: We discuss R. Yochanan's opinion. Ravin said that R. Yochanan does not consider Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim to be a Lechi.

(c)

Nir'eh mibi'Fnim v'Shavah miba'Chutz (it is noticeable only from the inside, like the second diagram in Rashi) is considered a Lechi;

(d)

(R. Chiya or R. Shimon b'Ribi): Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim is considered a Lechi.

(e)

(The other of R. Chiya and R. Shimon b'Ribi): It is not considered a Lechi.

(f)

Decision: R. Chiya considers it like a Lechi:

1.

(R. Chiya - Beraisa #1): If one side of [the thickness of] a wall is recessed from the other, whether it is Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim or Nir'eh mibi'Fnim v'Shavah miba'Chutz, it is considered a Lechi.

2.

Question: Did R. Yochanan not hear this?! (Why does he oppose the Beraisa?)

3.

Answer: He heard it, but disagrees with it. (He holds like Rav Ada's Beraisa at the end of this Daf.)

(g)

Rejection: Perhaps also R. Chiya heard Beraisa #1, but disagrees with it!

(h)

Objection: This is unreasonable! Granted, it is reasonable that R. Yochanan heard it, but disagrees with it. However, if R. Chiya disagreed with it, he would not teach it!

(i)

(Rabah bar Rav Huna): Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim is considered a Lechi.

(j)

Question (Rabah): A Mishnah seemingly refutes me!

1.

(Mishnah): If a small Chatzer was breached to a big Chatzer, the big Chatzer is permitted, but the small Chatzer is forbidden, for it is like an opening of the big one [but not vice-versa].

2.

If Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim were considered a Lechi, also the small Chatzer should be permitted! (The remains of the wall of the outer Chatzer are visible from the outside.)

(k)

Answer (R. Zeira): The case is, the walls of the small Chatzer extend into the big Chatzer (like the bottom right diagram in Rashi - nothing extends from them that could be considered a Lechi).

(l)

Question: We should consider the protruding walls to extend to the sides of the big Chatzer through Lavud!

1.

Suggestion: We do not because they are far (three or four Tefachim) from the side walls.

2.

Rejection (Rav Ada bar Avimi - Beraisa): The small Chatzer is 10 [Amos wide], and the big Chatzer is 11. (It is only one Amah wider, i.e. three Tefachim on each side minus the thickness of the protruding walls.)

(m)

Answer (Ravina): The small Chatzer is not centered, rather, its walls are four Tefachim from one side and two Tefachim from the other.

(n)

Question: The wall that is only two Tefachim away is Lavud to the side. It should permit!