1)
(a)We just established our Mishnah, according to Rav (who holds la'Zeh be'Shilshul, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah, Shneihen Asurin') by the residents of the Mirpeset. Then how will he explain the Seifa: 'Pachos mi'Kahn, le'Chatzer', since this appears to be 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, vela'Zeh ba'Pesach'?
(b)What is the proof for this from the Seifa 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Semuchah, Aval be'Mufleges, Afilu Gavo'a Yud Tefachim, l'Chatzer'?
(c)How does Shmuel explain the Seifa of our Mishnah? What does 'l'Chatzer' mean?
1)
(a)Rav explains the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Pachos mi'Kan, l'Chatzer') - to mean 'Af l'Chatzer (since, according to him, the mound of earth etc., of less than ten Tefachim is as easily accessible to the Mirpeset as it is to the Chatzer). Consequently, both are forbidden to use it.
(b)The proof for this lies in the Seifa ('Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Semuchah, Aval b'Mufleges, Afilu Gavo'a Yud Tefachim, l'Chatzer'). Now if 'l'Chatzer' means that the residents of the Chatzer are permitted to use the mound, why should they be permitted to use it more than those of the Mirpeset? Consequently, the Tana must mean 'Af l'Mirpeset' and both sets of residents are forbidden to use it.
(c)Shmuel too, will learn the Seifa of the Mishnah like Rav does - according to him, even though 'la'Zeh b'Shilshul, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah', we give it to the one who uses it by Shilshul, that is only if they lower it vertically, but if they need to lower it diagonally, that is no easier than throwing, in which case they are both forbidden to use it.
2)
(a)Our Mishnah gives the pit, as well as the mound of earth surrounding it (which raises it to the height of ten Tefachim) to the residents Mirpeset. In order to accommodate Rav, the Gemara first attempts to establish this Mishnah when it is full of water. What is the problem with that?
(b)The Gemara does not like the suggestion that since, when the pit is full it is permitted, it remains permitted even when the water-level in the pit has decreased. Why not?
(c)So we establish the Mishnah by a pit full of Tevel crops. Why is this better than a pit full of water?
(d)How does the Gemara prove this answer from the fact that the Tana mentions 'Chulyas ha'Bor' together with 'Sela'?
2)
(a)Establishing the Mishnah which gives the pit, as well as the mound of earth surrounding it (which raises it to the height of ten Tefachim) to the B'nei Mirpeset, when it is full of water, creates the problem - that the level of water is bound to drop, in which case, it will become forbidden.
(b)The Gemara does not like the suggestion that since, when it is full it is permitted, it remains permitted even when the water in the pit decreases - because the reverse is more logical: i.e. since it will be forbidden when the water level drops, it is forbidden even while it is full.
(c)A pit full of Tevel crops is better than a pit full of water - because it is Muktzeh, and there is therefore no likelihood of removing some of the fruit during Shabbos, and rendering the rest prohibited.
(d)The Tana of our Mishnah mentions Chulyas ha'Bor together with Sela - to teach us that Chulyas ha'Bor contains Muktzeh (Tevel) and not water, like a Sela, which is Muktzeh.
3)
(a)According to Rav, if not for the case of Sela, we would have established 'Chulyas ha'Bor' by a pit that is full of water. Seeing as the Chidush of 'Chulyas ha'Bor' is exactly the same as that of 'Sela', why did the Tana find it necessary to mention the case of Chulyas ha'Bor at all?
3)
(a)Had the Tana not mentioned Chulyas ha'Sela, we would have thought that - although a Sela is permitted (to the residents of the balcony) the Chulyas ha'Bor, even when it is full of Tevel-fruit, will be forbidden, a decree because of a pit which is full of Ma'asered fruit.
4)
(a)In a case where the residents of a Chatzer and those of an attic forgot to make a joint Eruv, the Tana in the Beraisa gives the ledge on the lower half of the wall to the residents of the Chatzer, and the ledge on the upper half to the residents of the attic. How is this Beraisa a proof for Rav?
(b)How does Rav Nachman reconcile this Beraisa with Shmuel's opinion?
4)
(a)From the fact that the Tana in the Beraisa gives the ledge on the lower half of the wall to the residents of the Chatzer, and the ledge on the upper half to the residents of the attic - we can deduce that a ledge that is in between the top ten Tefachim and the bottom ten, is forbidden to both sets of residents, even though one of them is b'Shilshul, and the other, bi'Zerikah - a proof for Rav.
(b)Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa by a wall that is only nineteen Tefachim high; below ten Tefachim is the equivalent of 'la'Zeh b'Pesach vela'Zeh b'Shilshul', which, in everyone's opinion, goes to the lower set of residents; above ten, makes it 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach' (since it less than ten Tefachim high from his balcony) vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah' - which everyone agrees goes to the upper residents. In any event, there are no middle residents, in which case, there is no proof from here for Rav.
84b----------------------------------------84b
5)
(a)The Mishnah later in the Perek forbids both owners of suspended balconies at different heights, who built the required walls (either above or below the ledge) by only one of the balconies, to draw water via the Mechitzos. How is this a proof for Rav?
(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah answers this Kashya by establishing the case when the owner of the lower balcony has access to the upper one. How does this answer the Kashya?
(c)Abaye explains 'Kegon d'Kayamin Betoch Asarah, v'Lo Mibaye Ka'amar'. What does he answer, and what does he mean by 'v'Lo Mibaye Ka'amar'?
5)
(a)The Mishnah later in the Perek, forbids both owners of suspended balconies at different heights (who built the required walls by only one of the balconies), to draw water via the Mechitzos - Now here we have a case 'la'Zeh b'Shilshul, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah v'Shilshul', yet neither owner is permitted to use ledge; and it goes without saying that this will be the Din by 'la'Zeh be'Shilshul vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah' - like Rav.
(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah answers this Kashya by establishing the case when the owner of the lower balcony has access to the upper one - meaning that the owner of the lower balcony has access via ladders to the upper one, with the result that it is 'Zeh v'Zeh b'Shilshul' (which everybody agrees renders it forbidden to both owners.
(c)Abaye explains 'Kegon d'Kayamin Betoch Asarah' - meaning that, since they are within ten Tefachim of each other, they both share the Reshus, in which case, they will automatically forbid each other to carry (even if it is la'Zeh b'Pesach, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah') - even according to Shmuel (who only permits such a case when they are in two separate Reshuyos, and it is possible to give the Reshus to the one and not to the other). 'v'Lo Mibaye Ka'amar' - means that really, since that is the Tana's reason, it ought not have been necessary to mention that the lower one was the one to fail to make Mechitzos (any more than the upper one). It does mention it however, in the form of 'Lo Mibaye' i.e. it goes without saying that, when the upper one failed to make Mechitzos, when it is 'la'Zeh b'Shilshul, ve'la'Zeh b'Shilshul' (since we are speaking when they are both within four Tefachim across from each other, and within ten Tefachim in height), the one forbids the other to use it; but even when it is the lower one who did not make the ledge, when it is a matter of 'la'Zeh b'Shilshul, vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah u've'Shilshul' (when it might be permitted - like Shmuel), still both are forbidden to use it (as we have just explained).
6)
(a)Abaye proves his point from Rav Nachman, who quotes Shmuel as saying that, in order to carry from a Mirpeset to a roof that has a Reshus ha'Rabim running alongside one of its sides, one requires a fixed ladder from the Mirpeset to the roof. How does Abaye explain this?
(b)Since the Mirpeset is less than ten Tefachim above the Reshus ha'Rabim, why is it not a Karmelis (in which case, a ladder would make no difference, because one would then be carrying from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Yachid)?
(c)Rav Papa's refutes Abaye's explanation. How does Rav Papa establish Shmuel's Din even when there are ten Tefachim between the ground and the Mirpeset? What does the fixed ladder then achieve?
6)
(a)Abaye explains that, when Rav Nachman quotes Shmuel as saying that in order to carry from a Mirpeset to a roof that has a Reshus ha'Rabim running alongside one of its sides, one requires a fixed ladder from the Mirpeset to the roof - it is because the passers-by in the street, who use the roof by throwing on to it, and the residents of the Mirpeset are within ten Tefachim of each other, and they therefore forbid each other from carrying on the roof (even though it is 'la'Zeh be'Pesach vela'Zeh bi'Zerikah', which would normally be permitted) - unless they put up a fixed ladder to demonstrate that they have removed themselves from the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b)Despite the fact that the Mirpeset is less than ten Tefachim from the Reshus ha'Rabim, it is nevertheless not a Karmelis - because it speaks when the Mirpeset has walls, and an entrance of not more than ten Amos to the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c)Rav Papa establishes Shmuel's Din even when there are ten Tefachim between the ground and the Mirpeset - because, although the roof cannot be used by passers-by in the street to place heavy loads, it is however, convenient to place their hats on it whilst they stop to rest. Consequently, it is 'la'Zeh be'Pesach, vela'Zeh ba'Pesach', who forbid each other even according to Shmuel. Consequently, there is no proof for Abaye.