- Gaps in mavoi walls
There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding gaps in mavoi walls:
Rav Chanan bar Rava said in the name of Rav, מבוי שנפרץ מצידו בעשר אמות מראשו בארבעה – A mavoi can have a maximum gap of until ten amos on its side wall, (as long as there were four tefachim of wall before the gap), but in the front wall, (in a case, for example, where the mavoi had a twenty amos opening and was then closed off by a ten amos wall), then four tefachim in that wall is the maximum breach.
The Gemara asked why a breach in the front wall cannot be up to ten amos like a gap in the side wall, and be considered an entrance? Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua answered that when Rav Chanan stated "a breach in the front," he was referring to a breach in the corner. Since people do not usually construct entrances in corners, it cannot be considered an entrance. Instead it is viewed as a gap that makes the mavoi passul.
Rav Huna says, אחד זה ואחד זה בארבעה – in either case, whether the breach is in the side wall or in the corner, a breach that is four tefachim wide passuls the mavoi.
- מבוי עקום
There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding a מבוי עקום – a bent mavoi, which is an L-shaped mavoi that opens to the street on both ends.
•Rav says, תורתו כמפולש – its law is that of an open mavoi, meaning each leg is viewed as an open mavoi which requires a tzuras hapesach at one end and a lechi or korah at the other.
•Shmuel says, תורתו כסתום – Its law is that of a closed mavoi, and therefore all that is required is a lechi or a korah at each end.
- הלכה כבית הלל
The Gemara points out a contradiction in a Baraisa which initially states, לעולם הלכה כבית הלל – the halacha always follows Beis Hillel, and then states immediately afterwards, והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה כדברי בית הלל עושה – and one who wishes to act in accordance with Beis Shammai may do so, and one who wants to act in accordance with Beis Hillel may do so. Three answers are given.
כאן קודם בת קול כאן לאחר בת קול.1 – the second part that states one can choose whom to follow was said before the bas kol stated that Beis Hillel’s opinion should be followed, and the first statement was made after the bas kol.
2. The first and second part were both stated after the bas kol. The second part however, reflects the view of Rebbe Yehoshua who pays no heed to bas kols.
3. The second part of the Baraisa means to say that anywhere that there is a machlokes, just like the arguments that we find between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, whenever there is no authoritative ruling regarding who should be followed, one should not adopt the leniencies of both, nor the stringencies of both, but rather one should adopt the leniencies and stringencies of one Rebbe. (In the case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, however, this rule does not apply since there was an authoritative ruling that Beis Hillel should be followed.)
