Very quickly review the “גמרא דף יב. “אמר רב ששת (middle of the Amud) until “אמר רב יוסף” (fifth line of the medium sized lines)
Clarify the different opinions of what is required to permit carrying in a Chatzer.
Learn “ריטב”א “מרוח אחת who asks multiple questions on Rashi’s explanation of the Rabanan. The Ritva argues on Rashi and gives a different explanation in what is the opinion of the Rabanan.
Continue learning the Gemara from “אמר רב יוסף” (fifth line of the medium sized lines) until the two dots on top of דף יב עמוד ב
Learn the “גמרא דף יב. “אמר רב ששת (middle of the Amud) until “אמר רב יוסף” (fifth line of the medium sized lines)
Clarify the different opinions of what is required to permit carrying in a Chatzer
Learn “ריטב”א “מרוח אחת who asks multiple questions on Rashi’s explanation of the Rabanan. The Ritva argues on Rashi and gives a different explanation in what is the opinion of the Rabanan.
ery quickly review the גמרא דף יא: “ר’ אליעזר אומר (two dots – three lines from bottom of the Amud) until דף יב. “אמר מר (twelve lines from top of Amud)
Questions:
What is the meaning of ר’ אליעזר response “יסתום ומה בכך”?
The Gemara quotes the opinion of רשב”ג that ב”ש agrees to ב”ה when the width of a Mavui is less than four Amos only a Lechi is required.
What connection does this have to the question the gemara asked whether ר’ אליעזר requires just two lechi’s or also a Korah?
How does the Gemara conclude as to what is opinion of ר’ אליעזר?
Learn “ח’ ר”ן דף יב. “אי who addresses these questions (emailed the attachment yesterday)
Continue learning the Gemara until דף יב. “אמר רב ששת (middle of the Amud)
Continue learning the גמרא דף יב. “אמר רב ששת (middle of the Amud) until “אמר רב יוסף (fifth line of the medium sized lines)
Continue learning the גמרא דף יא: “ר’ אליעזר אומר (two dots – three lines from bottom of the Amud) until דף יב. “אמר רשב”ג (four lines from top of Amud)
Question on halacha אין צריכין ליגע – side posts do not need to extend until the top crossbeam.
Why not?
See משנה ברורה שס”ב ס”ק סב which says the reason is because of גוד אסיק
Major Question:
In the Sugya of כיפה in the case of a doorframe which is an arched on top. The gemara says if the side posts are ten tefachim tall everyone agrees it’s considered a צורת הפתח. Rashi says this is a proof that the side posts do not need to extend to touch the top cross beam.
How could this be considered a צורת הפתח through גוד אסיק , there is solid material separating the top of the side posts and the cross beam?
See אבני נזר או”ח ס’ רס”ד which asks the rule of גוד אסיק is universal, why does רב ששת say צריכים ליגע?
Why is an arched door frame which starts to arch from the bottom of the side posts not obligated in mezuzah?
Is it only when lacking width of 4 tefachim with a minimum height of 3 tefachim or is it because a door frame needs to have straight side posts and a flat lintel?
Is a doorframe which is wider than four tefachim that begins to arch from bottom of the side posts considered a צורת הפתח ?
Review גמרא דף יא: “אשכחיה רב ששת (seven lines before the Mishna) until the Mishna.
See רש”י “חייבת which brings two גירסאות in the gemara. Rashi says this gemara is proof that the side posts do not need to touch the top post.
What is the proof?
Is the proof only from the opinion of the Rabanan or also from Rebbe Meir?
What is the difference between the two גירסאות?
Why is an arched door frame which starts to arch from the bottom of the side posts not obligated in mezuzah?
Is it only when lacking width of 4 tefachim with a minimum height of 3 tefachim or is it because a door frame needs to have straight side posts and a flat lintel?
Learn גמרא דף יא: “אשכחיה רב ששת (seven lines before the Mishna) until the Mishna.
Clarify what the concept of חוקקין להשלים
See רש”י “חייבת which brings two גירסאות in the gemara. Rashi says this gemara is a proof that the side posts do not need to touch the top post.
What is the proof?
Is the proof only from the opinion of the Rabanan or also from Rebbe Meir?
What is the difference between the two גירסאות?
Why is an arched doorframe which starts to arch from the bottom of the side posts not obligated in mezuzah?
Is it only when lacking width of 4 tefachim with a minimum height of 3 tefachim or is it because a doorframe needs to have straight side posts and a flat lintel?
Quickly review משנה ברורה ס’ שס”ב ס”ק סו which discusses a machlokes whether the top crossbeam/ string needs to be taught so it will not sway in the wind.
We asked the two following questions on the Rambam
1. The Rambam concludes that each situation individually a צורת הפתח is valid. However when both are combined in a case of an opening wider than 10 Amos and פרוץ מרובה על העומד than it is disqualified.
If each situation independently is valid, why is the combination deadly?
2. Our Gemara said the source to disqualify a צורת הפתח when there are more openings than closures – פרוץ מרובה על העומד is from the halacha of Rav who rules a צורת הפתח can not close an opening wider than 10 Amos. Since the Rambam concludes a צורת הפתח is valid on an opening wider than 10 Amos where is the source to disqualify it when there is פרוץ מרובה על העומד ?
Learn מגיד משנה for an answer
Learn ר’ חיים על הרמב”ם שבת טז, טז who gives fundamental principles in Hilchos Mechitzas
The Rambam concludes that each situation individually a צורת הפתח is valid. However when both are combined in a case of an opening wider than 10 Amos and פרוץ מרובה על העומד than it is disqualified.
If each situation independently is valid, why is the combination deadly?
Our Gemara said the source to disqualify a צורת הפתח when there are more openings than closures – פרוץ מרובה על העומד is from the halacha of Rav who rules a צורת הפתח can not close an opening wider than 10 Amos. Since the Rambam concludes a צורת הפתח is valid on an opening wider than 10 Amos where is the source to disqualify it when there is פרוץ מרובה על העומד ?
Learn מגיד משנה for an answer
Learn ר’ חיים על הרמב”ם שבת טז, טז who gives fundamental principles in Hilchos Mechitzas
The גמרא דף יא until the two dots on דף יא עמוד ב brings the opinion of רב that a צורת הפתח can not close an opening wider than 10 Amos.
Rav Yosef understands that רב would also disqualify multiple צורת הפתח on openings less than 10 Amos if there are more openings than closures – פרוץ מרובה על העומד. The Gemara tries to prove this position but is unsuccessful.
The Gemara also attempts to bring a proof that ר’ יוחנן agrees to the opinion of רב that a צורת הפתח can not close an opening wider than 10 Amos but does not have a source.
How do we conclude l’halacha?
Learn ח’ ר”ן דף יא: “לעולם
Learn רמב”ם ה’ שבת פרק טז הלכה טז
Note how the Ramabam rules
Major Question:
The Rambam concludes that each situation individually a צורת הפתח is valid. However when both are combined in a case of an opening wider than 10 Amos and פרוץ מרובה על העומד than it is disqualified.
If each situation independently is valid, why is the combination deadly?
Our Gemara said the source to disqualify a צורת הפתח when there are more openings than closures – פרוץ מרובה על העומד is from the halacha of Rav who rules a צורת הפתח can not close an opening wider than 10 Amos. Since the Rambam concludes a צורת הפתח is valid on an opening wider than 10 Amos where is the source to disqualify it when there is פרוץ מרובה על העומד ?
Learn מגיד משנה for an answer
Learn ר’ חיים על הרמב”ם שבת טז, טז who gives fundamental principles in Hilchos Mechitzas
