(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 6

ERUVIN 6-11 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


QUESTION: The Gemara says that if there is a breach in the front corner of a Mavoy, and the breach is four Tefachim wide, the Mavoy cannot be permitted with a Lechi or Korah. The Gemara explains that a breach this size cannot be classified as an doorway, because one does not normally build doorways in corners.
(a) Why does the breach have to be four Tefachim wide? Even if it is less than four (but more than three; any breach less than three Tefachim would be automatically mended by the concept of Lavud), it is not a doorway and it should invalidate the Lechi/Korah of the Mavoy!

(b) In fact, it can be proven from the Gemara that a breach of more than three Tefachim should invalidate the Lechi/Korah of the Mavoy. The Gemara said (5a) that the Amora'im agreed with the ruling of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, that even a three-Tefach breach invalidates a Mavoy if the solid wall between the entrance to the Mavoy (above which the Korah is placed) and the breach is less than four Tefachim. In our case, since the breach is in the front corner there are obviously not four Tefachim from the Mavoy's entrance to the break. A breach more than *three* Tefachim should invalidate the Mavoy!

(a) Regarding the first question, the RASHBA explains that the breach in the corner must be four Tefachim to invalidate the Mavoy is because only a "Makom Chashuv," a significant area, can invalidate the Mavoy. It is not enough to have a small breach. Only a breach at least the size of four Tefachim is considered a significant area.

(b) Regarding the second question, even though we learned earlier, in the case of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, that a breach of three Tefachim is enough to invalidate a Mavoy and a significant area is not necessary, this case cannot be compared to that case. There, the Korah is resting on a small piece of wall that is *less than four Tefachim* long, and this small piece of wall is separated from the rest of the Mavoy by the three Tefachim breach. In such a case, even a small breach is sufficient to break off the part of the Mavoy upon which the Korah rests from the rest of the Mavoy. In our case, though, as Rashi explains, the Gemara is discussing a Mavoy that has a wall at its front, going across half of the entrance. The Korah is resting partly on that wall and partly on the other wall (on the other side of the entrance to the Mavoy). The wall going across the front of the Mavoy, upon which the Korah rests, is *more than four Tefachim* long. It therefore is a valid wall even if the corner breaks, and the entranceway remains valid as does the Korah. (CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN, and other Rishonim)

SUMMARY: Rav and Shmuel argue about the status of a "Mavoy Akum," a bent Mavoy (that is, one shaped like an L with an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim at each end). Rav says that it is considered a Mavoy Mefulash, one that is opened at two sides to Reshus ha'Rabim. Shmuel says that it is considered a Mavoy Sasum, one that has only one opening to Reshus ha'Rabim. What does each opinion mean?
(a) Rav rules that a bent Mavoy is considered to be "Mefulash." There are two ways of understanding Rav's ruling:
1. According to RASHI, Rav means that the Mavoy must have a Lechi at either end, and a Tzuras ha'Pesach in the middle. If there are two bends in the Mavoy (that is, the Mavoy is shaped like a U), Rashi (6b) says that Rav will require a Tzuras ha'Pesach in *each* of the two bends.

The logic in this approach is that we view each leg of the bent Mavoy as a *separate* Mavoy. Since each of the legs of the Mavoy ends in Reshus ha'Rabim and leads to a Reshus ha'Rabim (eventually) at the other end (i.e., the bend), each is considered an individual Mavoy Mefulash. By placing a Tzuras ha'Pesach in the bend, where one stretch meets the other, the Tzuras ha'Pesach serves *both* stretches of Mavoy (since it is at the end of both stretches, and can be seen from either side).

2. TOSFOS (DH ; 10b DH Oseh) and the ROSH, cite the RI, who suggests another explanation. According to Rav, a bent Mavoy must have a Lechi at one end, and a Tzuras ha'Pesach at the far end (and nothing at all in the bend).

According to this approach, Rav's logic is that the bent Mavoy is considered to be Mefulash because it is all *one large Mavoy*. We do not view each straight stretch as an inidividual Mavoy, for if we did the Mavoy would not be considered Mefulash (since there is no exit at the far end).

(b) Shmuel disagrees with Rav, and maintains that the bent Mavoy is *not* considered to be Mefulash; it is viewed as a "dead end alley" just like an ordinary Mavoy. It is clear that Shmuel considers the bend to be an *end* to each of the stretches of Mavoy that meet at the bend. Because of this, each stretch is viewed as an individual Mavoy, which is open on one end to Reshus ha'Rabim, and is closed at the other end (i.e. the bend). However, there are two approaches to Shmuel's ruling:
1. RASHI at first suggests that according to Shmuel, only two Lechis are needed to permit such a Mavoy, one at either end that opens to Reshus ha'Rabim. The logical basis for this ruling is obvious; since each straight stretch is viewed as a separate Mavoy, when there is one bend in a Mavoy we treat it like two Mavoys, and each is permitted by adding a Lechi to its entrance. The same two Lechis will be required if there are two bends in the Mavoy (i.e. it looks like a U), one at the entrance to either Reshus ha'Rabim.

2. Next, RASHI cites an explanation in the name of his teachers. According to his teachers, the question is what must be done in the *center* of the Mavoy Akum, at the point where it bends. Shmuel maintains that there must be a Lechi *not only* at the two ends of the Mavoy which open into Reshus ha'Rabim, but in its bend as well. If there is more than one bend, Shmuel will require a Lechi in each of the bends.

The logical basis for this is that Shmuel maintains that the bent Mavoy is not *exactly* a Mavoy Sasum, since its dead end is not really "dead" -- it can be entered from that end as well. Because of this, the bend needs a Lechi as well (just like any Mavoy entrance). However, since the bend does not *directly* let out to a Reshus ha'Rabim, it is not considered to be Mefulash and does not need a Tzuras ha'Pesach.


Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646