(a)The Gemara is searching for a precedent for someone who is carrying from one major domain to another via a Karmelis to be Chayav (even though he goes through a domain which is not a Chiyuv). Why is there no proof from someone who carries in the street. As he walks along, he is Patur, and it is only after he has placed the object (or stopped walking) that he becomes Chayav?
(b)So why do we not have a proof from someone who carries exactly four Amos, where, if he were to have stopped before having completed the four Amos, he would be Patur, yet when he reaches the end of four Amos, he becomes Chayav?
(c)Ultimately, we find a precedent in a case where someone carries from his house to the street via the sides of the street (e.g. if the wall of the courtyard broke, and the space where the section of wall had been has the Din of a Karmelis, because it is not used freely by the passersby in the street) See also Tosfos DH 'Midi de'Havi'. What is the problem with this proof, according to Rebbi Eliezer?
(d)From where does the Gemara prove its point, even according to Rebbi Eliezer?
(a)The Gemara is searching for a precedent for someone who is carrying from one major Reshus to another via a Karmelis to be Chayav (even though he goes through a Reshus which is not a Chiyuv). There is no proof from the fact that someone who carries in the street is Chayav (who is Patur as he walks along, but Chayav the moment he puts the object down) - because the area that he walks through is all a place of Chiyuv; whereas someone who walks through a Karmelis is one of Petur.
(b)Nor can we prove that he would be Chayav from someone who walks exactly four Amos (in which case he would be Patur were he to put the object down) - because those four Amos are a location of Chiyuv for anyone else (who did walk four Amos), unlike a Karmelis, which is alocation of Petur for everyone.
(c)Ultimately, we find a precedent in a case where someone carries from his house to the street via the sides of the street (e.g. if the wall of the courtyard broke, and the space where the section of wall had previously been, now has the Din of a Karmelis, because it is not used freely by the passersby in the street) See also Tosfos DH 'Midi de'Havi'. The problem with this, according to Rebbi Eliezer is - that the 'Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' have the same Din as the Reshus ha'Rabim, so the proof from there (that compares walking through a Karmelis to walking past the 'Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim) falls away.
(d)Even Rebbi Eliezer will agree however, that if the 'Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' has pegs stuck in the ground (which act as a buffer-zone, to prevent the wagons from rubbing against the walls and knocking them down) then it will have the Din of a Karmelis (which we know to be Chayav). So - the proof will be from that case, according to Rebbi Eliezer.
(a)In which case does Ben Azai (who maintains that someone who carries through a agree that one is Chayav for transporting from one domain to another via a Karmelis?
(a)Ben Azai (who holds that if someone walks from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another through a Karmelis) agrees, that if someone throws or hands over from one domain to another via a Karmelis, he is Chayav, since he did not make any kind of Hanachah in the middle.
(a)The Beraisa gives two descriptions of a Reshus ha'Yachid: a ditch and a fence. What are their specifications?
(b)A Reshus ha'Rabim, it describes as a Seratya or a Pelatya. What is ...
1. ... a 'Seratya'?
2. ... a 'Pelatya'?
(c)What is the Beraisa's third description of a Reshus ha'Rabim?
(a)A ditch must be ten Tefachim deep and four by four Tefachim wide, and a wall ten Tefachim high and four Tefachim wide - in order to be called a Reshus ha'Yachid (The Beraisa is referring to the area on top of the wall).
1. A Seratya is an inter-city highway.
2. A Pelatya is the town's main square, where people would gather to trade.
(c)The third type of Reshus ha'Rabim described in the Beraisa is alleyways which open at both ends into a Seratya or a Pelatya.
(a)The Beraisa describes the Sea, a collection of fields (a valley) and an Istevanis as a Karmelis. What is an 'Istevanis'?
(b)What are the specifications of a Karmelis?
(c)What is the Din regarding Hotza'ah and Hachnasah in a Karmelis? Is one peritted to carry there?
(d)What is the Din of a public courtyard shared by many houses, and of a cul-de-sac (which opens at one end into a major street) Why is one not always permitted to carry there?
(a)An Istevanis is a small area outside a shop, where the merchants would sit to trade.
(b)A Karmelis is an unwalled area, which does not qualify as a Reshus ha'Rabim because it is not used by the public like a street is.
(c)One is not Chayav for carrying from any other Reshus into a Karmelis nor for carrying four Amos inside a Karmelis. Nevertheless, the Rabbanan forbade one to carry four Amos in a Karmelis, because of its similarity to a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(d)In fact, a public courtyard or a cul-de-sac is intrinsically a Reshus ha'Yachid (whether an Eiruv was made or not). However - because a courtyard (compared to a house) is a relatively public domain, as is a Mavoy (compared to a street) unless an Eiruv was made, Chazal forbade one to carry vessels from the house to the Chatzer, or from the Chatzer to the Mavoy, in order that one should not come to carry from a Reshus ha'Yachid into a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a)What is a Makom Petur, and what is its Din? Why did Chazal initiate any restrictions at all with regard to it?
(b)What kind of threshold is considered an individual domain?
(c)In the Beraisa above, the Tana concluded its description of a Reshus ha'Yachid with the words 'Zu Hi Reshus ha'Yachid (Gemurah)'. What does this come to preclude?
(d)And why did the Tana add the word 'Gemurah'?
(a)A Mekom Petur - is an area of at least three Tefachim high, which is less than four Tefachim by four Tefachim. It is Batel to whichever Reshus it happens to be located, and is not called a Reshus at all (in addition, we already learnt above that there is no Akirah or Hanachah to or from an area of less than four Tefachim). Consequently, it is permitted to place something from any Reshus onto it, or to take from it into any Reshus. Nevertheless, Chazal forbade one to use a Makom Petur as an excuse to transfer from one Reshus to another, by first putting something down on it, and then taking it off, because it is considered a denigration of Shabbos to carry from one Reshus to another, even in this way (even though it is not a Chilul Shabbos).
(b)A threshold that is ten Tefachim tall and four by four Tefachim on top, is considered an individual domain, which the Gemara will explains later.
(c)'ve'Hi Reshus ha'Yachid' - comes to preclude Rebbi Yehudah, who permits carrying in a main road which has a Lechi (a vertical beam) or a Koreh (a horizontal one) placed at either end as an Eiruv. Therefore, the Beraisa says 'Zu Hi' etc., to preclude the case of Rebbi Yehudah. According to this Tana, that remains a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(d)We might have thought that the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah, that min ha'Torah, two Lechayim or two Koros, one at either end of a section of a Reshus ha'Rabim, turn that section of Reshus ha'Rabim into a Reshus ha'Yachid; and it is the Rabbanan who issued the prohibition to carry there (because of its similarity to a Reshus ha'Rabim). Consequently, they would agree that, if someone were to throw into it from a Reshus ha'Rabim, he would be Chayav. Therefore the Beraisa adds the word 'Gemurah' - to say that it is the Reshus ha'Yachid described in the Beraisa which is a proper Reshus ha'Yachid, not that of Rebbi Yehudah, which remains a Reshus ha'Rabim - and if someone throws into it from a Reshus ha'Rabim (provided the total distance thrown is less than four Amos), he will be Patur.
(a)In the above Beraisa, the Tana ends its description of a Reshus ha'Rabim with the words 'Zu Hi Reshus ha'Rabim Gemurah'. What does this come to preclude?
(b)And why does he add the word 'Gemurah' (which is completely superfluous here)?
(c)Why does the Beraisa not include a desert in its description of a Reshus ha'Rabim, considering that, in another Beraisa, it is referred to as a Reshus ha'Rabim ?
(a)And 'Zu hi Reshus ha'Rabim Gemurah' - comes to preclude 'Pasei Bira'os' (a well surrounded by four posts, within which Chazal allowed one to draw from the well and drink [for the benefit of the many people who traveled to Yerushalayim for Yom-Tov]), through which a public thoroughfare passes. It is nevertheless considered a Reshus ha'Yachid, as opposed to Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion, as long as the public continues to use it, it will have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim, in spite of its 'walls'.
(b)The Tana only adds the word 'Gemurah' - because he used it in the Reisha.
(c)The Beraisa (which considers a desert a Reshus ha'Rabim) is referring to Midbar Sinai, at the time when Yisrael resided there - whereas our Beraisa refers to all deserts nowadays (even to Midbar Sinai, which is no different than any other desert today), which are not inhabited, and are therefore no more than a Karmelis.
(a)The Gemara suggests that the Chidush of the Beraisa (which states 'be'Shogeg Chayav Chatas') is, that for carrying on purpose, one is Chayav Kareis or Sekilah. On what grounds does the Gemara reject that suggestion?
(b)The Gemara then brings a Megilas S'tarim, which wrote that for transgressing all the Melachos be'Shogeg, one receives only one set of Malkos. What is 'Megilas S'tarim'?
(c)What is wrong with that Megilas S'tarim, the way it is originally quoted?
(d)How do we alter the reading of the Megilas Setarim and at the same time, solve our problem of finding the Chidush in the Beraisa?
(a)We suggest that the Chidush of the Beraisa (which states 'be'Shogeg Chayav Chatas') is, that for carrying on purpose, one is Chayav Kareis or Sekilah. But, the Gemara objects - is it not just as obvious that one is Chayav Kares or Sekilah for carying on purpose, as it is that one is Chayav a Korban Chatas for carrying be'Shogeg.
(b)Before Rebbi compiled the Mishnah, it was forbidden to make any official recording of Torah she'be'Al Peh. Consequently, when the Talmidim would hear some Chidush or other, they would write it down and hide it. Those written notes were known as 'Megilas S'tarim'.
(c)The Megilas S'tarim as quoted originally, stated that one is only Chayav one Chatas for transgressing all the thirty-nine Melachos in one He'elam (if he did not become aware that he had sinned in between one Melachah and the next). But that is impossible - since the Mishnah in 'K'lal Gadol', after listing thirty-nine Melachos, adds that there are thirty-nine Melachos; and we have learnt in a Beraisa, that the Mishnah needs to mention this only to teach us that someone who transgresses all thirty-nine in one He'elam, is Chayav to bring thirty-nine Chata'os.
(d)We therefore amend the Megilas S'tarim to read - that there is one of the Melachos for which one is not Chayav a Chatas, and we do not know which Melachah that is. The Chidush of the Beraisa therefore is - that Hotza'ah and Hachnasah are not included in that Safek.
(a)'ha'Bik'ah, bi'Yemos ha'Chamah Reshus ha'Yachid le'Shabbos, u'Reshus ha'Rabim le'Tum'ah'. Why is there a difference between Shabbos and Tum'ah in this regard?
(b)What Din does a Bik'ah have in the rain season, and why is that?
(c)When the Beraisa calls a Bik'ah a Reshus ha'Yachid, says Ula, it really means a Karmelis. So why does it refer to it as a Reshus ha'Yachid?
(d)What is the difference whether the Bik'ah is really a Reshus ha'Yachid or a Karmelis.
(a)A Bik'ah (a collection of fields) is a Reshus ha'Yachid for Shabbos - since it is not used as a public thoroughfare. On the other hand, it has the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim regarding Tum'ah - since it is hardly the discreet place which (we learn from Sotah), a Reshus ha'Yachid (for that purpose) needs to be.
(b)In the rain-season, a Bik'ah has the Din of a Reshus-ha'Yachid even as regards Tum'ah - since, due to the seeds one expects to find growing there, people tend to avoid entering it.
(c)According to Ula, the Mishnah in Taharos refers to the Bik'ah as a Reshus ha'Yachid concerning Shabbos - in the sense that it is not a Reshus ha'Rabim but, in reality, it is a Karmelis.
(d)The difference (whether it is really a Reshus ha'Yachid or just a Karmelis) is - whether, ot not, one is Chayav for throwing into it from a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a)According to Rav Ashi, the Beraisa speaks when the Bik'ah has walls. What does Rav Ashi gain by saying that?
(b)Why does Ula not want to learn like Rav Ashi?
(c)If the Beraisa is talking about a Karfaf, then how can it write 'u'*Reshus ha'Rabim* le'Tum'ah'?
(a)According to Rav Ashi, the Beraisa speaks when the Bik'ah has walls - because then - (in spite of the fact that either if a: the Bik'ah is more than the size of a Beis Sasayim [fifty by a hundred Amos], or b: it was not originally walled for habitation purposes, it is forbidden to carry in it) it is nevertheless a Reshus ha'Yachid, and someone who carries from a Reshus ha'Rabim into it or vice-versa, will be Chayav.
(b)Ula maintains that - if the Bik'ah had four walls (as Rav Ashi claims it has), the Tana would not have called it a 'Bikah', but a 'Karfaf'.
(c)When the Beraisa calls it a 'Reshus ha'Rabim le'Tum'ah' - it must be speaking when it has an entrance at either end, so that people walk through it in the summer