(a)Rebbi Eliezer renders Chayav, someone who carries from a Chatzer whose dividing-wall between it and the Reshus ha'Rabim broke. How much of the wall needs to have been breached in order to be Chayav?
(b)What do the Chachamim say about this?
(a)At least ten Amos plus of the dividing-wall between the Chatzer and the Reshus ha'Rabim needs to break before one will be Chayav (according to Rebbi Eliezer) for subsequently carrying from one to the other.
(b)The Chachamim consider the broken section a Karmelis; so someone who carries from it to the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa will be Patur.
(a)What is the connection between Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah and the Din of the public who chose a path through a field?
(b)Under what circumstances does Rebbi Eliezer issue these two rulings?
(c)What is the problem with this from Rebbi Chanina, who establishes the Machlokes in our Mishnah 'Ad Makom Mechitzah Machlokes'?
(d)How do we get round this problem?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah quotes Rebbi Eliezer as saying that if the public chose a path through a field, it becomes public property. And that is the reasoning of Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah.
(b)This only applies however, if the public previously had a path there, only they are not certain exactly where that path is.
(c)If it is only a matter of choosing their lost path, then why does Rebbi Chanina say 'Ad Makom Mechitzah Machlokes' - implying that the dispute covers the entire courtyard up to the wall!?
(d)We get around this - by amending Rav Chanina's statement to read not 'Ad' ... but 'Al Makom Mechitzah Machlokes', meaning that they only dispute the location of the Mechitzah (which the public re now re-claiming).
(a)What is the alternative way of understanding the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabanan, and why do they not argue over a regular case of 'Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim'?
(b)In that case, why does Rebbi Eliezer say 'mi'Tochah' (suggesting that the entire Chatzer is a Reshus ha'Rabim)?
(c)Since Rebbi Eliezer is not really speaking about the middle of the Chatzer, why did the Rabanan mention it?
(d)And what does Rebbi Eliezer reply to that?
(a)Alternatively, Rebbi Eliezer holds that the sides of the street are like the street (i.e. they have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim); whereas the Chachamim hold that they have the Din of a Karmelis. They do not argue by a regular case of 'Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' (in which case there would be a balustrade (of stone posts) at the side of the road serving as buffers, because then we would have restricted the Chachamim's opinion to that case (because of the posts). In our case, where there are no posts, we would have said that they agree with Rebbi Eliezer.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer only says 'mi'Tochah, because the Rabanan (who do indeed hold that the entire Chatzer is a Reshus ha'Rabim) say 'mi'Tochah'.
(c)The reason that the Rabanan mention the middle of the Chatzer is - because they are saying to Rebbi Eliezer 'Don't you agree with us that if someone carried from the middle of the Chatzer to the street or vice-versa he is Patur (because it has the Din of a Karmelis)? Then concede also that one is Patur for carrying from the side (next to the street) into the street and vice-versa!'
(d)Rebbi Eliezer replies - that he agrees with them vis-a-vis the middle of the Chatzer, where the public do not walk, but not vis-a-vis the part of the Chatzer which is immediately beside the street. Since the public walk there, he maintains, it has the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a Chatzer whose walls dividing it from the street are breached on two sides, or a room that is breached on two sides - on Shabbos?
(b)Does the same apply to a Mavoy whose Lechi or Korah were removed on Shabbos?
(c)What does Rebbi Yosi hold?
(a)Rebbi Yehudah says that a Chatzer whose walls dividing it from the street were breached on two sides, or a room that was breached on two sides - may continue to carry for that Shabbos, but may no longer do so on subsequent Shabbasos.
(b)And the same applies to a Mavoy whose Lechi or Korah was removed on Shabbos.
(c)Rebbi Yosi maintains that if they are permitted to carry on that Shabbos, they will also be permitted to carry on subsequent Shabbasos, and if they are forbidden to carry on subsequent Shabbasos, then they will also be forbidden to carry on that Shabbos.
(a)If the Tana (who forbids carrying in a Chatzer that is breached in two walls leading to the street) is talking about a breach of up to ten Amos, in what way is a breach in two walls less of a Pesach than a breach in one, and if he is talking about a breach of more than ten Amos, then why does he need to say that two walls were breached? What does he mean?
(b)Why is a Pesach in a corner not considered a Pesach?
(a)The Tana (who forbids carrying in a Chatzer that is breached in two walls leading to the street) is talking about a breach of up to ten Amos - and is speaking when the breach occurred in a corner between two adjacent walls.
(b)Although a breach of this size anywhere else would be considered a Pesach, that is not the case by a breach in a corner, since people do not usually tend to make Pesachim in corners.
(a)Is 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' effective by two sides of a corner?
(b)Then why does our Mishnah say 'v'Chen Bayis she'Nifratz mi'Shtei Ruchosav' - according to Rav? Why do we not say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'?
(c)Then what is the Chidush of two sides?
(a)'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' - is fully effective by two sides of a corner.
(b)According to Rav our Mishnah say 've'Chen Bayis she'Nifratz mi'Shtei Ruchosav' - because the Tana is speaking when the house has a slanting roof (in which case, we do not say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'.
(c)The Tana mentions here two sides for exactly the same reason as he mention it by Chatzer in the Reisha (because otherwise, the breach would be considered a Pesach - see 5).
(a)What is Shmuel referring to when he says that our Mishnah is speaking even by a breach of more than ten Amos?
(b)Then why does the Tana need to say two walls that broke?
(c)And why is it necessary to mention two sides by a house that was breached?
(d)In which case does Shmuel in principle, not hold 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'?
(a)When Shmuel says that our Mishnah is speaking even by a breach of more than ten Amos - he is referring to the case of Chatzer (and not that of house) in our Mishnah, and is giving an alternative answer to that of Rav.
(b)The Tana speaks of two walls that broke - not because of the case of Chatzer, where one wall will also forbid carrying there - but because of the case of the house that was breached,.
(c)If not for the fact that the breach in the walls of the house was on two sides, we would say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'.
(d)Shmuel in principle, does not hold of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' - by a ceiling which is open on all four sides (i.e. which has no walls).
(a)Why does Shmuel not establish our Mishnah by a corner when the roof slopes (like Rav)?
(b)Then how does he learn the Mishnah? Why will we not say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' - even on two (and not three) sides?
(c)On what grounds does Rav disagree with Shmuel?
(a)Shmuel does not want to establish our Mishnah by a corner when the roof slopes - like Rav does - because the Tana makes no mention of a sloping roof.
(b)Shmuel learns our Mishnah by a corner (like Rav) but instead of a sloping roof, he establishes the case when the ceiling is breached to a depth of four Tefachim, where we cannot say Levud (even according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), and consequently, we cannot say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' (since the remaining ceiling is no longer an extension of the wall - Rabeinu Chananel). Rashi however, explains that the ceiling is breached to a length of five Amos and to a depth of four Amos (or according to others, four Tefachim). This leaves four walls (shaped roughly like a letter M); and by four walls, Shmuel does not hold 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem'. The reason for this Shi'ur is because then, the diagonal across the entrance will be more than ten Amos, in which case, it is no longer considered a Pesach (see Tosfos DH 've'Kiruyav').
(c)Rav disagrees with Shmuel, because according to him, 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' applies even to four walls too. Note: Most Rishonim disagree with Rashi's explanation (see Tosfos Amud Alef DH 'bi'Shtei Ruchos'). According to them, Rav holds of 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' by two adjacent sides; whereas according to Shmuel, we only say it by one side. But everyone agrees that it cannot be applied on three sides, nor even on two parallel sides.
(a)Why will Shmuel agree that one may carry even more than four Amos in a porch whose walls are not more than ten Amos?
(b)How does the second Lashon explain their Machlokes?
(c)What does Rav Yehudah say with regard to a beam of four Amos in a house, and Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha with regard to a beam of four Amos suspended over water?
(d)Like whom will they hold ...
1. ... according to the first Lashon?
2. ... according to the second Lashon?
(a)Shmuel agrees that one may carry in a porch whose walls are not more than ten Amos - because each wall is considered a Pesach (even though it has no walls - see Ritva).
(b)In the second Lashon, even Rav will agree with Shmuel that one is forbidden to carry more than four Amos in a porch whose sides are more than ten Amos. And it is only when they are ten Amos or less that he argues with him.
(c)Rav Yehudah says that a beam of four Amos permits carrying in a ruin that opens into a street (because we say 'Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem' even on all four sides); and Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha says the same with regard to a beam of four Amos suspended over water.
(d)They are speaking about a beam of not more than ten Amos, and they hold like ...
1. ... both Rav and Shmuel - according to the first Lashon.
2. ... Rav - according to the second Lashon.