1)

(a)Abaye collected K'lalim that he found in Beraisos about a Gud, a strainer, a canopy (which has a Tefach Ohel on top (see Hagahos ha'Gra) and a Kisei Galin (also known as a Mitah G'lalnisa). A ...

1. ... Gud is - a large leather flask used by travelers for wine or milk. Upon setting up camp, they fill it with wine or milk, and stretch its very wide mouth, which is attached to straps. They then tie it to posts, allowing the wind to blow underneath it and keep its contents cool.

2. ... a portable chair or bed which one dismantles when traveling and puts together when one arrives at one's destination.

(b)If someone sets up any of these on Shabbos - he is Patur Aval Asur.

(c)The first three are forbidden because they are classical cases of Ohel Arai, and the fourth - because although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with putting it together loosely, Chazal forbade doing so, because one may just come to put it together firmly, which is forbidden because of Makeh ba'Patish (see also Tosfos DH 'Kisei Galin').

(d)Abaye rules that ...

1. ... for putting up an Ohel Kavu'a - one is Chayav Chatas.

2. ... putting up a standing-bed, a folding-chair, and a folding-chair with a hole in the middle for relieving oneself - are permitted on Shabbos.

2)

(a)Rav Kahana maintains that, according to the Chachamim, one is Chayav for straining wine from its dregs on Shabbos. Rav Sheshes queries this however - in that since Rebbi Eliezer permits it Lechatchilah, they would be more likely to forbid it mi'de'Rabbanan (because it is unusual for two Tana'im to take two extreme positions in a Machlokes).

(b)Rav Yosef tries to answer from a Beraisa in 'Bameh Ishah' where Rebbi Meir declares a woman who goes out into the street with an Ir shel Zahav, Chayav Chatas, whereas Rebbi Eliezer holds - Mutar Lechatchilah.

(c)Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's Kashya - by establishing that Rebbi Eliezer's statement refers to the Rabbanan, who render the woman Patur Aval Asur).

3)

(a)In spite of Rav Sheshes' Kashya, we appear to accept Rav Kahana's ruling, and ask of which Av Melachah Meshamer is a Toldah (regarding warning). Rabah holds Borer, Rebbi Zeira - Meshamer.

(b)Rabah agrees that if he is warned because of Meraked, he is Chayav, and their Machlokes is whether he is Chayav if he is warned because of Borer or not.

(c)How does ...

1. ... Rabah proves that Meshamer is similar to Borer - because in both cases he eventually takes the Ochel and leaves the waste.

2. ... Rebbi Zeira prove that Meshamer is more similar to Meraked - because in both cases the waste remains at the top, whilst the Ochel goes to the bottom.

4)

(a)Rami bar Yechezkel - forbids spreading a 'Talis Kefulah' on Shabbos. This is - a Talis that one spreads over four posts (to protect the person underneath it from the sun whilst he sleeps), making a roof and four walls in the process.

(b)If it had a piece of string attached to it from before Shabbos and is already in place on the canopy, Rami bar Yechezkel permits spreading it on Shabbos (since it is then Tosefes Ohel Ara'i).

5)

(a)When Rav Kahana asked Rav whether one may put up a canopy, he replied that even a bed is forbidden. And when Rav Kahana asked him what about ...

1. ... a bed, he replied - even a canopy is permitted.

2. ... a canopy and a bed, he replied - that the former is forbidden, the latter, permitted.

(b)When Rav forbade even a bed, he was referring to the bed of Karmana'i - which is the equivalent to the folding bed that Abaye forbade on top of the Amud.

(c)When he permitted even a canopy - he was referring to the Talis of Rami bar Yechezkel, which had a string attached.

(d)And when he ruled that a bed is permitted and a canopy, forbidden - he was referring to the standing bed which Abaye (there) permitted, and to Rami bar Yechezkel's canopy without the string.

6)

(a)Rav Yosef observed - that the canopies in Rav Huna's house on Shabbos were spread on Friday night, but dismantled on Shabbos morning (an indication that one was permitted to spread them and dismantle, as the need arose).

(b)Rav Amar Chiya permitted putting up and taking down a screen across the entrance on Shabbos - because a vertical screen is not called an Ohel, only a horizontal one (provided it does not come to permit something that would otherwise have been forbidden - such as Tashmish or carrying).

7)

(a)Shmuel Amar Rebbi permits spreading a Kilas Chasanim on Shabbos - because, unlike other canopies which cover a frame, it hangs over one rail that runs above the bed and hangs down at an acute angle, with a roof of less than a Tefach.

(b)Rav Sheshes brei de'Rav Idi qualifies Shmuel's ruling however. He forbids a Kilas Chasanim even if ...

1. ... its roof is less than a Tefach thick - provided it becomes a Tefach wide within three Tefachim from the top.

2. ... it is less than a Tefach wide within three Tefachim from the top - provided it reaches a width of two Tefachim ('Shipu'ei Ohalim ke'Ohalim Dami) before falling on to the bed.

3. ... it is less than two Tefachim wide at the bottom - provided it hangs a Tefach from the side of the bed.

8)

(a)Rav Sheshes brei de'Rav Idi permits going into the Reshus ha'Rabim wearing a felt hat. The problem with that is - that we have learned that it is Asur.

(b)We initially suggest that the latter ruling is speaking about a hat whose brim protrudes a Tefach from his head - in which case it is Asur because of Ohel (though it is not then certain why the Isur is confined to going into the street with it).

(c)We reject this answer however - inasmuch as if that is considered an Ohel, one should also be forbidden to wear a Talis over one's head if it protrudes a Tefach from his head.

(d)So we finally explain the discrepancy - by establishing Rav Sheshes Brei de'Rav Idi where the hat is firm, and the latter ruling where it is loose (and is liable to be blown off his head, and we are afraid that he will pick it up and carry it four Amos in the street).

9)

(a)Rami bar Yechezkel was keen for Rav Huna to repeat to him two statements about Shabbos and one about Torah - because they were cited in the name of Rav.

(b)In reply, Rav Huna cited him a Beraisa, which permits 'Gud be'Kisna' - stretching the stitched animal skin that we discussed on the previous Amud, on Shabbos.

(c)This Beraisa permits it - because it speaks when the strings were already laced before Shabbos, whereas the Beraisa on the previous Amud forbids it speaks when they were not.

10)

(a)Rav qualified the Beraisa - by establishing it when two people are stretching it, whereas one person on his own would be forbidden.

(b)The reason for this - is because one person is able to make a good job of it (since he ties it to one post at a time), but two people are not.

(c)Abaye forbids even ten people to stretch a canopy on Shabbos - because it is easier to stretch properly even where more people are involved.

11)

(a)In Rav Huna's second statement in the name of Rav, he cites another Beraisa which - permits moving a metal oven with one broken leg, but forbids moving it if two legs are broken.

(b)Rav however, forbids it even if only one leg is broken.

(c)In his statement on Torah, Rav interprets the Pasuk in Ki Savo "ve'Hifla Hash-m es Makoscha" - with reference to the Chachamim forgetting the Torah that they learned.

(d)And he learns it from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Lachein, Hineni Yosif Lehafli es ha'Am ha'Zeh Haflei va'Fele", which concludes - "ve'Avdah Chochmas Chachamav".

12)

(a)The Chachamim in Yavneh defined "famine" in the Pasuk in Amos "Hinei Yamim Ba'im, Ne'um Hash-m ... ve'Hishlachti Ra'av ba'Aretz ... " - as a famine due to a shortage of Torah.

(b)The Pasuk there repeats the words "D'var Hash-m" three times; one of them refers to a dirge in Halachah, the second one, to seeking the end of Galus, and the third - to a shortage of prophesy.

(c)We interpret the Pasuk "Yeshotetu Levakesh es Devar Hash-m" - with reference to the Terumah loaf that the women were holding, and which they took round the Shuls and Batei Medrash to determine whether it became Tamei after being inside an earthenware oven which became Tamei.

(d)We reject this suggestion - on the grounds that this is clearly written in the Pasuk in Shemini, so how is it possible for the Chachamim not to have known the answer?

13)

(a)We initially reject the second suggestion too, on the grounds that it is a Mishnah (so how could the Talmidei-Chachamim not have known the Halachah?). According to this explanation, what they forgot was - which degree of Tum'ah the loaf was.

(b)The Mishnah in Kelim specifically declares a loaf of bread that is inside a Tamei earthenware oven - a Sheni ...

(c)... So once again, how can the Chachamim not have known the answer?

14)

(a)We try to answer that they erred over Rav Ada bar Ahavah's Kashya - assuming that the oven is filled with Tum'ah, in which case the loaf ought to be a Rishon (and not a Sheni).

(b)In reply, Rava cited a Beraisa - which learns from the Pasuk in Shemini "Kol Asher be'Socho Yitma. mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel ... " - that only food and drink become Tamei in an earthenware oven, but not Adam and Kelim ...

(c)... a proof that the oven is not full of Tum'ah; otherwise it would be an Av ha'Tum'ah, and there would be no reason for Adam and vessels not to become a Rishon (in other words, the oven must be a Rishon, and whatever is inside it, a Sheni).

(d)We also learn from this Derashah - that Kelim can only receive Tum'ah from an Av.

15)

(a)R. Shimon bar Yochai disagrees with the Chachamim of Kerem be'Yavneh (who interpret the Pasuk in Amos with regard to Torah being forgotten) - in that we know for certain that Torah will never be forgotten ...

(b)... and he quotes the Pasuk in Vayelech "Ki Lo Sishachach mi'Pi Zar'o".

(c)He therefore interprets the Pasuk to refer to a famine of Torah - but to the absence of Torah knowledge with all its reasons, so as to avoid clear rulings without Machlokes.