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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Eruvin 3

ERUVIN 3 - dedicated to the memory of Sarah Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (Feldman) of Milwaukee by her children.



(a) The 'Chamesh Amaltera'os shel Milah' - were five rows of decorative beams (cornices - made of gall-apple wood) which stretched across the top of the Heichal.

(b) If, as Rav explains, the Rabbanan learn the maximum height of the Pesach of a Mavoy from the Heichal - then, considering that the Heichal had Amaltera'os at the height of twenty Amos, why does Rav himself permit a Koreh even when it is *above* twenty Amos, if it has an Amaltera.

(c) True, the Mishnah in Midos (which describes the Amaltera'os in the Beis Hamikdash), is talking about the Ulam - but we can assume that the Amaltera'os in the Heichal were formed in the same way as those of the Ulam.

(d) Even a Koreh which is too weak to hold a brick is Kasher for a Mavuy - if it is at least four Tefachim wide.

(a) Rav points out that the question in 1b, even without his explanation (giving the Rabbanan's source as being the height of the entrance to the Heichal), we have here a contradiction between two Beraisos - the one (quoted earlier on 2b) which gives the Rabbanan's source as being the height of the entrance of the Heichal, the other, which permits a Mavoy with an Amaltera, even if it is higher than twenty Amos (implying that they do not learn from the entrance of the Heichal). So we have a Machlokes Tana'im, and Rav will hold like the first Beraisa.

(b) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Beraisa mentions the Heichal in connection with the Rabbanan's opinion of a Mavuy that is higher than twenty Amos - not because it is a source, but purely as a Si'man. In fact, they do not learn from the Heichal at all.

(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos is Pasul - because the purpose that a Koreh serves is that of a Heker (as Rashi explains in our Mishnah), and a Koreh that is placed higher than twenty Amos is not immediately recognizable (just like a Sucah, according to Rabah). That also explains why a Koreh with an Amaltera is Kasher even when it is higher than twenty Amos - since it is striking and therefore noticeable at a glance.

(d) Had they confined their argument to Sucah, we would have said that Rebbi Yehudah validates a Sucah that is higher than twenty Amos, because a Sucah is meant for *sitting* in, and one will therefore notice it more quickly than a Koreh in a Mavoy, which is meant for *walking through* - so maybe there he will agree with the Rabbanan. If, on the other hand, they had only argued by a Mavoy, we would have said that the Rabbanan only invalidate a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos, because it is meant for walking through, whereas a Sucah, which is meant for sitting in, perhaps they will agree with Rebbi Yehudah, who renders it Kasher.

(a) Patterned birds'-nests are more striking (and more costly) than long cedar poles. Consequently, those who explain Amaltera to mean *cedar poles* would certainly agree that if the Koreh was patterned with *birds'-nests*, it would certainly be Kasher even above twenty Amos. But according to those who explain Amaltera to mean *birds'-nests*, if the beam was patterned with long *cedar poles*, it would not be Kasher if it was higher than twenty Amos.

(b) 'Kalush' - means that we simply consider the top layer (that is above twenty Amos) as if it is was removed. The problem with saying Kalush by a Sucah - is that, if we imagine the top layer to be removed, then the Sucah will be Pasul, because there will be more sun than shade. But then, the Mavuy will be Pasul too -because it will be too light to withstand a regular wind (which is why a Koreh that is too weak to hold a brick, is Pasul).

(c) The Gemara overcomes this problem - by pointing out that when we say 'Kalush', we are not really taking away anything, but only considering *as if* it was removed (in order to be Machshir the Sucah and the Mavuy). Consequently, we do not need to consider there to be more sun than shade, nor that the Koreh might blow away.

(a) The other reason to be more lenient by a Mavoy than by a Sucah (with regard to a Sucah and a Mavoy which begin within twenty, but end above twenty, Amos), is because, whereas a Sucah is private property, and there is no-one to remind the owner should the lower section of Sechach wear thin, a Mavoy is public property, and one person will remind the other to remedy the situation, should the bottom of the beam rot and drop off.

(b) The second reason to be more stringent by a Mavuy than by a Sucah - is because, whereas the owner of the Sucah will notice when the lower section of the Sechach wears thin, and will rectify it, by a Mavuy, we do say this. Why not? Because of the principle (that we always apply by public property) 'A pot that belongs to partners, gets neither hot nor cold - in other words, when something belongs to many people, it never gets tended to, because everyone relies on the next person.

(a) All the opinions before Rava, assumed that the twenty Amos of Hechsher of both the Sucah and the Mavoy referred to *the top* of the Sucah and the Mavoy (which is why we had a problem when part of the Sechach or part of the Koreh, was above twenty Amos. Rava now teaches us - that it is not the top of the *Koreh* that we are concerned with, but the top of the *space*, no matter how high the Koreh extends above that.

(b) Rav Papa proves his Rebbe's statement - from the entrance of the Heichal (to which the Beraisa compares our Din of a Mavoy that is higher than twenty Amos) - and it was *the space* of the Heichal that was twenty Amos, not including the the beams.

(c) Strange as it may sound, Rav Papa explains 'u'Lematah' in the Beraisa ('Meni'ach Koreh mi'Sefas Esrim *u'Lematah'*) - to mean that one places the beam, not *below* twenty Amos, but *above* it.

(d) The Tana writes *'le'Matah'* - to indicate that the Din of a Mavuy being not less than ten Tefachim, just like that of not being higher than twenty Amos, refers to the space, and does not include the Koreh.




(a) When Rav Nachman gave the Shiur Amah regarding a Mavoy as five Tefachim - he was referring to the twenty Amos (plus) height that requires lowering, and to the ten Amos (plus) that constitute a breach in the walls and that need to be repaired (both Chumros).

(b) As far as the minimum length (four Amos) of the Mavoy is concerned (where an Amah consisting of *five* Tefachim (rather than *six*) would turn out to be a Kula, either Rav Nachman follows the opinion that the minimum length of a Mavoy is four *Tefachim* (not *Amos*) - in which case he is not referring to this case at all, or he was stating the size of the Amah in *most* (not *all*) cases, (i.e. but by the four Amos minimum length of a Mavoy, according to him, each Amah consists of *six* Tefachim).

(c) Similarly, when Rav Nachman said that the Shiur Amah regarding a Sucah is *five* Tefachim - he was referring to the maximum height of twenty Amos of a Sucah, and to the Din of 'Dofen Akumah' (up to four Amos Sechach Pasul that is permitted on the roof, between the wall of the Sucah and the Sechach (both Lechumra).

(d) As far as the minimum *area* of the Sucah is concerned - either Rav Nachman holds like the Chachamim, who give the minimum area as 'Rosho ve'Rubo ve'Shulchano' (seven Tefachim by seven Tefachim), or even if he holds like Rebbi, Rav Nachman is stating the size of the Amah in *most* cases (as we explained above with regard to Mavoy); but the four Amos by four Amos minimum of Rebbi is measured by Amos of *six* Tefachim - Lechumra.

1. A 'Karachas ha'Kerem' - is a bald patch in the middle of the vineyard, where some vines died.
2. A 'Mechol ha'Kerem' is - an empty space between the vines and the wall, where some vines died.
(b) Beis Hillel require ...
1. ... sixteen Amos by a Karachas ha'kerem: - Four Amos (according to everyone) is required on each side , because of Avodas ha'Kerem (room for the oxen and the plow etc., when the grapes are harvested and when the vineyard is plowed), plus eight Amos in the middle - four Amos of field corresponding to the standing vines on the one side (since less than four Amos is not Chashuv - according to Beis Hillel - and would therefore be Batel to it, and four Amos for those on the other side. According to Beis Shamai, less than *eight* Amos is not Chashuv (and would be Batel to the Kerem), so he requires sixteen Amos in the middle - eight Amos for the standing vines on the one side, and eight, for those on the other side.
2. ... twelve Amos by a Mechol ha'Kerem: - four Amos of Avodas ha'Kerem and four Amos of field (on the one side only), plus the four Amos next to the wall, which people tended to avoid using, in order not to weaken the wall's foundations; these four Amos they would declare Hefker.
(c) 'Kerem ha'Natu'a al Pachos me'Arba Amos, Rebbi Shimon Omer, Eino Kerem' - means that a vineyard whose rows of vines were planted less than four Amos apart (since there is not sufficient space for oxen and wagons to pass, in order to harvest the grapes and till the soil, is not considered a vineyard according to Rebbi Shimon, and one is permitted to sow seeds there.

(d) Assuming that Rav Nachman incorporates *all* cases of Amah in connection with Kil'ayim, and assuming that he is coming to be stringent - we will have to say that he holds like the Rabbanan (who forbid sowing seeds there, because they hold that the vineyard remains a vineyard, even if the rows are *less* than four Amos apart). Consequently, Rav Nachman's statement 'Amah bas Kil'ayim be'Amah bas Shishah' does not incorporate this case.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,