(a)We quoted a Beraisa above, where, according to Acherim, the threshold of a Reshus ha'Rabim (facing the street) serves as two Reshuyos: when the intervening door is open, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid; when it is closed, it is a Reshus ha'Rabim. We ask on the former statement 've'Af-al-Gav de'Les Lei Lechi'? What is the Kashya?
(b)We point out that the fact that the wall of the Reshus ha'Yachid does not extend four Tefachim, does not make any difference. Why might we have thought that it should?
(c)The Gemara first answers that we are speaking about a Mavoy which was permitted, not by a Lechi, but a Koreh. What is the Shiur of a Koreh, and why should it be any better than a Lechi?
(d)Why will this answer not be equally appropriate by the threshold of a house?
(a)We quoted a Beraisa above, where, according to Acherim, the threshold of a Reshus ha'Rabim (facing the street) serves as two Reshuyos: when the intervening door is open, it is a Reshus ha'Yachid; when it is closed, it is a Reshus ha'Rabim. We ask on the former statement 've'Af-al-Gav de'Les Lei Lechi'? The problem is this - Even though there is already a Lechi (the one which permits the Mavoy) on the threshold, nevertheless that Lechi will not permit one to carry on the threshold, since the Lechi permits one to carry only from within (from a point where the front of it is visible). Consequently, the threshold will require another Lechi to permit one to carry on it. Hence the Gemara's Kashya, 've'Af al Gav de'Les Lei Lechi'?
(b)We point out that the fact that the wall of the Reshus ha'Yachid does not extend four Tefachim, does not make any difference. We might have thought that it does - because, since the threshold does not extend four Tefachim (and is therefore not an independent Reshus), one should be permitted to carry up to the outside of the Lechi, at which point the extended walls of the Mavoy will serve as a Lechi (to remind him not to carry into the Reshus ha'Rabim).
(c)A Koreh must be at least one Tefach thick. It is better than a Lechi for one of two reasons: either because it is a stronger 'Heker' (recognition, which is effective even when it is clear only from the outside), or because we say (Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai) 'Pi Tikreh Yoreid ve'Sosem', meaning that (provided that we are dealing with a space of at least four Tefachim by four Tefachim), the outside of the Koreh is considered as if it extended down to the ground (similar to Levud), to enclose the space within it.
(d)The answer could apply equally to a house, only the thresholds of most houses (which are usually more than four Tefachim), have ceilings. Consequently, it would make no difference whether the intervening door was open or closed.
(a)Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa by the threshold of a house, and still the difference between whether the door is open or closed will apply. How is that?
(a)Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa by the threshold of a house, but a house where the ceiling is broken by the doorway. This means that the ceiling consists of two beams, with a space of less than three Tefachim between them. Consequently, when the door is open, they combine (because of Levud), to connect the threshold with the house, making it a Reshus ha'Yachid, since between them, there is at least four Tefachim (and with regard to the outer point of the beam, we say 'Pi Tikreh Yored ve'Sosem'). But when the door is closed, the outer beam does not measure four Tefachim, and we do not say 'Pi Tikreh Yored ve'Sosem' by walls of less than four Tefachim.
(a)Acheirim goes on to say, that if the threshold is ten Tefachim high and four by four Tefachim, it is an independent Reshus. What are the ramifications of that statement?
(b)Why should it be forbidden to carry from the Reshus ha'Yachid onto it or vice-versa, seeing that each of them is a Reshus ha'Yachid?
(c)The Gemara goes on to prove from here that the quotation in the name of Rebbi Meir ('Kol Makom she'Ata Motzei Sh'tei Reshuyos, ve'Hen Reshus Achas - Kegon Amud bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Gavo'ah Yud, ve'Rachav Arba'ah, Asur le'Katef Alav ...) is correct. What does Acheirim have to do with Rebbi Meir?
(a)Acheirim goes on to say, that if the threshold is ten Tefachim high and four by four Tefachim, it is an independent Reshus - meaning that one is not even permitted to carry from it into another Reshus ha'Yachid, or vice-versa.
(b)The reason for this (Rabbinical) prohibition is because one might go on from there - to carry from a pile of earth ten Tefachim high, which is situated in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c)The Gemara goes on to prove from here that the quotation in the name of Rebbi Meir ('Kol Makom she'Ata Motzei Sh'tei Reshuyos, ve'Hen Reshus Achas - Kegon Amud bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Gavo'ah Yud, ve'Rachav Arba'ah, Asur le'Katef Alav ...) is correct. Acheirim usually refers to Rebbi Meir (though there are exceptions to this). Consequently, a statement made by one, is generally a proof for the opinion of the other.
(a)We presume that, when the Mishnah prohibits a haircut from close to Minchah time (i.e. half an hour before Minchah), it is referring to Minchah Ketanah (two and half hours before night. Why not Minchah Gedolah?
(b)We retract from that assumption however, because of the Seifa, which writes 've'Im Hischilu, Ein Mafsikin'. What is the problem with the Seifa?
(c)We establish our Mishnah by Minchah Gedolah. Then why should having a haircut be prohibited?
(d)And how do we explain in the same light ...
1. ... 've'Lo le'Merchatz?
2. ... 've'Lo le'Burseki'?
3. ... 've'Lo le'Din'?
4. ... 've'Lo Le'echol'?
(a)We presume that, when the Mishnah prohibits a haircut from close to Minchah time (i.e. half an hour before Minchah), it is referring to Minchah Ketanah (two and half hours before night - because at Minchah Gedolah, there is still plenty of time to Daven Minchah; so why should Chazal forbid one to eat and to do all the things listed in the Mishnah, already from then?
(b)We retract from that assumption however, because of the Seifa 've'Im Hischilu, Ein Mafsikin' - leaving us with a strong likelihood of missing Minchah altogether. Morover, this will be a Kashya on Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (even though we have already ruled against him in Berachos) who says, that once the time to Daven Minchah has arrived, it is forbidden to eat anything (implying that he is obligated to stop if he did - since Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking when he starts at a time of Isur, and so is our Mishnah [see Tosfos DH. 've'Im' and Maharam]).
(c)In the first answer - we establish our Mishnah by Minchah Gedolah. Although there is plenty of time between Minchah Gedolah and nightfall, our Mishnah is not referring to a regular haircut, which takes only a short space of time, and which is not forbidden from Minchah Gedolah, but to the special haircut of the Kohen Gadol (which Ben El'asha copied), which was complicated and took a long time.
(d)In the same light ...
1. ... 've'Lo Merchatz' - refers, not just a simple steam-bath, which did not take long, but the entire series of bathing facilities offered, which took a long time, and was likely to extend into night.
2. ... 'Burseki' means - 'a big Burseki', meaning that there are many skins to be tanned and the tanner has not yet begun the process.
3. ... 'Din' too - refers to the beginning of the Din, meaning that the case has not yet begun (and not just to the Dayanim's final ruling).
4. ... 'Le'echol' - refers to a big Se'udah, like that of a wedding.
(a)According to our current understanding of our Mishnah, how would the Din in our Mishnah differ by Minchah Ketanah (to answer the two Kashyos that we asked above - in 4b.?
(a)According to our current understanding of our Mishnah - by Minchah Ketanah someone who began be'Isur would be obligated to stop (thereby answering the two Kashyos that we asked above - in 4b).
(a)How does Rav Acha bar Ya'avov explain all of the cases by Minchah Ketanah, in spite of the Gemara's original proof to the contrary (in 4a.)?
(a)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov is unperturbed by the original proof that the Mishnah must be speaking by Minchah Gedolah. According to him, all the cases could be speaking by Minchah Ketanah, and could even be referring to an ordinary haircut, a plain steam-bath, the final stage of the tanning process, an ordinary meal and the final ruling of Beis-Din. Nevertheless, it is common enough for the scissors to break; the person to faint in the bathhouse (from the heat); to find a fault in the skins during the tanning process (which means starting all over again); to stretch out the meal; and for the Beis-Din to discover an error in their anticipated ruling (which means beginning their deliberations again from scratch). In all these cases, Chazal anticipated the possible delay, and decreed already from Minchah Ketanah.
(a)What is called the beginning of ...
1. ... a haircut?
2. ... a bath?
3. ... tanning?
4. ... eating? (two possibilities)
(b)Why do we need to know this?
(a)The beginning of ...
1. ... of a haircut - is when the barber ties the barber's cloth around his neck.
2. ... of a bath - is when one takes off the Sudar (a head-cloth which was customarily, the first garment to be removed).
3. ... of tanning - is when he dons the special sleeves that one wears in the tannery.
4. ... of eating - is when one washes one's hands, or, in those places where they tended to wear tight belts (such as was customary in Bavel), from the moment one loosened the belt (before washing the hands).
(b)We need to know this - because, from that moment on, one was not required to Daven Minchah until after the meal (provided there would be sufficient time to Daven then).
(a)What is the difference between Minchah and Ma'ariv with regard to stopping to Daven once one had already begun eating? Why should there be a difference?
(b)According to whom does Ma'ariv have the same Din as Minchah. Why is that?
(c)The Gemara asks whether it is such a bother to tie up one's belt again to Daven Minchah, and offers no answer. Why should one not Daven with one's belt untied?
(d)Based on the Pasuk in Amos "Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael", how else should one not Daven?
(a)Although we just learned with regard to Minchah, that someone who begins eating, is not obligated to stop for Minchah, for Ma'ariv, he is - because, whereas during the day, people do not tend to become drunk, at night, they*do*. Consequently, we are worried that, unless he interrupts his meal for Ma'ariv, he will not be in a fit state to Daven afterwards.
(b)Ma'ariv has the same Din as Minchah - according to those who hold that Ma'ariv is Reshus.
(c)One should not Daven with one's belt untied - because of the Pasuk in Amos: "Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael".
(d)And for the same reason - one should not Daven without socks.