ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
SHABBOS 99 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the thirteenth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
(a) The 'Mishkan' was manufactured from - threads made of dark blue, purple and crimson wool, and linen.
(b) The wisdom required for the manufacture of the 'Ohel' (of goats' hair) was superior to that of the manufacture of the 'Mishkan' based on a statement of Rebbi Nechemyah, who stated - that the goat's hair from which the curtains were manufactured was washed and spun directly from the backs of the goats ...
(c) ... by wise-hearted women (to whom the Pasuk ascribes these tasks).
(d) Rebbi Nechemyah learns this from two Pesukim in Vayakhel. Regarding the spinning of the Mishkan, the Pasuk writes "ve'Chol Ishah Chochmas Lev be'Yadehah Tavu", whereas with regard to the spinning of the Ohel, it writes - "ve'Chol ha'Nashim Asher Nasa Liban Osanah be'Chochmah" (implying an additional measure of wisdom).
Abaye gives the space between two wagons (standing side by side waiting to be loaded) as the equivalent to the length of the wagon - which was five Amos.
(b) We query why the wagons needed to be so long - since whether the planks were placed width-wise on the wagon, they could not have fitted more than three rows of planks (three x one and a half Amos = four and a half); whereas if they were placed thickness-wise, they could have fitted four rows (four x one Amah = four Amos), four and a half (plus) ought to have sufficed.
(c) And we reply - that four and a half Amos (plus) would have been too tight a fit, assuming that the planks were placed width-wise.
(a) Rava gives the sides of the wagon as the equivalent of the width of the wagon itself. By the sides of the wagon he means - the thickness of the wall, plus the space between the wall of the wagon and the thickness of the wheel.
(b) The wagon was - two and a half Amos wide.
(c) We query this, suggesting that one and half Amos would have sufficed - because had it been necessary to place the plank lengthwise inside the wagon, one and a half Amos would have allowed for this, by placing it on its thickness.
(d) And we reply this time - that one and a half Amos may well have sufficed to hold the planks. However, planks ten Amos lying across a wagon only one and a half Amos wide, would have been too precariously balanced; so it was necessary to make the wagons two and a half Amos, to avoid them wobbling from side to side.
(a) The problem with the fact that the width of the Reshus ha'Rabim is sixteen Amos (based on the fact that we learn the Halachos of Shabbos from the Mishkan) is - that the two wagons plus the five Amah space in between, totaled only fifteen Amos, and not sixteen.
(b) We answer that the extra Amah was for the benefit of the Levi, who walked behind the wagon to ensure that the planks remained steady.
(c) He did indeed walk behind the wagon - but the moment he spied a problem with one of the planks, he would hurry to the side, and squeeze in between the rows of planks to solve it.
(d) Even though the two wagons traveled side by side, with the tips of the planks touching, the width of the Reshus ha'Rabim is not twenty Amos - because when gauging the Reshus ha'Rabim in the desert, they did not contend with the planks, which were higher than ten Tefachim, and were therefore considered to be (not in the Reshus ha'Rabim, but) in a Makom Petur.
(a) A Chulyas ha'Bor is - a wall made of the initial contents of the pit (earth, rocks ... ), which is piled up beside the pit.
(b) Our Mishnah declares Chayav someone who places something from the street on top of it, or for taking from it to place in the street - provided it is ten Tefachim high and four Tefachim wide (in which case it is a Reshus ha'Yachid), but not if it is less than that.
(c) The Mishnah mentions Chulyas ha'Bor - to teach us that if a pit is, for example, five Tefachim deep, and the Chulyah, five, the depth and the height combine to form a Reshus ha'Yachid (like Rebbi Yochanan said).
(d) The Beraisa which we cite in support of Rebbi Yochanan, permits ...
1. ... drawing water from a well in the Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos - only if one stands within a wall of ten Tefachim that one erected before Shabbos.
2. ... drinking from the well directly on Shabbos - provided one leans both one's head and the majority of one's body over the well before drinking.
(a) Rav Mordechai asked Rabah what the Din will be if someone throws an object from the street to land on a surface that is ten by four Tefachim - because on the one hand, he performed an Akirah in a Reshus ha'Rabim and a Hanachah in a Reshus ha'Yachid, whereas on the other , which will have risen to above ten Tefachim in the Reshus ha'Rabim, arrives in the Reshus ha'Yachid, via a Makom Petur (See Tosfos, DH 'O').
(b) Rabah replied that the answer lies in an explicit Mishnah. When he asked Rav Yosef and Abaye the same question - they gave the same answer.
(c) They were all referring to our Mishnah, 'ha'Notel Meihen ve'ha'Nosen Al Gaban, Chayav', despite the fact that the article must have come down from above ten Tefachim (and despite the fact that the Mishnah seems to be speaking even in a case where the article was thrown - Tosfos).
(d) Rav Mordechai refuted their proof however - by establishing our Mishnah in a case where there is a ledge or a crack in the rock or the wall surrounding the well which is lower than ten Tefachim, and that consequently, the thrown article could have dropped into it from below than ten Tefachim.
(e) The ledge or the cleft itself is not a Makom Petur - because the ten Tefachim wall is a Reshus ha'Yachid, and they are Batel to it and are known as 'Chorei Reshus ha'Yachid.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan asked what the Din will be if someone throws something on to a wall that helped turn a former Karmelis into a Reshus ha'Yachid, even though the wall itself was not four Tefachim thick. What is his She'eilah? If the wall is not four Tefachim thick, why should one be Chayav for throwing from the street on top of it. The She'eilah is - that even though the wall itself is not four Tefachim thick (and ought therefore to be classified as a Makom Petur) - nevertheless, perhaps now that the area that it surrounds has been transformed into a Reshus ha'Yachid, we consider it as if it was filled in, combining the wall with the area that it surrounds.
(b) Ula answers - that, since the wall turns the area inside it into a Reshus ha'Yachid, then it certainly gives itself the Din of a Reshus ha'Yachid (because of the principle of 'Migu').
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav as well as Rebbi Yitzchak citing Rebbi Yochanan - corroborate Ula.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan also asks what the Din will be if someone pulls up a clod of earth measuring one Tefach from a pit of nine Tefachim (making it ten), and places it in the street. The She'eilah is - whether on the one hand, he will be Chayav, since the Akirah of the clod of earth and making the pit into a pit of ten Tefachim occurred simultaneously; or whether perhaps, one is only Chayav if the Akirah is performed from a pit that is ten Tefachim to begin with.
(b) Assuming that he is Patur in the previous case, he asks what will be the Din in the reverse case - where one places a clod of earth into a pit which is ten by ten Tefachim to begin with, but which now, after he has placed it, is only nine Tefachim. Do we say that, since he placed it into a pit that was ten by ten Tefachim to begin with, he will be Chayav, or perhaps, there too, he will Patur, since, when he concludes the Hanachah, it is no longer ten by ten Tefachim.
(c) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yochanan's own words (to explain the Mishnah in 'ha'Zorek' that if someone throws something at a wall in a street below ten Tefachim, he is Chayav) - that the Tana must be speaking where he throws something which sticks on the wall (such as a large cake of dried figs) - where he is Chayav because before he threw the figs, there was a distance of ten Tefachim between himself and the wall, even though the moment they stuck to the wall, there were only nine which seems to be the same case as his latter She'eilah here).
(d) We refute this proof however - by drawing a distinction between the cake of figs, which the thrower is not Mevatel to the wall (leaving the area of Reshus ha'Rabim intact) and the clod of earth, which the thrower is Mevatel to the pit (thereby changing its status from Reshus ha'Yachid to Karmelis).
(a) Rava asks whether one is Chayav for throwing a board measuring four by four Tefachim, if it lands on sticks ten Tefachim tall. This is not a duplication of Rebbi Yochanan's second She'eilah - because it concerns (not the board [for which he is definitely Patur], but an object that is on the board when it is thrown.
(b) And the She'eilah is - whether on the one hand he is Patur, since he made the Hanachah before the Reshus ha'Yachid even existed; whether, on the other, he is Chayav, since inevitably, the article rose into the air before landing, which means that the Reshus ha'Yachid was made first, and the final placing of the article occurred only after it landed.
(c) The outcome of the She'eilah is -Teiku.