1)

(a)Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Dosa describe the k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin as 'Kamo'ah u'Klifasah. What should it be according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah (of the Beraisa of Chatzi Peras)?

2. ... Rebbi Yossi?

3. ... Rebbi?

(b)Who are the Chachamim who give the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin as a k'Beitzah u'Mechtzah Shochkos?

(c)Considering that the author of this statement is Rav Chisda, who has already explained Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah above to conform with this, what is the Chidush?

1)

(a)According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah (who defines a Chatzi Pras as 'Shtei Beitzim Chaser Kim'a') - Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Dosa, who describe the k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin as 'Kamo'ah u'Klifasah', should have given a slightly smaller Shi'ur.

2. ... Rebbi Yossi (who describes it as 'Sh'tei Beitzim Shochkos') - they should have given a slightly larger Shi'ur.

3. ... Rebbi (who added one twentieth of a k'Beitzah to every k'Beitzah) - they should have given a larger Shi'ur still.

(b)The Chachamim who give the Shi'ur of Tum'as Ochlin as a k'Beitzah u'Mechtzah Shochkos - are none other than Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (of our Mishnah), who gave the Shiur of Eruv as a quarter of a Kav - six k'Beitzim; half of that (three k'Beitzim) for a plagued house; and half of that (one a half k'Beitzim) for the half a Peras of Pesul Gevi'ah. Note: By the same token, the k'Beitzah of Tum'as Ochlin will be one and a quarter k'Beitzim according to him.

(c)Rav Chisda needs to teach us this here (despite the fact that he has already explained Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah above), to teach us that the one and a half k'Beitzim of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah are large ones (Shochkos).

2)

(a)How many k'Beitzim are there in a Sa'ah Midbari, which comprises six Kabin?

(b)In Yerushalayim, they added a sixth to the Sa'ah. What does a sixth really mean, and how many (whole) k'Beitzim are there in a Sa'ah Yerushalmi?

(c)In Tzipori, they added another sixth to the Sa'ah. How many k'Beitzim are there in a Sa'ah Tzipori?

2)

(a)There are 144 k'Beitzim in a Sa'ah Midbari.

(b)When we say that they added a sixth to the Sa'ah - what we really mean is a fifth (28 4/5 of a k'Beitzah, which is the equivalent to a sixth of the new total of k'Beitzim in a Sa'ah = 172 4/5 [173 to all intents and purposes]).

(c)There were 207 k'Beitzim in a Sa'ah Tzipori.

3)

(a)Rebbi reckons 217 k'Beitzim in a Ne'usian Sa'ah. What is wrong with the Gemara's contention (to reconcile that with the Shi'ur Tzipori) that Rebbi added the Shi'ur Chalah?

(b)Then how do we account for the discrepancy?

(c)The Beraisa states that the Sa'ah Yerushalmi is one sixth more than the Sa'ah Midbari, and the Sa'ah Tzipori one sixth more than the Sa'ah Yerushalmi. Consequently, the difference between the Sa'ah Midbari and the Sa'ah Tzipori is one third. Which three suggestions (to explain the final phrase i.e. one third of what?) does the Gemara reject outright?

3)

(a)The Shi'ur Chalah of 207 k'Beitzim is only eight k'Beitzim (one twenty-fourth of 192) plus - which would still only total 215, and not the 217 that Rebbi reckoned.

(b)In fact, Rebbi added ten (and not eight) to the Ne'usian Sa'ah - on account of the twentieth that he added to each k'Beitzah (see above 1a, 3.). In reality, he ought to have reckoned slightly more (1/20 of 207 = almost ten and a half. However, he the Gemara does not bother with fractions.

(c)When the Beraisa states that the Sa'ah Yerushalmi is one sixth more than the Sa'ah Midbari, and the Sa'ah Tzipori one sixth more than the Sa'ah Yerushalmi, and that consequently, the difference between the Sa'ah Midbari and the Sa'ah Tzipori is one third - it cannot mean that the difference between the Sa'ah Midbari and the Sa'ah Tzipori is one third of the Sa'ah Midbari - because, whereas one third of the Sa'ah Midbari is 48 k'Beitzim, the difference between the two is 63; nor can it be referring to one third of the Sa'ah Yerushalmi - because that amounts to 57 2/3 k'Beitzim (and not 63); nor can it refer to one third of a Sa'ah Tzipori - since a third of Sa'ah Tzipori is 69 k'Beitzim (even more than 63).

4)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah then suggests that what the Beraisa means is that the difference between the Sa'ah Tzipori and the Sa'ah Midbari (63) is close to a third of its own total (69), and that a third of its own total (69) is close to a half of the Midbari Sa'ah (72). On what grounds does the Gemara reject that suggestion too?

(b)How does the Gemara finally explain the Beraisa?

4)

(a)The Gemara rejects the suggestion of Rebbi Yirmiyah [that what the Beraisa means is that the difference between the Sa'ah Tzipori and the Sa'ah Midbari (63) is close to a third of its own total (69), and that a third of its own total (69) is close to a half of the Midbari Sa'ah (72)] - because who mentioned 'close to'. The Beraisa says that it is exactly one third, not approximately.

(b)We finally explain the Beraisa to mean that - one third of a Sa'ah Tzipori 207 k'Beitzim) including the extra ten k'Beitzim (1/3 of 217 = 72 1/3) is only a third of a k'Beitzah more than half of the initial Sa'ah Midbari (1/2 of 144 = 72).

83b----------------------------------------83b

5)

(a)The Shi'ur Chalah is the equivalent of 'a dough of the Midbar'. How do we know how much the dough of the Midbar was?

(b)How many Sa'ah are there in an Eifah?

(c)Given the facts that an Eifah is the equivalent of a Bas, and that a Kur equals thirty Sa'ah, what do we learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Ma'aser ha'Bas min ha'Kur"?

(d)Then how much did the Omer of Man that fell daily, contain ...

1. ... in Sa'in?

2. ... in Kabin?

3. ... in Lugin?

4. ... in k'Beitzim?

5)

(a)We know the Shi'ur of 'a dough of the Midbar' - from the Pasuk in Beshalach "ve'ha'Omer Asiris ha'Eifah Hu".

(b)There are three Sa'ah in an Eifah.

(c)Given the facts that an Eifah is the equivalent of a Bas, and that a Kur equals thirty Sa'ah, we learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Ma'aser ha'Bas min ha'Kur" - that one Eifah equals three Sa'ah.

(d)The Omer of Man that fell daily, contained ...

1. ... 3/10 Sa'in.

2. ... 1.8 Kabin.

3. ... 7.2 Lugin.

4. ... 43.2 k'Beitzim.

6)

(a)What is the connection between this Shi'ur and the Shi'ur Chalah quoted in the Mishnah 'Shivah Reva'im Kemach v'Od'?

(b)What did this become when it was transferred ...

1. ... first into the Yerushalmi measurement?

2. ... and then into the measurement of Tzipori?

(c)What are the Beraisa's concluding words regarding someone who eats that amount, more than it or less than it?

6)

(a)'Shivah Reva'im Kemach v'Od' - simply means a little more than seven quarters of a Kav i.e. 7 Lugin and 1 1/5 k'Beitzim, which is the Shi'ur of Chalah.

(b)When this was transferred into ...

1. ... the Yerushalmi measurements - it came to 6 Lugin (36 k'Beitzim).

2. ... and then into the measurement of Tzipori - it came to 5 Lugin (30 k'Beitzim).

(c)The Beraisa concludes that someone who eats this amount is eating healthily; if he eats more than that, he is greedy; and if he eats less, it is harmful.

7)

(a)If the residents of the Chatzer and those of the balcony (which is at least ten Tefachim high) forgot to make a combined Eruv, who is allowed to carry in the Chatzer?

(b)In what sort of Reshus (besides the balcony itself) are the residents of the balcony exclusively, permitted to carry?

(c)Why does the one not forbid the other to carry, on account of the ladder that connects them?

(d)If there is a pit with a mound of earth surrounding it next to the balcony, under which circumstances may it be used exclusively ...

1. ... by the residents of the Chatzer?

2. ... by the residents of the balcony?

7)

(a)If the residents of the Chatzer and those of the balcony (which is at least ten Tefachim high) forgot to make a combined Eruv - it is the residents of the Chatzer who are permitted to use the Chatzer.

(b)The residents of the balcony exclusively are permitted to use any part of the Chatzer that extends beyond the height of ten Tefachim (e.g. a mound of earth) - provided it is within four Tefachim of the balcony.

(c)The one does not forbid the other to carry - because the ladder that connects them has the Din of a Mechitzah Lehakel (as we learnt above 59b).

(d)If there is a pit with a mound of earth surrounding it next to the balcony, then it may be used exclusively ...

1. ... by the residents of the balcony - provided it is within four Tefachim of the balcony; otherwise it may be used ...

2. ... by the residents of the Chatzer.

8)

(a)What is the meaning of, and what will be the Din in each of the following cases ...

1. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh ba'Pesach'?

2. ... 'la'Zeh bi'Zerikah, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah'?

3. ... 'la'Zeh be'Shilshul vela'Zeh be'Shilshul'?

(b)And what will be the Din by ...

1. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah'?

2. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh be'Shilshul'?

(c)According to Rav, by 'la'Zeh be'Shilshul vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah', neither is permitted to use it. What does Shmuel hold?

8)

(a)

1. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh ba'Pesach' - means that each of the two courtyards are able to use the intervening domain with ease. The Din here is the same as that of a window between two domains (76a) - where they are permitted to make a combined Eruv or separate Eruvin, as they please. If they did not make a combined Eruv, then, if the window-ledge is four Tefachim wide, then neither Chatzer may use it; if it is not, then they may.

2. ... 'la'Zeh bi'Zerikah, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah' - means that the intervening domain is more than ten Tefachim high, and one would only use it by throwing. Its Din is equivalent to that of a high wall, where both courtyards are forbidden to use it (if it is four Tefachim wide, as we explained in 1.).

3. ... 'la'Zeh b'Shilshul vela'Zeh b'Shilshul' - means that the intervening domain is lower than ten Tefachim, and it can only be used by lowering things into it. Here too, neither Chatzer is permitted to use it.

(b)

1. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah' - is in the domain of the former, since it is far easier for them to use.

2. ... 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh be'Shilshul' - is likewise in the domain of the former, for the same reason.

(c)Shmuel holds by 'la'Zeh be'Shilshul vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah' - that since lowering it is slightly easier than throwing it, we place it in the domain of the upper-Chatzer, that needs to lower into it, and they are the ones who are allowed to use it.

9)

(a)What is the Kashya on Rav from our Mishnah 'Anshei Chazter v'Anshei Mirpeset she'Shachechu v'Lo Ervu, Kol she'Gavo'a mi'Yud Tefachim, l'Mirpeset'? How did the Gemara initially understand the case?

(b)To answer Rav, we establish the Mishnah like Rav Huna. What does Rav Huna say?

9)

(a)The Gemara initially thought that when the Tana taught 'Anshei Chazter ve'Anshei Mirpeset she'Shachechu v'Lo Ervu, Kol she'Gavo'a mi'Yud Tefachim, le'Mirpeset' - means the residents of the attic, who live above the balcony, in which case, we have here a case of 'la'Zeh be'Shilshul ve'la'Zeh bi'Zerikah', which the Mishnah gives to the attic - because lowering is easier than throwing (like Shmuel).

(b)Rav Huna (a little later in the Sugya) will establish 'le'Mirpeset' to mean to the residents of the Mirpeset (and not the attic), which is a case of 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah', which, even Rav agrees, goes to the former.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF