Previous daf

1)

(a) The 'Itztabla'os' required by Rav Yehudah - means that the trees are planted in neat rows, so that it is pleasant to sit there.

(b) According to Rav Nachman, however the trees are planted, one may carry there.

(c) If the enclosure preceded the dwelling - one can rectify this by first making a breach of more than ten Amos, and then repairing the excess of ten Amos. In this way, he has made a wall for the sake of the dwelling.

(a) Chizkiyah asked what the Din will be if a wooden vessel has a hole the size of a k'Zayis, which is repaired, and then another hole the size of a k'Zayis is made next to the spot where the first hole had been. And this happened a few times, until the total area holed and repaired is more than that of a pomegranate (the size that will render a private wooden vessel Tahor). Do we contend with the repairs that were effected each time, before the new hole appeared - in which case, the vessel will remain Tamei; or do we ignore them, in which case, it will be Tahor.

(b) 'Sandal she'Nifsekah Achas me'Oznav, ve'Tiknah, Tamei Medras', yet it becomes Tahor when the second strap tears (despite the fact that the first strap has already been repaired at that time), explains Chizkiyah - because the strap was repaired only after the shoe became Tamei Medras, and we say 'Panim Chadashos Ba'u le'Kahn', meaning that this is not the original shoe whose strap broke, so the new strap has not rectified the tear.
Consequently, when the second strap tears, it is as if both of the original straps had broken, and it is now Tahor from Medras.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan resolved Chizkiyah's original Sha'aleh from the above Mishnah in Kelim, using Chizkiyah's own explanation: If we can apply the argument 'Panim Chadashos Ba'u le'Kahn' (and ignore the repaired strap of the sandal), *there*, why should we not also apply it *here* - and the vessel will be Tahor.
(d) Chizkiyah was duly impressed with Rebbi Yochanan's answer. He declared that Rebbi Yochanan was not a human being (only an angel). Others quote him as saying that Rebbi Yochanan was indeed (the epitome of) a human being.

4)

(a) The wall of a Rachbah behind a house which is more than a Beis Sasayim (and which has no entrance) - is considered not Hukaf le'Dirah, and it is prohibited to carry there more than four Amos.

(b) Carrying is only permitted in the Rachbah - if there is a door from the house that preceded the wall around the Rachbah.

(c) The Chidush will be ina case when there is a wood-barn between the house and the Rachbah. We may well have thought that, when the owner opened the door from his house, he was doing so for the sake of the wood-barn, and not for the Rachbah (or perhaps, that is the impression that we get of what he is doing, and it should be Asur because of Mar'is ha'Ayin). The Chidush is that, since he said that he is opening the door for the Rachbah, we believe him (or that we do not contend with Mar'is ha'Ayin here), and carrying in the Rachbah is permitted.

5)

(a) If the enclosure that was more than a Beis Sasayim and that was built adjoining the dwelling, became filled with water - it has the Din of an enclosure in which trees were planted, and carrying there remains permitted?

(b) The two conditions initially laid down by the Gemara (for an area of more than a Beis Sasayim which was Hukaf le'Dirah, but which became water- logged) are a. that the water must be usable; b. that the area which is water-logged should not cover more than a Beis Sasayim.

(c) The Gemara rejects the second condition - As long as the water is fit for use, it concludes, one is permitted to carry there, even if the area that is water-logged is more than a Beis Sasayim. It can be compared, either to a pile of fruit lying in a field, which does not negate the status of the field - even if it covers an entire Beis Kur; or to a large pit of whatever size, that is filled with fruit, and from which it is permitted to help oneself on Shabbos. Either way, the water is not considered any worse than the fruit.

(a) That Rachbah in Pum Nahara - opened fully into a Mavoy (which ran into a Reshus ha'Rabim) at one end, and into a path that ran through the vine- yards, and ended up by a river with high embankments at the other. Since it was not Hukaf le'Dirah, it had the Din of a Karmelis.

(b) Since both the path on the one side and the Mavoy on the other opened fully into the Rachbah, carrying in both was prohibited, since that is the Din by any form of Reshus ha'Yachid that opens fully into a Karmelis. The people of the town now wished to carry in all three Reshuyos, and wondered how they could change the status of the Rachbah.

(c) The Mavoy which opened into the Rachbah on Daf 7b - did not require any Tikun because it was initially Hukaf le'Dirah, whereas the Rachbah of Pum Nahara was not.

(d) The simplest thing to do (Halachically) - would have been to breach one of the walls of the Rachbah to a length of *more* than ten Amos, and to repair at least the excess (of ten Amos). For practical reasons however (since it was a strong stone wall), that possibility was ruled out.

(a) Erecting a wall above the river-bank, to serve as a Mechitzah for the Rachbah at the other end of the path - was not an acceptable solution - because that would have meant building one wall on top of another (the river bank, which already served as a wall, to render the path a Reshus ha'Yachid), and one wall on top of another is ineffective.

(b) Erecting a Tzuras ha'Pesach (at the entrance of the Rachbah, where the path led into it) would have solved the problem - because we would have said that, since the Tzuras ha'Pesach would be effective to permit carrying in the path, by providing it with a third wall, it will serve simultaneously, to transform the Rachbah into a Hukaf le'Dirah.

(c) They did not do this however - because seeing as the entrance in question was so narrow, it would have been knocked down by the camels that were constantly passing through it.

(a) If not for the 'Migu', placing a Lechi by the entrance of the path to the Rachbah would have had no effect - since the walls were already erected before the placing of the Lechi, and building up *the entrance* for the purpose of dwelling is useless; what is needed, is building up *the wall* for the purpose of dwelling, and that can only be achieved by breaking down a wall in excess of ten Amos etc., as we learnt earlier.

(b) Rava objects to Abaye's suggestion - on the grounds that, not realizing that this path is different from the normal path that does not have a river- bank at the other end, people will think that it is in order to place a Lechi at one end of *any* path which leads into a Rachbah, even when the other end leads into a street or a Karmelis.

(a) When Rava concluded that they should place a Lechi at the end of the Mavoy, where it led into the Rachbah - it went without saying that the other end of the Mavoy (where it led into the street) required a Tzuras ha'Pesach (as we learnt above on Daf 7a).

(b) The Lechi helped rectify the Rachbah - on the basis of a 'Migu': since the Lechi was effective in permitting the Mavoy, it would also be effective in permitting the Rachbah.

(c) What the Lechi definitely permitted - was to carry in the Mavoy and in the Rachbah.

(d) What it did definitely not permit - was to carry in the path through the vine-yards (for the reason mentioned in 8b).

1. ... permitted carrying from the Mavoy to the Rachbah and vice-versa - is because there was no-one living in the Rachbah to forbid carrying in the Mavoy. Nor did the people who used the path forbid it, any more than the people living in a small Chatzer will forbid carrying in a large Chatzer which opens into it.
2. ...forbade it - is because people were likely to move into the Rachbah, and the local residents, not realising this, will continue to carry there as before.