(a)May one carry from a Chatzer to the area of Pasei Bira'os into which it leads?
(b)What if two Chatzeros lead into that area?
(c)Why will the fact that the two Chatzeros made an Eruv not make any difference - according to Rav Huna?
(d)How will Rav Huna then explain the Beraisa which says 'Aval Ervu, Mutarin'?
(a)Yes - one may carry from a Chatzer to the area of Pasei Bira'os into which it leads, since there are no residents living between the Pasin.
(b)If two individual Chatzeros (where no Eruv was made) lead into that area -then it is forbidden.
(c)The reason that carrying from one to the other is forbidden, even by means of an Eruv, according to Rav Huna - is because of a decree, because maybe people will think that an Eruv will permit carrying in the area of Pasei Bira'os.
(d)Rav Huna establishes the Beraisa which says 'Aval Ervu, Mutarin' - when, besides the Eruv via the entrance between the two Chatzeros, another large breach also occurred between the two Chatzeros, making it evident for all to see that they are one Reshus (and removing the concern quoted above).
(a)What will be the Din if the water dries up on Shabbos? May one continue to carry in the area of the Pasei Bira'os?
(b)And what will be the Din if it then rained heavily, and the pit filled up again - on Shabbos?
(c)According to Rav Nachman, a Mechitzah which is made on Shabbos, is considered a Mechitzah only Lechumra (to be Chayav if one throws into it from a Reshus ha'Rabim), but not Lekula (to be permitted to carry there). Why does that not apply here?
(a)Carrying in the area of the Pasei Bira'os is only permitted as long as there is water in the pit - Once it stops, it becomes forbidden to carry there.
(b)If it then rained, and the pit filled up again, it is permitted to carry there once more, since we have learnt that a Mechitzah that is erected on Shabbos, is a Kasher Mechitzah (and this will not be worse).
(c)Rav Nachman forbids (mi'd'Rabbanan) carrying in an area whose Mechitzah was erected on Shabbos - only by a Mechitzah that was erected deliberately, but not otherwise. And in our case, the water fell naturally, and not by the hand of man.
(a)Rebbi Elazar says that someone who throws into the area between the Pasei Bira'os (from the street) is Chayav. Why does this not appear to be a Chidush?
(b)What, in fact, is the Chidush?
(c)But did Rebbi Elazar not tell us that before, when he, together with Rebbi Yochanan, remarked (with regard to the opinion of the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah) 'Kahn Hodi'ucha Kochan shel Mechitzos'?
(d)What does Rebbi Yehudah hold?
(a)If Chazal permitted carrying inside the area of Pasei Bira'os, then the Pasin must be considered Mechitzos min ha'Torah - In that case, what is Rebbi Elazar's Chidush, when he teaches us that someone who throws into the area between the Pasei Bira'os (from the street) is Chayav?
(b)Rebbi Elazar's Chidush is that - even though that area remains part of the main road, we do not say that the people negate the Pasin, and the area retains its status as a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c)When Rebbi Elazar, together with Rebbi Yochanan, remarked (with regard to the opinion of the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah) 'Kahn Hodi'ucha Kochan shel Mechitzos' - we may have thought that he was simply telling us how for the Chachamim went, but that Halachically, he follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
(d)Rebbi Yehudah holds - that one is obligated to arrange a new road for the public, to circumvent the Pasei Bira'os. In fact, he never made the remark in c. (though Rebbi Yochanan presumably, did). It was we who inferred from his other statement, that he agreed with Rebbi Yochanan.
(a)Under which circumstances may one stand in the Reshus ha'Rabim and drink in the Reshus ha'Yachid or vice-versa? Why is that?
(b)What does 've'Chen be'Gas' mean?
(c)The Gemara asks whether the animal too, needs its head and most of it to be inside, before it is permitted to drink from the Pasei Bira'os, or not. In which case does the She'eilah apply, and in which case is it obvious that it does require Rosho ve'Rubo?
(a)In order to stand in the Reshus ha'Rabim and drink in the Reshus ha'Yachid or vice-versa - one needs to bend over one's head and most of his body into the Reshus that he wants to drink. Otherwise, we are afraid that he may just move his body together with the cup of water, to where his legs are, rendering him Chayav Kares or Chatas.
(b)As long as one drinks wine from the wine-press - in the wine-press, he is Patur from Ma'asering it, since it is considered Arai (casual), even if he adds hot water. Once he takes the wine out of the wine-press, and adds hot water to it, it has a Din of Kavu'a, and must be Ma'asered before drinking it is permitted. There too, he must bend over the wine-press 'Rosho ve'Rubo' in order to be permitted to drink it without Ma'asering it.
(c)If the owner was holding the bowl of water and not the animal, it goes without saying that the head of the animal and most of its body must also be within the area of the Pasei Bira'os - the She'eilah of the Gemara (whether or not, this is necessary) is when the head and most of the animal's body is inside.
(a)The Beraisa forbids placing a bucket of water in front of one's animal on Shabbos. What makes the Gemara establish this Beraisa when the owner is holding the bucket but not the animal that causes it to ask 've'Chi Nakat Manah ve'Lo Nakat Lah, Mi Shari'?
(b)How does Abaye establish the Beraisa, which forbids placing a bucket of water in front of one's animal on Shabbos?
(c)Why did Chazal prohibit placing water in front of the animal - in that case?
(d)What is the problem with this explanation? Why should he not be Chayav?
(a)If the Beraisa was speaking when the owner was holding both the bucket and the animal - then why would the animal need to be standing Rosho ve'Rubo within the Pasei Bira'os (according to the current contention). We assume that this is necessary, explains Tosfos DH 'Vehatanya', because we presume the Beraisa to refer to our Mishnah.
(b)Abaye establishes the Beraisa, which forbids placing a bucket of water in front of one's animal on Shabbos - by a feeding-trough of ten Tefachim high and four by four Tefachim wide, which is placed right next to the Pasei Bira'os.
(c)Chazal prohibited placing water in front of the animal on the wall of the trough - in case he finds that the trough requires fixing (in a way that is not Makeh ba'Patish), and, in order to effect the repair, he will carry the bucket into the street.
(d)The problem with this explanation - is the ruling of Rebbi Yochanan, that a person will not be Chayav for carrying unless he meant to contravene the Halachos of carrying from the moment he picked up the article; and in our case, he only decided to carry out the bucket, when he discovered the defect in the wall of the trough - not when he initially picked up the bucket to place on the trough. And since there is no Chiyuv d'Oraysa here, why would Chazal issue a decree (this appears to be a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah')?
(a)How does the Gemara finally explain the reason for the prohibition?
(b)Is there any way of watering one's animal in the above case?
(c)The second version of the She'eilah regarding 'Rosho ve'Rubo' takes a more stringent view than the first. What is the second version of the She'eilah?
(a)The Gemara therefore concludes that the reason for the decree is - that he may put the bucket down whilst he effects the repair, and then he will pick up the bucket from the street, and place it on the wall of the trough, having carried from the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid in the process.
(b)The way to water his animal in the previous case - would be to empty it from the bucket into the trough.
(c)In the second version of the She'eilah - the Gemara asks whether Rosho ve'Rubo helps, not when he is holding the bucket, but not the animal (when Rosho ve'Rubo would most certainly not help), but when he is holding both the bucket and the animal.
(a)Can we resolve our She'eilah from the Beraisa, which rules that, when force-feeding a camel (which entails holding its neck as well as the bucket from which one is feeding it), the camel must be 'Rosho ve'Rubo' inside the Reshus ha'Yachid?
(b)On the premise that 'Ovsin' by definition has the Din of holding the animal as well as the bowl, why is there no proof from the following Beraisa: 'Behemah she'Roshah ve'Rubah Bifenim, Ovsin Osah mi'Bifenim'? Why can we not derive from here that even when holding both the bucket and the animal, 'Rosho ve'Rubo' is required?
(c)But there are two Beraisos, one which uses the term 'Gamal', the other, 'Behemah'?
(d)We finally resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say?
(a)The fact that the Beraisa requires Rosho ve'Rubo of a camel inside the Reshus ha'Yachid when feeding it - is no proof that the same applies to other necks. This decree may well be confined to camels who, on account of their long necks, will easily stretch them from one Reshus to another.
(b)There is no proof from the Beraisa 'Behemah she'Roshah ve'Rubah Bifenim, Ovsin Osah mi'Bifenim' (that even when one holds both the bucket and the animal, 'Rosho ve'Rubo' is required) - because that Beraisa could well be referring to a camel, and not to other animals.
(c)Even if there two Beraisos, one which uses the term 'Gamal', the other, 'Behemah' - they could both be referring to a camel. This is because, since they were not learnt together, their respective authors could have been using two different styles - the one called a camel 'a camel', the other, 'an animal'.
(d)We finally resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, which specifically states - 'Rebbi Eliezer Oser be'Gamal, Ho'il ve'Tzavaro Aruch'.
(a)How do we reconcile the two statements, one restricting the concession of Pasei Bira'os to people going to Yerushalayim for Yom-Tov, the other, restricting it to watering one's animals?
(b)Why does the concession not extend to people?
(c)If one may only use the Pasei Bira'os for one's animals, then why should it be confined to spring-water?
(a)The concession of Pasei Bira'os for people going to Yerushalayim for Yom-Tov - is restricted to watering one's animals, and may not be used for one's own personal use.
(b)The concession not extend to people - because people are able to clamber down the well to drink there.
(c)Since it is on account of the water that Chazal allowed the Pasin to serve as Mechitzos (and did not forbid them mi'd'Rabbanan) - water which is Chashuv is required i.e. spring-water that is fit for humans (see Tosfos DH 'Midi').