1)

THE AREA UNDER THE WAGONS

(a)

(Beraisa): If one threw from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Rabim, and Reshus ha'Yachid was in the middle - if it went four Amos in the two Reshuyos ha'Rabim (combined), he is liable; if not, he is exempt.

(b)

Question: What is the Chidush?

(c)

Answer: This teaches that Reshuyos join; and that we do not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah.

(d)

(Rav): One who carries four Amos in a Reshus ha'Rabim with a ceiling is exempt, for this is not like the encampment in the Midbar.

(e)

Question: Rav also taught that the following were Reshus ha'Rabim - the wagons [of the Leviyim, which carried the Kerashim], underneath them, between them and to their sides [even though the area between and underneath the wagons was covered with boards! Rows of boards went along the length of the wagons. Tosfos - the wagons were coupled together side by side, each wagon held one end of each board, the middle was between the wagons; Rashi - the middle of each board balanced on a wagon, the ends stuck out on the two sides.]

(f)

Answer: Rav taught about the area between rows [of boards, it was uncovered; Tosfos - he taught about the bottom layer, before others layers were placed on top and filled in the spaces].

(g)

Question: (Tosfos - the first layer itself was a covering!) Each wagon was five Amos long, and each board was one and a half Amos wide - three [rows of] boards fit on a wagon, half an Amah is left;

1.

When we divide the half Amah among the two spaces between rows, only a quarter Amah (one and a half Tefachim) is between adjacent rows - they are considered connected on account of Lavud! (Really, there was more space at the bottom Amah of each board, which consisted of two pegs fitting into Adanim - a Tefach of space around the peg on each side would make the total distance more than three Tefachim! This question may also be asked below (i:1 and j:1). Nevertheless, the last Amah was always on (Tosfos; Rashi - between or to the side of) a wagon, we can still ask why Rav said that both underneath and in between were Reshus ha'Rabim.)

(h)

Answer: The question assumed that the boards lay on their width - really, they lay on their thickness [to enable fitting more boards in each layer - if the piles were too high, they might topple].

(i)

Question: Still, each board was one Amah wide - four [rows of] boards fit on a wagon, one Amah remains (we cannot squeeze in five rows to fill the entire length - also, space between boards was needed for the rings, as we will explain);

1.

When we divide the Amah among the three spaces between rows, only a third of an Amah (two Tefachim) is between each two rows, they are Lavud!

(j)

Answer #1: This is not difficult according to the opinion that each board was one Amah thick at the bottom, but it narrowed, and was only a finger thick at the top, there was more room between rows (towards the top of each board, almost the entire Amah allotted for the thickness was hollow. If the tops of the boards in one row faced right, and those of the next row faced left, they would fit into a rectangle of width one Amah and a finger, four such rectangles (eight rows of boards) would fit in the wagon, the separations would be less than a third of an Amah! Tosfos - we must say that all the tops faced the same way (alternatively, the entire bottom half of each board was an Amah thick, only the top half thinned out to a finger, so the middle of every board was an Amah thick), therefore there was room only for four rows.)

1.

But according to the opinion that the Kerashim were an Amah thick from top to bottom, how can we answer?

(k)

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): [That opinion says that the rows were not evenly spaced, rather, two piles of boards on each side of the wagon were adjacent without any separation, the full Amah of space separated the two double piles.] This allowed wooden clamps to hold the double piles together, so they would not fall down. (Rashi's Rebbi'im - the rows were placed this way on account of the rings through the boards which held the Berichim; the rings of each board pointed away from the board with which it was flush.)

(l)

Objection: The boards were on the top of the wagons - the bottom of the wagons were solid, the area underneath had a roof over it!

(m)

Answer (Shmuel): The bottom of the wagons [were not solid, rather,] merely had pegs to hold up the boards.

(n)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): When Rav said 'under the wagons', he discussed the space under the clamps (placed on top of the boards to prevent them from falling).

(o)

Question: The rings were on the top of the boards - when the clamps were placed, the area underneath the wagons already had a roof over it!

98b----------------------------------------98b

(p)

Answer (Shmuel): Rav Kahana discusses clamps under the boards to hold them above the wheels.

2)

THE KERASHIM OF THE MISHKAN

(a)

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): The boards were one Amah thick at the bottom; they narrowed, and were only a finger thick at the top - it says "Yihyu Samim Al Rosho", just like "Tamu Nichrasu" (they were finished off);

(b)

R. Nechemyah says, just like they were one Amah thick at the bottom, also at the top - it says "Yachdav" (they are even).

(c)

Question: What does he learn from "Samim"?

(d)

Answer: This teaches that we must use whole boards, we may not make them from pieces.

(e)

Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "Yachdav"?

(f)

Answer: This teaches that the boards must be even in a line.

(g)

Question: According to R. Nechemyah, we understand "Ul'Yarkesei ha'Mishkan Yamah Ta'aseh Shishah Kerashim; U'Shnei Kerashim Ta'aseh li'Mkutza'os" - the boards in the corners fill the corners [totally] (see diagram #1 in graphics section);

1.

But according to R. Yehudah, the boards were only a finger wide at the top - on top, the western boards will stick out past the boards on the north and south sides (see diagram #2 in graphics section)!

(h)

Answer: R. Yehudah holds that the corner boards came to a peak, like mountains (they were only a finger thick on top and a half-Amah and a finger wide on top, in order to be even with the tops of the northern and southern boards - see diagram #3 in graphics section).

(i)

(Beraisa): "Veha'Bri'ach ha'Tichon b'Soch ha'Kerashim" - it stood miraculously. (There were Berichim (poles) to keep the boards together; the top and bottom poles went through rings, there were different poles for the north, west and southern sides. The middle pole went through the Kerashim themselves, on all three directions - it was a miracle that the wood bent.)

3)

WHAT THE CURTAINS OF THE MISHKAN COVERED

(a)

"...Eser Yeri'os...; Orech ha'Yeri'ah ha'Achas Shemoneh v'Esrim ba'Amah" - the length of the [first, i.e. lowest] curtains went along the width of the Mishkan (the excess covered the northern and southern sides);

1.

They were 28 Amos long; 10 Amos covered the interior of the Mishkan, nine Amos remained on each side;

2.

According to R. Yehudah [each board was only a finger thick on top], the excess on each side covered the top nine Amos of each board], only the Adanim (sockets, into which the bottom Amah of the Kerashim were inserted) were exposed [before the second curtains were put on; see the comment after (c-1)];

3.

According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah of the excess on each side covered the thickness of the boards on top, the other eight Amos covered the boards on the side], an Amah of each board above the Adanim was also exposed.

(b)

[Each curtain was four Amos wide; 10 were joined together,] in all they were 40 Amos wide. The width covered the 30 Amos (length) of the Mishkan; according to R. Yehudah, [the extra 10 Amos covered the entire western side], even the Adanim were covered;

1.

According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah covered the thickness of the western boards on top], the Adanim were exposed.

(c)

"V'Asisa Yeri'os Izim; Orech ha'Yeri'ah ha'Achas Sheloshim ba'Amah" - the second curtains were 30 Amos long; 10 Amos covered the interior of the Mishkan, 10 Amos remained on each side;

(d)

According to R. Yehudah, the entire sides were covered, even the Adanim. (We ignore the thickness of the boards on top (a finger), the thickness of the first curtains (this adds to the height) and the fact that the curtains cover the slanted hypotenuse of the boards, whose length is really about 10 Amos and a third of a Tefach. It was a miracle that the curtains rested straight - they did not sag in the middle (even though they were very heavy and covered a large opening), they fit flush in the corners (unlike a tablecloth which is longer and wider than the table it covers, the excess sticks out) - perhaps it was also a miracle that the curtains totally covered the sides or reached until the Adanim, even though they should have been a few fingers short - PF.)

1.

According to R. Nechemyah [one Amah of the 10 covered the thickness of the boards on top], the Adanim were also exposed.

(e)

Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Veha'Amah mi'Zeh veha'Amah mi'Zeh ba'Odef" (the second curtains exceeded the first ones by one Amah on each side,) this was to cover the Adanim;

(f)

R. Nechemyah says, it was to cover the Amah of the boards [above the Adanim that was not covered by the first curtains].

(g)

[Each of these curtains was four Amos wide; 11 were joined together,] in all they were 44 Amos wide. The width covered the 30 Amos of the Mishkan's length; 14 Amos remained.

1.

Two Amos hung down over the opening [in the east] - "V'Chofalta Es ha'Yeri'ah ha'Shishis El Mul Penei ha'Ohel"; 12 Amos remained in back.

(h)

Question: According to R. Yehudah [10 Amos covered the western side, two Amos were on the ground], we understand "Chatzi ha'Yeri'ah ha'Odefes Tisrach";

1.

But according to R. Nechemyah [only one Amah was on the ground, this is not half a curtain], why does it say "Tisrach"?

(i)

Answer: It is Seruchah (sticks out) from the other curtains.

(j)

(Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): The Mishkan resembled a woman walking in the market whose garment drags in back of her.