1)
(a)Why will planting trees in a Karpaf (an enclosure) which is more than a Beis Sasayim not permit carrying inside it - in spite of the fact that the section without trees is now no more than a Beis Sasayim?
(b)What then, must one do to permit carrying there?
(c)Rabah permits even a board between three and four Tefachim long. Why?
(d)What does Rava say, and what is his reason?
1)
(a)Planting trees in a Karpaf which is more than a Beis Sasayim will not permit carrying inside it - since it is normal to plant trees in a Karpaf, so that the status of the initial wall will not have been changed.
(b)Sticking a board ten Tefachim high and four by four Tefachim in the ground (anywhere in the area - even in the middle) of the Karpaf - will reduce it to a Beis Sasayim to permit carrying there.
(c)Rabah permits even a board of three Tefachim or more - because anything which is three Tefachim or more leaves the realm of Levud. (Consequently, the two ends of land are no longer considered still joined).
(d)According to Rava - it will be forbidden to carry there, unless the plank is at least four Tefachim long - because four Tefachim is considered a Makom Chashuv (as we learnt repeatedly with regard to the Din of the Reshuyos on Shabbos).
2)
(a)Rabah and Rava have a similar argument with regard to a Karpaf that is more than a Beis Sasayim, when a second wall is built at a distance of between three and four Tefachim from one of the first ones. What is their Machlokes there?
(b)If the second wall is less than three Tefachim from the first, it will not be effective. The Gemara is not speaking (as it was in the previous case) about detracting from more than a Beis Sasayim, explains Rashi. Why Not? What then are we speaking about?
(c)Rav Shimi quotes both of the above Machlokos leniently. How does he explain the two Machlokos between Rabah and Rava?
(d)They also argue when he smeared a layer of plaster on the wall. What is their Machlokes there, and in which case will they agree that one may still not carry?
2)
(a)When a second wall is built inside one of the original walls of a Karpaf that is more than a Beis Sasayim - Rabah permits carrying there provided the second wall is at least three Tefachim distant from the first - since it has left the realm of Levud; whereas according to Rava, even at a distance of under four Tefachim it is Batel to the first wall, and is not considered important to detract from the area of more than Beis Sasayim.
(b)The question of the second wall being less than three Tefachim from the first, cannot be speaking about detracting from more than a Beis Sasayim - because, if it was, then it would not be any worse than thick plaster added to the wall, which we shall soon see, does detract from the excessive area. In fact, explains Rashi, we are speaking about an area that remains more than a Beis Sasayim, and the point in question is about turning the Karpaf into one which is 'Pasach ve'li'be'Sof Hukaf'.
(c)According to Rav Shimi - Rabah and Rava agree that a three Tefachim Amud will detract from more than a Beis Sasayim, and a second wall three Tefachim distant from the first, is a Mechitzah. Their dispute concerns an Amud which is less than three Tefachim in length, and a wall less than three Tefachim distant from the first: in both cases Rabah will be lenient even there.
(d)Rabah and Rava both agree that if one smeared a thick layer of cement (that would have stood even if it had not been attached to the wall) on to a wall surrounding an area that was more than a Beis Sasayim - the extra layer will detract from the excess area, and that one may therefore carry there. But if only a thin layer of plaster (which could not have stood without the wall) was added - Rava maintains that it does not detract from the wall, and one may not carry there; whereas Rabah permits carrying even there.
3)
(a)If one wall of the Karpaf was a raised mound of earth, what kind of Tikun would be effective according to everyone - to turn it into a Karpaf which is Hukaf le'Dirah?
(b)Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshes argue about whether a wall on top of the mound will be effective or not: Rav Chisda holds that it will. In which area of Halachah will he concede that a wall on top of a wall is ineffective?
(c)In which case will Rav Sheshes (who holds that a wall on top of a wall is ineffective) concede that it is effective?
3)
(a)If one side of a Karpaf which is far in excess of a Beis Sasayim is a raised mound of earth - everyone will agree that one may turn it into a Hukaf le'Dirah - by building a wall parallel to it at a distance of four Tefachim from it.
(b)Rav Chisda concedes - that building a wall on top of a wall in the property of a Ger who died (and who leaves no heirs) is ineffective, and that, somebody who does so, will not acquire the property.
(c)And Rav Sheshes concedes - that building a wall on top of a wall will be effective, if one builds it on top of a mound which is more than a Beis Sasayim. This is because the wall is now effective to turn the mound into a Hukaf le'Dirah, in which we will say 'Migu' - i.e. since the wall is effective for the people on top of the mound, it will also be effective for those living below, to turn the area into one that is now Hukaf le'Dirah..
4)
(a)If someone builds a wall on top of a wall, after the death of the Ger to whom it had previously belonged, why will he not acquire that piece of land - even if the lower wall sunk into the ground?
(b)Will one be permitted to carry in that area on Shabbos - if the lower wall sunk into the ground on Shabbos?
(c)How will this conform with Rav Nachman, who said about a wall that was built on Shabbos 'Aval Letaltel, Asur'?
4)
(a)If someone builds a wall on top of a wall after the death of the Ger to whom it had previously belonged, he will not acquire that piece of land - even if the lower wall subsequently sinks into the ground - because at the time that he made the Chazakah (built the wall), he did not acquire it (since it was then a Mechitzah on top of a Mechitzah); later, when the lower wall sunk into the ground, he did not make a Chazakah, but now wants to acquire the property automatically in retrospect - and one cannot acquire the property of a Ger retroactively.
(b)However, if the lower wall sunk into the ground on Shabbos - one will be permitted to carry there, because a Mechitzah that comes into existence automatically, is considered a Mechitzah.
(c)When Rav Nachman said about a wall that was built on Shabbos 'Aval Letaltel, Asur' - he was referring to someone who built it on purpose, but not in a case such as ours, where it came into existence automatically.
5)
(a)According to Rebbi Zeira, covering one Sa'ah of a Karpaf consisting of three, permits carrying in the entire three Sa'ah area. Why do we not include the covered area in the uncovered section, to forbid carrying there, like Rabah holds?
(b)Rav permits carrying within the entire space of a covered area in a large field, Shmuel forbids it. Rav's reason, like that of Rebbi Zeira, is because of 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem'. Is it possible for Rabah to hold like Rav?
5)
(a)The reason that Rebbi Zeira permits carrying in an area of three Sa'ah, of which one Sa'ah was covered - is because he holds of the principle 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem', whereas Rabah does not hold of it here (for reasons that will be explained immediately).
(b)Yes, Rabah could well hold like Rav - who says 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem'. However, that is only by a roof which is parallel to the ground, at a hundred and eighty degrees, whereas our case speaks by a slanting roof, and it is there that Rabah disagrees with Rebbi Zeira.
25b----------------------------------------25b
6)
(a)Rebbi Yosef agrees with Rabah that by a Karpaf of a Beis Sasayim which opens fully into a Chatzer, the air of the Chatzer adds on to the Karpaf and forbids one to carry there. What did Rebbi Yosef mean when he asked him 've'Chi Avir ha'Mutar Lo, Asro'?
(b)If a Karpaf opens completely into a Chatzer (whose walls extend on both sides beyond the width of the Karpaf), Rav Chisda permits carrying in the Chatzer, but not in the Karpaf. Why did he confine his statement to the Karpaf that opens completely into the Chatzer, and not the reverse?
(c)How does this prove that Rav Chisda holds like Rebbi Shimon?
(d)How does this answer Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rebbi Zeira?
6)
(a)When Rebbi Yosef asked Rebbi Zeira 've'Chi Avir ha'Mutar Lo, Asro' - he meant to ask how it is possible for the air of an area where one is permitted to carry, to transform the Karpaf from an area which is permitted to one which is forbidden?
(b)Rav Chisda confined his statement (that if a Karpaf opens completely into a Chatzer (whose walls extend on both sides beyond the width of the Karpaf), one may carry in the Chatzer, but not in the Karpaf) to the Karpaf that opens completely into the Chatzer, and not the reverse - because the reason that carrying in the Karpaf is forbidden is because the space of the Chatzer adds to that of the Karpaf, making it more than a Beis Sasayim, and rendering it Asur (even though the Chatzer itself is permitted). In the reverse case, the Chatzer would not become forbidden due to the added space of the Karpaf. Why not? Because a Chatzer of more than a Beis Sasayim remains permitted in all cases, since it is Hukaf le'Dirah.
(c)This proves that Rav Chisda holds like Rebbi Shimon (according to whom the Chatzer and the Karpaf are considered as one Reshus - because if he were to hold like the Rabbanan, then the reason that carrying is forbidden in a Karpaf which opens fully into a Chatzer, is because, any Reshus which opens fully into another Reshus is considered as if it was lacking a wall. In that case, what is the difference between a Karpaf that opens fully into a Chatzer, or a Chatzer that opens fully into a Karpaf? Both should be Asur?
(d)In any event, we see that even according to Rebbi Shimon, the Chatzer, which is itself permitted, nevertheless adds to the space of the Karpaf, to make it more than a Beis Sasayim and to forbid carrying there - like Rebbi Zeira's contention, and not like Rav Yosef's Kashya.
7)
(a)On what grounds did Rav Bibi want to permit carrying in that orchard of more than a Beis Sasayim, when the wall of the adjoining house collapsed?
(b)What did Rav Papi mean when he referred to Rav Bibi as Mula'i?
(c)On what grounds did he object to Rav Papi's ruling?
7)
(a)Rav Bibi wanted to permit carrying in that orchard which adjoined the house, when the adjoining wall collapsed - on the grounds that the three remaining walls of the house could now also double as walls for the orchard.
(b)When Rav Papi referred to Rav Bibi as Mula'i - he meant that, as a son of Abaye, he descended from the house of Eli, who were all 'cut off' (the literal meaning of 'Mula'i), because, as a rule, they all died before they reached the age of twenty.
(c)Rav Papi objected - on the grounds that the three remaining walls of the house were built to protect the inside of the house, and could not therefore double as walls for the orchard outside.