1)
(a)What are the 'Chamesh Amaltera'os shel Milah' referred to in Midos? Where were they situated?
(b)The Gemara asks that, according to Rav (quoting a Mishnah) in the Rabbanan, who learn the specifications of a Mavoy from the Heichal, an Amaltera (which means a cornice) should not help to render it Kasher. What is the Gemara asking on Rav?
(c)The Mishnah in Midos is talking about the Ulam, so how can we ask from the Heichal on the Rabbanan?
(d)We will learn later in a Mishnah that a Koreh which is too weak to hold a brick is not Kasher for a Mavoy. There are however, times, when it is. When is that?
1)
(a)The 'Chamesh Amaltera'os shel Milah' - were five rows of decorative beams (cornices - made of gall-apple wood) which stretched across the top of the Heichal.
(b)If, as Rav explains, the Rabbanan learn the maximum height of the Pesach of a Mavoy from the Heichal - then, considering that the Heichal had Amaltera'os at the height of twenty Amos, why does Rav himself permit a Koreh even when it is above twenty Amos, if it has an Amaltera.
(c)True, the Mishnah in Midos (which describes the Amaltera'os in the Beis Hamikdash), is talking about the Ulam - but we can assume that the Amaltera'os in the Heichal were formed in the same way as those of the Ulam.
(d)Even a Koreh which is too weak to hold a brick is Kasher for a Mavoy - if it is at least four Tefachim wide.
2)
(a)How does Rav answer the Kashya from the Beraisa on him (see 1b)?
(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains that, if not for Rav's interpretation of the Mishnah in Midos (quoted on Daf 2a), there would be no Kashya in the first place. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak accepts the latter Beraisa of Amaltera literally. How does he interpret the Mishnah in Midos (which connects the Rabbanan's opinion on the height of a Mavoy, with the Heichal)?
(c)Why, according to him, is a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos, Pasul?
(d)Seeing as Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over whether one needs to see the beam at a glance, why do they need to repeat their dispute by a Succah that is taller than twenty Amos (according to Rabah, who explains their Machlokes by Succah in that way).
2)
(a)Rav points out that the question in 1b, even without his explanation (giving the Rabbanan's source as being the height of the entrance to the Heichal), we have here a contradiction between two Beraisos - the one (quoted earlier on 2b) which gives the Rabbanan's source as being the height of the entrance of the Heichal, the other, which permits a Mavoy with an Amaltera, even if it is higher than twenty Amos (implying that they do not learn from the entrance of the Heichal). So we have a Machlokes Tana'im, and Rav will hold like the first Beraisa.
(b)According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Beraisa mentions the Heichal in connection with the Rabbanan's opinion of a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos - not because it is a source, but purely as a Si'man. In fact, they do not learn from the Heichal at all.
(c)According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos is Pasul - because the purpose that a Koreh serves is that of a Heker (as Rashi explains in our Mishnah), and a Koreh that is placed higher than twenty Amos is not immediately recognizable (just like a Succah, according to Rabah). That also explains why a Koreh with an Amaltera is Kasher even when it is higher than twenty Amos - since it is striking and therefore noticeable at a glance.
(d)Had they confined their argument to Succah, we would have said that Rebbi Yehudah validates a Succah that is higher than twenty Amos, because a Succah is meant for sitting in, and one will therefore notice it more quickly than a Koreh in a Mavoy, which is meant for walking through - so maybe there he will agree with the Rabbanan. If, on the other hand, they had only argued by a Mavoy, we would have said that the Rabbanan only invalidate a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos, because it is meant for walking through, whereas a Succah, which is meant for sitting in, perhaps they will agree with Rebbi Yehudah, who renders it Kasher.
3)
(a)Some explain Amaltera to mean 'patterned in the shape of birds'-nests', others, to mean 'long cedar poles'. What is their Machlokes?
(b)Rabah renders a Mavoy where part of the Koreh is above twenty and part below, Kasher; whereas he considers a Succah made in this way Pasul. The Gemara initially objects to this distinction on the grounds that, if the reason for the former is 'Kalush', then we should say Kalush by the latter, too. What does 'Kalush' mean, and what are the objections to saying Kalush in both cases?
(c)How does the Gemara overcome this problem?
3)
(a)Patterned birds'-nests are more striking (and more costly) than long cedar poles. Consequently, those who explain Amaltera to mean cedar poles would certainly agree that if the Koreh was patterned with birds'-nests, it would certainly be Kasher even above twenty Amos. But according to those who explain Amaltera to mean birds'-nests, if the beam was patterned with long cedar poles, it would not be Kasher if it was higher than twenty Amos.
(b)'Kalush' - means that we simply consider the top layer (that is above twenty Amos) as if it is was removed. The problem with saying Kalush by a Succah - is that, if we imagine the top layer to be removed, then the Succah will be Pasul, because there will be more sun than shade. But then, the Mavoy will be Pasul too -because it will be too light to withstand a regular wind (which is why a Koreh that is too weak to hold a brick, is Pasul).
(c)The Gemara overcomes this problem - by pointing out that when we say 'Kalush', we are not really taking away anything, but only considering as if it was removed (in order to be Machshir the Succah and the Mavoy). Consequently, we do not need to consider there to be more sun than shade, nor that the Koreh might blow away.
4)
(a)The Gemara finally gives two explanations for Rabah, who differentiates between a Mavoy and a Succah (which begin below, but rise to above, twenty Amos): one is that Chazal were more stringent by a Succah, which is d'Oraysa, than by a Mavoy, which is only de'Rabbanan. What is the other?
(b)Others reverse Rabah's statement: A Succah is Kasher (when some of the Sechach is placed within twenty Amos) whereas a Mavoy is Pasul. Here again, the Gemara gives two explanations for this - one of them, because what is d'Oraysa does not require strengthening, what is de'Rabbanan, does. What is the other?
4)
(a)The other reason to be more lenient by a Mavoy than by a Succah (with regard to a Succah and a Mavoy which begin within twenty, but end above twenty, Amos), is because, whereas a Succah is private property, and there is no-one to remind the owner should the lower section of Sechach wear thin, a Mavoy is public property, and one person will remind the other to remedy the situation, should the bottom of the beam rot and drop off.
(b)The second reason to be more stringent by a Mavoy than by a Succah - is because, whereas the owner of the Succah will notice when the lower section of the Sechach wears thin, and will rectify it, by a Mavoy, we do say this. Why not? Because of the principle (that we always apply by public property) 'A pot that belongs to partners, gets neither hot nor cold - in other words, when something belongs to many people, it never gets tended to, because everyone relies on the next person.
5)
(a)According to Rabah bar Rav Ula, both a Succah and a Mavoy are Pasul if some of the Sechach or the beam protrude above twenty Amos. What does Rava say? How does Rava differ radically from all that we have learnt about the Sechach or the Koreh (that are above twenty Amos) until now?
(b)How does Rav Papa prove his Rebbe's statement from the entrance of the Heichal?
(c)How does Rav Papa explain the Beraisa, which writes ... 'Meni'ach Koreh mi'Sefas Esrim u'Lematah'?
(d)If the Tana means above twenty Amos, then why does he write 'le'Matah'?
5)
(a)All the opinions before Rava, assumed that the twenty Amos of Hechsher of both the Succah and the Mavoy referred to the top of the Succah and the Mavoy (which is why we had a problem when part of the Sechach or part of the Koreh, was above twenty Amos. Rava now teaches us - that it is not the top of the Koreh that we are concerned with, but the top of the space, no matter how high the Koreh extends above that.
(b)Rav Papa proves his Rebbe's statement - from the entrance of the Heichal (to which the Beraisa compares our Din of a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos) - and it was the space of the Heichal that was twenty Amos, not including the the beams.
(c)Strange as it may sound, Rav Papa explains 'u'Lematah' in the Beraisa ('Meni'ach Koreh mi'Sefas Esrim u'Lematah') - to mean that one places the beam, not below twenty Amos, but above it.
(d)The Tana writes 'le'Matah' - to indicate that the Din of a Mavoy being not less than ten Tefachim, just like that of not being higher than twenty Amos, refers to the space, and does not include the Koreh.
3b----------------------------------------3b
6)
(a)To which two issues was Rav Nachman (quoted by Abaye) referring when he gave the Shi'ur Amah regarding a Mavoy as five Tefachim?
(b)Since Rav Nachman was coming to be stringent, how do we explain, according to him, the four Amos minimum length of a Mavoy - where small Amos would turn out to be a leniency? (two answers)
(c)What are the two ramifications of a similar statement that Rav Nachman made with regard to Succah?
(d)How will Rav Nachman explain the minimum area of four Amos by four Amos that Rebbi requires for a Succah? According to Rav Nachman, this will again be a leniency, and not a stringency (two answers)?
6)
(a)When Rav Nachman gave the Shi'ur Amah regarding a Mavoy as five Tefachim - he was referring to the twenty Amos (plus) height that requires lowering, and to the ten Amos (plus) that constitute a breach in the walls and that need to be repaired (both Chumros).
(b)As far as the minimum length (four Amos) of the Mavoy is concerned (where an Amah consisting of five Tefachim (rather than six) would turn out to be a Kula, either Rav Nachman follows the opinion that the minimum length of a Mavoy is four Tefachim (not Amos) - in which case he is not referring to this case at all, or he was stating the size of the Amah in most (not all) cases, (i.e. but by the four Amos minimum length of a Mavoy, according to him, each Amah consists of six Tefachim).
(c)Similarly, when Rav Nachman said that the Shi'ur Amah regarding a Succah is five Tefachim - he was referring to the maximum height of twenty Amos of a Succah, and to the Din of 'Dofen Akumah' (up to four Amos Sechach Pasul that is permitted on the roof, between the wall of the Succah and the Sechach (both Lechumra).
(d)As far as the minimum area of the Succah is concerned - either Rav Nachman holds like the Chachamim, who give the minimum area as 'Rosho ve'Rubo ve'Shulchano' (seven Tefachim by seven Tefachim), or even if he holds like Rebbi, Rav Nachman is stating the size of the Amah in most cases (as we explained above with regard to Mavoy); but the four Amos by four Amos minimum of Rebbi is measured by Amos of six Tefachim - Lechumra.
7)
(a)With regard to Kil'ayim however, Rav Nachman holds (again le'Chumra), that an Amah consists of six Tefachim. He said this with regard to a Karachas ha'Kerem and Mechol ha'Kerem. What is ...
1. ... a 'Karachas ha'Kerem'?
2. ... a 'Mechol ha'Kerem'?
(b)Why do Beis Hillel require ...
1. ... sixteen Amos by Karachas ha'Kerem, and why do Beis Shamai require twenty-four?
2. ... twelve Amos in a Mechol ha'Kerem?
(c)What does the following Mishnah in Kil'ayim mean: 'Kerem ha'Natu'a al Pachos me'Arba Amos, Rebbi Shimon Omer, Eino Kerem'?
(d)Assuming that Rav Nachman incorporates all cases of Amah in connection with Kil'ayim, and assuming that he is coming to be stringent, as we explained above, what will do with Rebbi Shimon in the above Mishnah in Kil'ayim, where Rav Nachman's statement will be a leniency, and not a stringency?
7)
(a)
1. A 'Karachas ha'Kerem' - is a bald patch in the middle of the vineyard, where some vines died.
2. A 'Mechol ha'Kerem' is - an empty space between the vines and the wall, where some vines died.
(b)Beis Hillel require ...
1. ... sixteen Amos by a Karachas ha'kerem: - Four Amos (according to everyone) is required on each side , because of Avodas ha'Kerem (room for the oxen and the plow etc., when the grapes are harvested and when the vineyard is plowed), plus eight Amos in the middle - four Amos of field corresponding to the standing vines on the one side (since less than four Amos is not Chashuv - according to Beis Hillel - and would therefore be Batel to it, and four Amos for those on the other side. According to Beis Shamai, less than eight Amos is not Chashuv (and would be Batel to the Kerem), so he requires sixteen Amos in the middle - eight Amos for the standing vines on the one side, and eight, for those on the other side.
2. ... twelve Amos by a Mechol ha'Kerem: - four Amos of Avodas ha'Kerem and four Amos of field (on the one side only), plus the four Amos next to the wall, which people tended to avoid using, in order not to weaken the wall's foundations; these four Amos they would declare Hefker.
(c)'Kerem ha'Natu'a al Pachos me'Arba Amos, Rebbi Shimon Omer, Eino Kerem' - means that a vineyard whose rows of vines were planted less than four Amos apart (since there is not sufficient space for oxen and wagons to pass, in order to harvest the grapes and till the soil, is not considered a vineyard according to Rebbi Shimon, and one is permitted to sow seeds there.
(d)Assuming that Rav Nachman incorporates all cases of Amah in connection with Kil'ayim, and assuming that he is coming to be stringent - we will have to say that he holds like the Rabbanan (who forbid sowing seeds there, because they hold that the vineyard remains a vineyard, even if the rows are less than four Amos apart). Consequently, Rav Nachman's statement 'Amah bas Kil'ayim be'Amah bas Shishah' does not incorporate this case.