Previous daf

1)

(a) What problem does the Gemara have with this explanation of the Mishnah in 'Kol Gagos' (which entails establishing Rebbi and the Beraisa of 'Ketanah be'Eser, Gedolah, be'Achas-Esrei' like Rebbi Zeira ['be'Nichnasin Koslei Ketanah li'Gedolah'], and like Ravina ['be'Muflagin mi'Kosel Zeh bi'Shenayim, u'mi'Kosel Zeh be'Arba'ah'])?

(b) Why would it be preferable to establish Rebbi and the Beraisa like Rebbi Yossi?

(c) What are the ramifications of learning the Mishnah like this?

(a) Rav Huna is quoted as saying that a Lechi that is *less* than four Amos long, which continues with the wall of the Mavuy (but is narrower than it) has the Din of a Lechi, and that one may carry from its most innermost point.
What will be the Din if it is four Amos long?

(b) Which three things did Rav Yosef learn from Rav Huna's statement?

(c) How can Rav Yosef follow the ruling that 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz, ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim, Nidon Mishum Lechi', when we just proved in the previous Sugya, from a Mishnah in 'Kol Gagos' in conjunction with the Beraisa, that it is *not*?

(a) What are 'Pasei Bira'os'?

(b) Why did the Gemara think that Rebbi Yehudah, who declares Kasher a Mavoy whose entrance is more than ten Amos wide, will agree that it is Pasul if its width exceeds thirteen and a third Amos?

(c) On what two grounds does the Gemara reject that contention?

(a) Why can one not rectify a Mavoy whose entrance is too wide, by placing a vertical pole in the middle?

(b) In which two ways *can* the fault be rectified (the second of these is the suggestion of Rav Yehudah, by a Mavoy whose entrance is fifteen Amos wide)?

5)

(a) The Gemara does not include the possibility of arranging a plank of one and a half Amos adjacent to one of the walls, and a second plank of one and a half Amos next to it but at a distance of two and a half Amos. Why might this be effective?

(b) Does the fact that it is *not*, prove that 'Omed Merubeh al ha'Parutz' is not effective, unless the Omed is in one place?

(c) Nor does the Gemara suggest placing *three* planks (each one Amah wide), one adjacent to the wall, the other two, at intervals of one Amah. Does this mean that 'Omed ke'Parutz' is Asur?

(a) The Gemara *does* however, concede, that it would be possible to place a plank of one and a half Amos wide, one Amah away wall, and another plank of one and a half Amos, one Amah away first plank.

1. Why did the Gemara not suggest it?
2. Why do we not say in that case too, that the space on either side, combines to nullify the plank in the middle?

(b) Why are we not worried that, in the case of Rav Yehudah (see 4b), people may stop using the original entrance, and start using the small entrance at the side (and that entrance has no Lechi)?

(c) How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, who *did* invalidate a Mavoy whose side wall had a breach of three Tefachim at the point where it was adjacent to the entrance - for this very reason (because people may come to re-place the original entrance with the breach in the side-wall - in spite of the fact that it is much smaller)?

(a) What does the Beraisa mean when it writes 'Or ha'Asla ve'Chalal She'lo, Mitztarfin be'Tefach'?

(b) Rav Dimi, explaining Rebbi Yochanan, gives the measurements as two finger-breadths of leather seating on either side, and a hole of two Tefachim in the middle; whereas Ravin says that it is one and a half finger- breadths on either side, and one finger-breadth in the middle for the hole. Do they argue over the Shiur of a Tefach, or are there different ways of measuring a Tefach?

(c) How did Abaye explain the Machlokes between Rav Dimi and Ravin?

(d) Rav Dimi corrected him.
Why did he correct him? What is really the basis of their argument?