(a)Rav Ashi maintains that the Beraisa is not needed to inform us that we can say Levud at both ends. Why not?
(b)How then, does Rav Ashi explain the two expressions 'Meshuchah' and 'Teluyah'? What is the Chidush according to his explanation?
(c)Why do the two bent sticks which support the Koreh, not supplement the Koreh, to form as it were, a Koreh of three pieces?
(a)According to Rav Ashi, Levud at two ends is no more Chidush than Levud at one end.
(b)Rav Ashi therefore learns 'Meshuchah' to mean that the Koreh does not quite reach the wall (as we learnt earlier), and 'Teluyah', that it is also suspended slightly above the wall - by means of two sticks which protrude above the walls, but are bent inwards. We now need to extend the Koreh outwards (by saying 'Levud'), and downwards (by saying 'Chavot Rami' - meaning that we consider the beam as if it was lowered on to the walls of the Mavoy). The Chidush, according to Rav Ashi - is that we apply both principles simultaneously.
(c)The two bent sticks - cannot supplement the Koreh, because they are less than the minimum of one Tefach wide required to constitute a Koreh.
(a)What did Rebbi Yochanan say to Rebbi Zakai, when he quoted him a Beraisa: 'Bein Lechayayim ve'Sachas ha'Koreh Nidun ke'Karmelis'? Why did he say that?
(b)According to Abaye, Rebbi Yochanan's objection was confined to the Seifa (... 'Sachas ha'Koreh'), but not to the Reisha, with which he agreed (like Rav Chisda on the previous Amud). What does Rava hold in this matter?
(c)Rava proves his point from another statement of Rebbi Yochanan, where he permits placing an article on something that is less than four by four Tefachim, and that is standing between a Reshus ha'Rabim and a Reshus ha'Yachid. What is Rava's proof from there?
(d)How does Abaye refute Rava's proof?
(a)When Rebbi Zakai quoted the Beraisa: 'Bein Lechayayim ve'Sachas ha'Koreh Nidon ke'Karmelis' - Rebbi Yochanan told him to quote his Beraisa outside the Beis ha'Medrash, because he holds that 'Koreh Mishum Mechitzah', and that it is the outer-edge that is 'Yored ve'Sosem'.
(b)Rava maintains that Bein Lechayayim is also permitted and that Rebbi Yochanan's objection extended to it, too.
(c)Rava proves his point from Rebbi Yochanan's other statement - where he permits placing an article on something that is less than four by four Tefachim, and that is standing between a Reshus ha'Rabim and a Reshus ha'Yachid. Why? Because it is a Makom Petur, and is Batel to both the Reshuyos in between which it stands. Similarly, Bein ha'Lechayayim is Batel to both the Mavoy and the Reshus ha'Rabim, and one should be permitted to carry there.
(d)Abaye agrees on principle - that one should be permitted to carry in line with the Lechi. However, he maintains that, unlike Rebbi Yochanan's other case (of Makom Petur, which stands out as a Makom, because it is three Tefachim tall), the Lechi does not. Consequently, out of concern that one may come to carry beyond it into the street, Chazal decreed and forbade carrying there.
(a)Abaye proves his point from Rav, who rules that, even if the entrance of a Mavoy has door posts (that are less than four Tefachim wide), they cannot be used as a Lechi to permit one to carry between them; they require another Lechi for that. How does Rava refute Abaye's proof?
(b)Why is the Gemara amazed at Rava's refutal?
(c)Yet it is upheld on the basis of the argument 'Matza Min es Mino, ve'Ni'ur'. What does this mean?
(d)When will even Rava agree that carrying between the Lechayayim is forbidden, even by a Mavoy that opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim?
(a)Rava explains that Rav, who did not permit the door-posts of a Mavoy to be used as a Lechi - was speaking about a Mavoy that leads to a Karmelis, whereas he permits carrying in a Mavoy that leads to a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b)Is it not strange, asks the Gemara - that one should be more strict by a Mavoy that leads to a Karmelis, than one that leads to a Reshus ha'Rabim?
(c)'Matza Min es Mino, ve'Ni'ur' - in this context, means that whereas Bein ha'Lechayayim' does not become part of the Reshus ha'Rabim (thereby enabling it to become part of the Mavoy and of carrying there), it does however, become part of the Karmelis (since it itself, is basically a Karmelis, which does not have the full Shi'ur), preventing it from being considered part of the Mavoy.
(d)Even Rava will agree that carrying in the space next to the Lechi is prohibited, even if the Mavoy opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim - if the Lechi is four Tefachim wide, because then, it is an independent domain which requires a Lechi to permit carrying there.
(a)If one has a series of Lechayayim, starting at the entrance to the Mavoy, each one further back in the Mavoy, within four Tefachim of the next, up to where, in the Mavoy, may one carry ...
1. ...according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
2. ... according to the Chachamim?
(b)Why, according to Rava, may one not carry up to the outer edge of the outermost Lechi?
(a)If one has a series of Lechayaim, starting at the entrance to the Mavoy, each one further back in the Mavoy, within four Tefachim of the next, one is permitted to carry ...
1. ... according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (in whose opinion all the Lechayayim are considered joined - since he holds 'Levud' up to four Tefachim) - only up to the innermost point of the innermost Lechi.
2. ... according to the Chachamim (who do not say Levud after three Tefachim) - up to the innermost point of the outermost Lechi.
(b)Carrying up to the outer edge of the outermost Lechi is forbidden, according to Rava - because the Beraisa is speaking about a Mavoy that leads to a Karmelis (as we explained earlier - in 3c).
(a)How does Rav Ashi explain the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan (discussed in the previous question)?
(b)May one carry in the inner Mavoy without an additional Lechi - according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(c)The Gemara asks why, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, another Lechi should be necessary - even to carry in the outer Mavoy. Why should it not be permitted anyway, asks the Gemara, because of 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim'. How does Rashi explain the Kashya? What makes it 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz'?
(d)How does the Gemara answer the question?
(a)Rav Ashi establishes the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan when the Lechayayim were placed at intervals of less than four Tefachim, but to a depth of four Amos into the Mavoy. Consequently, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who applies 'Levud' here, we now have an independent Mavoy, which requires its own Lechi to carry in it; whereas according to the Rabbanan, we do not say Levud we do not say Levud by more than three Tefachim, it is not an independent Mavoy and a separate Lechi is not required.
(b)Rashi concludes that, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - carrying in the inner Mavoy is forbidden without an additional Lechi (presumably, because the wall of a Reshus cannot double as a Lechi).
(c)When the Gemara asks that, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the outer Mavoy should be permitted because it is 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' - it assumes that the outermost Lechi would have protruded slightly into the street, so that it should be noticeable.
(d)We are currently concerned with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, answers the Gemara - and Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim', does not have the Din of a Lechi.
(a)What is the case of a Lechi that is 'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz'?
(b)What does the Gemara prove from the following Beraisa? 'Kosel she'Tzido Echad Kanus me'Chavero - Bein she'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim, Bein she'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz Nidon Mishum Lechi'.
(c)What is the case of ...
1. ... 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim'?
2. ... 'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz'?
(d)How do we know that, according to Rebbi Chiya, a Lechi that is 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz, ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' is a Lechi, any more than Rebbi Yochanan, who presumably, knew the Beraisa, but did not hold like it?
(a)'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz' - speaks when one placed the Lechi just inside the Mavoy, with the outside of the Lechi flush with the outer wall of the Mavoy. Consequently, from the inside the Lechi is clearly visible as a Lechi, whereas from the outside, it resembles nothing more than a section of outer wall.
(b)The Gemara proves from the Beraisa: 'Kosel she'Tzido Echad Kanus me'Chavero - Bein she'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim, Bein she'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz' - that it is Rebbi Chiya (who quotes this Beraisa), who holds 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' has the Din of a Lechi (and not Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi).
1. 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' - means that they added the Lechi on to the length of the Mavoy flush with the inside of the wall of the Mavoy. The Lechi however, was not as thick as the wall of the Mavoy, in which case, the difference between the two widths will be visible from the outside of the Mavoy, but not from the inside.
2. If they were to place the same Lechi flush with the outside of the wall, then the Lechi would be visible from the inside but not from the outside - 'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz'.
(d)Rebbi Yochanan may well have known of the Beraisa without accepting it - but then, he did not quote it, Rebbi Chiya did. So we can assume that Rebbi Chiya follows the opinion quoted there.
(a)How will Rebbi Chiya explain the Mishnah in 'Kol Gagos' (quoted above on 8a), which forbids carrying in a small courtyard which opens into a large one - in a way that the extended walls of the latter are visible to those standing there, but not to those standing in the small courtyard? Why is this not a case of 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' (according to our initial understanding of the Mishnah)?
(b)Bearing in mind that the Beraisa establishes the Mishnah when the large courtyard is only one Amah wider than the small one, what exactly, is the case?
(c)Why do we not say Levud, at least on one side? Who must be the author of the Mishnah?
(a)According to Rebbi Chiya, the Mishnah in Kol Gagos (which forbids carrying in a small courtyard which opens into a large one - so that the extended walls of the latter are visible to those standing there, but not to those standing in the small courtyard) - speaks when the walls of the small courtyard extend into the large one.
(b)Even though the Beraisa establishes the Mishnah when the large courtyard is only one Amah wider than the small one, we cannot say Levud - because the excess wall on one side is two Tefachim, but on the other side, it is four Tefachim (where 'Levud' does not apply).
(c)Nor does it help to say 'Levud' on the one side where it is applicable - because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi, who requires not one board for a Chatzer, but two.