Explanation (continued): Similarly, regarding Ma'aser, it is obligated mid'Rabanan, both during Sukos and the rest of the year.

Implied question: Perhaps one will come to separate from Patur [on Chayav]!

Answer: We are concerned for this only if it is liable only during Sukos, at the time of Dirah. Then, people might err. Since it is obligated only then, they might think that it is proper Dirah mid'Oraisa;

However, now that we obligate even the rest of the year, when there is no Dirah at all, all know that it is only mid'Rabanan, and they will not err.

Question: We should say that this is when women bathe there!

Answer: Women do not bathe in Refes Bakar, only in Beis ha'Bakar mentioned above. It is made for cattle, but cattle are not kept there regularly. There, women bathe;

Refes Bakar connotes a place where cattle are kept regularly. Women do not bathe there.

Explanation: The Gemara does not change the text of the Beraisa. Rather, it means "since women beautify and adorn themselves only there, but do not properly live there.

Implied question: Why does it say "even though women adorn themselves"? (It is exempt precisely because they only adorn themselves, and do not properly live there!)

Answer: This teaches that it is exempt not only if they do not even adorn themselves [there]. Rather, it is exempt even if they adorn themselves [there].

Inference: A Beis Sha'ar is exempt from Mezuzah.

Question #1: In Menachos (33b), a Beraisa obligates a Beis Sha'ar, Achsadra (a house without four walls) and porch.

Question #2: Also Sukah (8b) connotes that it is obligated. Regarding two Sukos of potters, one inside the other, we asked that the outer one should be considered a Beis Sha'ar, and be obligated in Mezuzah!

Answer #1: Here we teach that mid'Oraisa it is exempt. There we say that mid'Rabanan it is obligated.

Answer #2: Here we discuss a Beis Sha'ar of an Achsadra or porch. It was taught "Beis Sha'ar of an Achsadra..." (without a comma in between).

Answer #3 (Rif): There, we discuss when it [the Beis Sha'ar] is open to the house.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that women adorn themselves there?

Answer #1: It is filthy, and animals are regularly there, like I explained above;

Answer #2: Since they were taught with these others, which even Stam are obligated, we discuss also a Stam cattle pen.

Question: In Shabbos (7b), we say that if one threw [in Reshus ha'Rabim] above 10 [Tefachim], and it landed in a hole of any size, R. Meir and Rabanan argue about this!

Answer (Ri): There we discuss a hole four by four [Tefachim] on the side of Reshus ha'Yachid, and on the side of Reshus ha'Rabim, it constricts to Kol she'Hu.

If it were Kol she'Hu on every side, R. Meir would not say Chokekim Lehashlim (if there is a small hole in something thick, we consider it as if the entire thickness was carved out).

Support: We say here that if the legs are less than three, or it is not 10 tall, this is nothing (all exempt).

Question (R. Shimshon): We say there that if one threw four Amos at a wall, below 10, he is [liable,] like one who threw on the ground. Above 10, he is [exempt,] like one who threw in the air.

Citation (7b) Question: Why is throwing below 10 [liable] like throwing on the ground? It did not rest!

Citation (cont.) Answer (R. Yochanan): This refers to a fat date. (It stuck to the wall.)

Citation (cont.) Question: If holes of Reshus ha'Rabim are like Reshus ha'Rabim, he should establish the case to be that it landed in a hole!

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, there is no hole in the wall.

Citation (cont.) Source: It says that above 10, he is [exempt,] like one who threw in the air. If there is a hole, why is he like one who threw in the air?

Citation (cont.) Suggestion: [He is exempt] because there is not four by four.

Citation (cont.) Rejection: Rav Yehudah said... R. Meir and Rabanan argue about this. R. Meir holds that Chokekim Lehashlim.

Question #1 (R. Shimshon): What was the question? He should establish the case when there is a hole that is less than four by four even inside!

Answer (R. Shimshon): Stam holes in walls are four wide on the inside, in order to use them. They narrow towards Reshus ha'Rabim, so people will not take from there things that are inside.

Rejection (Tosfos): Surely we can find holes that are narrow inside and outside!

Question #2 (Tosfos): Even without this is, it is difficult. Why didn't we say that the wall is thin, and there is no room to carve out four by four??

Question #3 (Rashi there): What was the Gemara's question? We should establish the case like Rabanan, who hold that Ein Chokekim Lehashlim!

Answer #1 (Rashi): It is a Stam Mishnah in Shabbos (100a). A Stam Mishnah is R. Meir.

Answer #2 (Tosfos): I answer all the questions. The Gemara asked a proper question;

You must say that if it rested in a hole, we must say that the hole is four inside, and the wall is thick, with room to carve and complete the Shi'ur. It is like R. Meir, who says Chokekim Lehashlim.

Support: This is like the case of throwing below 10, which is like throwing on the ground.

Also there it landed in a hole four [wide], and he is liable because there is four inside, like R. Meir, who says Chokekim Lehashlim, so it is as if it landed in a place four by four.

If you would not say so, since there is four by four, why is he liable? It did not rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, rather, in Mekom Petur!

Implied question: In Shabbos (7a), we say that if there is not [a height of] 10 [Tefachim] inside a house, one may not carry inside it. (Is this unlike R. Meir?)

Answer: All agree to this. Since it is not 10 tall anywhere, we do not say Chokekim Lehashlim.

Inference: A Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Midrash, in which there is not Dirah, does not require a Mezuzah. Presumably, the Halachah follows Chachamim.

Question: In Menachos (33a), there was a Mezuzah on the opening through which Rav Huna used to enter the Beis Midrash!

Suggestion: This is because there was a Dirah there [in the Beis Midrash].

Rejection: If so, why did we ask there from the opening through which Rebbi used to enter the Beis Midrash, which had no Mezuzah?

We should answer that there was a Dirah in Rav Huna's [Beis Midrash], but not in Rebbi's!

Answer: There we discuss the opening of the house through which Rav Huna used to enter and leave to go to the Beis Midrash.

Observation: Berachos (47a) connotes that the Halachah follows the opinion that exempts.

Citation: Abaye and Ravin were on the road. When they came to the entrance to the Beis ha'Keneses, [Ravin] said to Abaye "the master may enter." Abaye said "until now, you did not treat (show honor to) me like a master!

Citation (cont.): R. Yochanan said that we do not show honor on the road. We honor only at an opening with a Mezuzah.

Citation (cont.) Objection: Surely it does not depend on whether or not it has a Mezuzah! [If so, we do not honor at the entrance to a Beis ha'Keneses or Beis Midrash!] Rather, he said an opening appropriate for a Mezuzah.

Inference: The opening of a Beis ha'Keneses is exempt [from a Mezuzah, but it is appropriate for one].

Question: However, the Yerushalmi connotes that the Beis Midrash of R. Chanina had a Mezuzah, regarding putting a Mezuzah it in the top third [of the opening];

Citation - Question: Will you say so (it is in the top third) even if the opening is very tall?!

Citation (cont.) Answer: He puts it at shoulder height. This was done in the Beis Midrash of R. Chanina.

Answer: The Batei Medrash of Rebbi, Rav Huna and R. Chanina were private. They were not public.