A WALL THAT FELL ON SHABBOS (cont.)
(Rav): If the wall between two Chatzeros fell, one may not carry [in either Chatzer] more than four Amos;
(Shmuel): People of each Chatzer may carry up to where the wall was.
Rav did not say this explicitly. It was inferred from the following episode:
Rav and Shmuel were in a Chatzer. The wall between it and the adjoining Chatzer fell.
Shmuel: Spread a garment where the wall used to be.
Rav turned his face away. (He forbids to do so.)
Shmuel: Rav disapproves. Use his belt to tie the garment!
Question: Why did Shmuel need to spread a garment? He holds that people of each Chatzer may carry up to where the wall was!
Answer: He did so merely for privacy.
Question: If Rav forbids, he should have said so explicitly!
Answer: It was Shmuel's region. (It is improper for a colleague to rule against the local Chacham.)
Question: If so, why did he turn his face away?
Answer: He did not want people to think that he agrees with Shmuel.
A CHATZER THAT WAS BREACHED TO RESHUS HA'RABIM
(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If [the wall of] a Chatzer was breached to Reshus ha'Rabim, one who throws from it to Reshus ha'Yachid or vice-versa is liable;
Chachamim exempt one who throws from it to Reshus ha'Rabim [or to Reshus ha'Yachid] or vice-versa, for it is a Karmelis.
(Gemara) Question: Does R. Eliezer consider it a Reshus ha'Rabim just because it is breached to Reshus ha'Rabim?!
Answer: Yes! This is like he taught elsewhere:
(Beraisa - R. Yehudah citing R. Eliezer): If the public chose a path [through Reuven's field], they keep it. (He may not block it up.)
Question: Rav Gidal taught that the case is, they had a path in his field, but do not know on which side [and they chose one side. Normally, they would not keep it!]
Suggestion: This is the case in our Mishnah. (A wall of the Chatzer fell, and the Bnei Chatzer claim that the Rabim widened their path, and incorporated part of the Chatzer.)
Rejection: R. Chanina taught that the argument is up to the place of the wall [that fell. This implies that R. Eliezer considers the entire Chatzer to be Reshus ha'Rabim. Surely, the path did not encompass his entire Chatzer!]
Answer #1: R. Chanina taught that the argument is about (not up to) the place of the wall.
Answer #2: (We know where the wall used to be.) Rather, R. Eliezer holds that Tzidei (a shoulder of) Reshus ha'Rabim is like Reshus ha'Rabim, and Chachamim disagree.
Question: Why don't they argue about a normal case of Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim?
Answer: If so, one might have thought that Chachamim argue only [about a standard case,] when there are Chifufei (pegs sticking out of the ground to distance the Rabim from the walls. They separate between Reshus ha'Rabim and Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim. See Perush Chai diagram, Perek 9 number 71, in the English Charts section), but they agree when there are no Chifufei.
Question: In the Mishnah he obligates one who throws mi'Toch (from the interior of) the Chatzer to Reshus ha'Yachid! (Only the place of the fallen wall is Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim.)
Answer: (He does not obligate from the interior.) Since Chachamim say mi'Toch, he uses the same words.
Question: If R. Eliezer obligates only Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim, why do Chachamim reply with [the law of throwing from] the inside?
Answer: They say, don't you agree that one who throws from inside to Reshus ha'Yachid or vice-versa is exempt, because it is a Karmelis? The same applies to the edge (Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim)!
R. Eliezer distinguishes between them. Rabim traverse the edge, but not the inside.
A WALL THAT WAS BREACHED ON SHABBOS
(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If [on Shabbos] a Chatzer or house was breached on two sides, or if the Lechi or Korah was removed from a Mavoy, it is permitted for that Shabbos and forbidden in the future;
R. Yosi says, if it is permitted for that Shabbos it is permitted in the future. If it is forbidden for the future it is forbidden for that Shabbos.
(Gemara) Question: (The Mishnah implies that a breach on one side does not forbid.) What is the case?
Suggestion #1: The breach is [at most] 10 Amos.
Rejection: If so, it does not forbid on one side because it is an opening. The same applies to two sides!
Suggestion #2: The breach is more than 10 Amos.
Rejection: If so, it should forbid even on one side!
Defense (of Suggestion #1 - Rav): Really, it is 10. The case is, the breach is in [a place that is like two sides, i.e.] a corner. People do not make openings in corners.
(Mishnah): The same applies to a house that was breached on two sides.
Question: A breach on one side does not forbid because Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem. We should also say this for two sides!
Answer (d'Vei Rav citing Rav): The case is, the breach is in a corner, and the roof was breached on a diagonal (Tosfos; Rashi - the roof is sloped), so we do not say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem.
Defense (of Suggestion #2, regarding a Chatzer - Shmuel): Really, the breach is more than 10 Amos.
Question: If so, it should forbid even on one side!
Answer: The Tana discusses when two sides were breached, for this forbids also regarding a house.
Question #1: A breach on one side of a house does not forbid because Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem. We should say this also for two sides!
Question #2: Shmuel does not say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem!
(Rav): One may carry anywhere in an Achsadra in a valley [because Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem. Rashi - it has no walls. Tosfos - it has two adjacent walls or three walls];
(Shmuel): One may carry only within four Amos.
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (to Question #2): Shmuel does not apply Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem in four places, but he applies it in three.
Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer (to Question #2): Shmuel does not apply Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem when there are three [physical] walls, but he applies it when there are four [even if one wall is a mere Lechi, or even if two are]. (end of Version #2)
Question #1 is still difficult!
Answer: Rav answered that the breach is in a corner and the roof was breached diagonally (or is sloped). Shmuel can answer [somewhat] similarly. I.e. the breaches are in adjacent sides. (Together they are more than 10 Amos. Also, the width of four Amos (Rashash - Tefachim) of the roof over these breaches fell [like the picture in Rashi]. Since walls are lacking in four places, Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem does not permit. If only one side was breached, Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem would apply because the roof is flat and was not breached diagonally.)
Shmuel did not answer like Rav because the Mishnah does not say [that the roof was breached on a] diagonal (Rashi - that it is sloped);
Rav did not answer like Shmuel, for then it is like an Achsadra, and Rav permits an Achsadra.
(Rav): One may carry anywhere in an Achsadra in a valley, because Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem;
(Shmuel): One may carry only within four Amos. We do not say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem.
Version #1: All agree that breaches [in the Achsadra] up to 10 Amos do not forbid (they are like openings, due to (Tosfos; Rashi - even without) Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem). They argue about breaches more than 10.
Version #2: All agree that breaches more than 10 forbid. They argue about breaches no more than 10.