Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rav heard the Beraisa which says (with regard to a Tzuras ha'Pesach that is wider than ten Amos) 'Ein Tzarich Lema'et' - he told the Beraisa expert to change the text to 'Tzarich Lema'et'.

(b) The Gemara concludes that an Amaltera does not rectify a Mavoy whose entrance is wider than ten Amos. When the Beraisa writes (regarding an Amaltera) 'Ein Tzarich Lema'et', it is referring to the Reisha (a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos), but not to one that is wider than ten Amos mentioned in the Seifa.

(a) From the fact that Rav took a strict line regarding the Tzuras ha'Pesach of a Mavoy that is more than ten Amos wide, Rav Yosef learnt a 'Mah Matzinu' by a Chatzer whose majority (of each of the four sides) consists of a series of Tzuros ha'Pesach from a Mavoy: A breach of more than ten Amos forbids by a Mavoy, and 'Parutz Merubeh Al ha'Omed' forbids by a Chatzer; just as the former is not permitted by means of Tzuros ha'Pesach, so too will the latter not become permitted by means of a series of Tzuros ha'Pesach.

(b) The Gemara refutes this proof from Pasei Bira'os - by which 'Parutz Merubeh Al ha'Omed' becomes permitted (even according to Rebbi Meir), whereas a breach of more than ten Amos does not (according to him).

(c) 'Arba Defanos Halalu, *she'Ruban Pesachim va'Chalonos*' - clearly indicates 'Parutz Merubeh al ha'Omed', so how can the Beraisa then go on to say ''u'Vilevad she'Yehei Omed *Merubeh* al ha'Parutz'? Surely, Omed ke'Parutz should suffice? Therefore the Gemara changes the text to 'Arba Defanos Halalu, she'Riba Bahen Pesachim va'Chalonos'.

(d) This Beraisa does not prove that even with Tzuros ha'Pesach, one requires 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz' (like the contention of Rav Yosef) - because it speaks about Pischei Shima'i (whose Tzuros ha'Pesach are not properly shaped), whereas Rav Yosef is speaking when they *are*.

4)

(a) Although one may not normally sow seeds next to a vine, this is permitted if there is a wall in between. This concession applies even if the wall consists of no more than a Tzuras ha'Pesach.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tzuras ha'Pesach (which will be described immediately) that is valid by Kil'ayim, is not valid by Shabbos.

(c) They could be arguing over a Tzuras ha'Pesach that is wider than ten Amos - but they could also be arguing over one whose crossbeam was affixed to the side of the two vertical posts, and not *on top*: Resh Lakish permits this both by Kil'ayim and by Shabbos, whereas Rebbi Yochanan confines the Heter to Kil'ayim, but forbids it on Shabbos - like the opinion of Rav Chisda.

5)

(a) In the second statement, where Resh Lakish differentiates between Kil'ayim and Shabbos (with regard to Pe'ah - weaving a branch to the sides of two posts, to form a Tzuras ha'Pesach), he is quoting his Rebbe (Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Chanina); whereas his first statement, where he does not differentiate, is his own opinion.

(b) If Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish are arguing in a case when the crossbeam is placed on top of the two side-posts (like the first explanation in 4c), then we can establish Rebbi Yochanan's second statement (where he forbids Pe'ah even by Kil'ayim) when the crossbeam is affixed to the *side* of the posts. Alternatively, both statements speak about a crossbeam that is at the side; however, his first statement speaks when it is *less* than ten Amos wide, his second when it is *more*.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan learnt to differentiate by Kil'ayim, between ten Amos and more than ten Amos when the beam is fixed to the side of the side-bars, from an incident that he related to Resh Lakish, concerning Rebbi Yehoshua and his Rebbe, Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri: Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri told Rebbi Yehoshua that ten Amos wide would be permitted, but that more than ten Amos would be prohibited.

(d) Now Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri cannot have been referring to a crossbeam that was placed *on top* of the posts - because if so, he would not have prohibited more than ten Amos (in view of a Beraisa quoted later - 16b - which specifically permits even more than ten Amos wide by Kil'ayim. Consequently, he must have been referring to a cross-beam that was affixed to the side.

(a) A Tzuras ha'Pesach - must be strong enough to hold a door (even if it is only made of straw).

(b) No! A Tzuras ha'Pesach does not require a door.

(c) It does however, require a Heker Tzir.

(d) Heker Tzir - is the hole into which the hinge fits, and which enables the door to swing open and shut.

(a) Rav Gada - was Rav Sheshes' servant (the Shames). Acting upon Rav Sheshes' instructions - he tore down a Koreh that Rav Nachman had placed, but which was suspended above the side-posts without actually touching them.

(b) The Resh Galusa's men locked him up - because Rav Nachman had set up the Koreh on their behalf.

(c) He did not however, spend long in goal - because Rav Sheshes stood by the door and announced that Gada should go free, and he did.

(a) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir, that an archway requires a Mezuzah - if the legs of the archway are ten Tefachim tall, before it begins to curve.

(b) Rebbi Meir agrees with the Rabbanan that the archway does not require a mezuzah - either if the legs do not reach three Tefachim before the curve begins (since whatever is less than three Tefachim from the ground, is considered as if it was joined to the ground (in which case, it is as if there was no entrance there at all) or even if they *do*, if the total height of the archway is less than ten Tefachim.

(c) They argue when the curve of the archway begins after a height of *three* Tefachim, and when the top of the structure exceeds *ten*; it is not however, *four* Tefachim wide from the curve and upwards: Rebbi Meir holds that whatever is between three and ten Tefachim is considered as if it was carved out (leaving us with a proper doorway of ten Tefachim high, and four Tefachim wide.

(d) Since we consider the top seven Tefachim as if they were carved out (according to Rebbi Meir), it is clear that the top of the Pesach is not required to touch the side-posts and still it is Kasher (and even the Rabbanan would agree with that, if were they to hold 'Chokekin le'Hashlim'. That is why, when Rabah bar Shmuel told this to Rav Sheshes, he instructed him not to say anything to the household of the Resh Gelusa, because he felt embarrassed, since Rav Nachman had now been vindicated.

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer - a Mavoy always requires two Lechayayim; and according to a Talmid quoting Rebbi Yishmael - Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue by a Mavoy that is *more* than four Amos, but one that is *less*, needs either a Lechi or a Koreh, but *not both* - even according to Beis Shamai.

(b) Chananya and his Tana Kama also require a door or a Tzuras ha'Pesach (respectively) - at the other end - because they are speaking about an *open Mavoy* (a Mavoy Mefulash); whereas our Mishnah, which does *not*, is speaking about one that is closed at the other end (a Mavoy Sasum).

(c) Why would Beis Shamai require a Lechi and a Koreh by a Mavoy Mefulash - unless he holds that min ha'Torah, a Reshus ha'Yachid requires four walls; and why should Beis Hillel require a Lechi or a Koreh, unless in his opinion, min ha'Torah a Reshus ha'Yachid requires three walls?

(d) In reality, the Gemara concludes, a Reshus ha'Yachid with three walls is also called a Reshus ha'Yachid - as far as throwing something into it from a Reshus ha'Rabim. The Chachamim however, forbade one to carry in a Reshus unless it has four walls, which is why Beis Shamai requires a Lechi and a Koreh by a Mavoy Mefulash. By exactly the same token, Beis Hillel require two walls min ha'Torah, but three (mi'de'Rabbanan) in order to carry.