ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 6
ERUVIN 6-10 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.
(a) 'Mavoy she'Nifratz mi'Tzido, be'Eser' - means that a breach of up to ten
Amos along the length of the Mavoy does not invalidate the Mavoy, provided
the first four Tefachim are still intact.
(b) 'me'Rosho be'Arba'ah' - means - that if the breach occured in the
section of ten Amos set up to rectify the entrance that was twenty Amos
wide, then four Tefachim invalidate the Mavoy.
(c) The reason that a breach of four Tefachim is not considered an entrance
(when it is at the side) is because people do not usually make their
entrances at the side.
(d) When Rav disqualified a Mavoy in Damchari'ah (because of a breach of
four Tefachim in one of its side walls) it was because the people of
Damchari'ah were Amei ha'Aretz, and were not taking the Mitzvos too
seriously, that he felt he needed to be strict with them (because strictly
speaking, a breach that is not more than ten Amos does not disqualify the
Mavuy) - 'like a person makes a fence around a breached open field, to
(a) Each of the two Mavo'os that lead off from the two main roads etc. ...
Rav Huna, who disqualifies even a breach of four Tefachim when it is *not*
accessible to the people from the street - will agree that, in Rebbi Ami and
Rebbi Asi's case (a breach in the side of a Mavoy up to ten Amos), a breach
of four Tefachim will not invalidate the Mavoy, because there at least,
there are walls on either side of the breach, whereas the breach in the
Mavoy Mefulash is completely open, with no walls at the side of the breach
(so a breach four Tefachim is considered a breach).
1. ... has the Din of a Mavoy Mefulash, according to Rav - and requires a
Tzuras ha'Pesach at one end (in this case, in the middle) and a Lechi at the
other (where it leads out into the main road.
(b) If the Mavoy would be more than ten Amos wide - how could Shmuel
consider it to be Sasum?
2. ... has the Din of a Mavoy Sasum, according to Shmuel - and requires no
more than a Lechi at the entrance to the main road.
(c) Consequently, Rav and Shmuel must be speaking about Mavo'os that are ten
Amos wide and no more - so we see that, according to Rav, a breach that is
not more than ten Amos, is considered a breach (which means that a breach of
four Teachim - the alternative to more than ten Amos - is a breach, like Rav
(d) Rav Chanin bar Rava rejects Rav Huna's proof - on the grounds that
*that* case is worse, because the public from the two streets use the Mavoy
to get from one main road to the other; therefore it loses its status of
Mavoy already with a breach of four Tefachim.
(a) A Reshus ha'Rabim, according to Rashi, must be sixteen Amos wide, must
belong to a town with at least six hundred thousand inhabitants, which is
not surrounded by a wall, and the street must run straight through it from
one gate of the city to the other. (See also Amud 2, answer to 6a).
(b) According to Beis Shamai - a Reshus ha'Rabim requires a door (which is
kept closed) at either end.
(c) According to Beis Hillel - it requires a door at one end and a Lechi or
a Koreh at the other.
(d) The Gemara concludes that the Machlokes Tana'im currently under
discussion - is not referring to a Reshus ha'Rabim (which requires a wall
around it before it can be permitted), but about Mavo'os which open into
(a) When Rebbi says: 'Mi she'Hayah Sh'nei Batim mi'Sh'nei Tzidei Reshus
ha'Rabim' etc. - he is teaching us that someone who owns two houses, one on
either side of the street, is permitted to carry in that section of the
street by placing a Lechi or a Koreh at each end.
(b) Before that, Rebbi Yehudah was talking about someone who built a bridge
across the street from the house on one side of the street to the house on
the other. He is permitted, says Rebbi Yehudah, to carry underneath the
bridge, because 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' - meaning that the side of the
bridge that is ninety degrees to the ground, extends to the ground (on both
sides of the bridge), to form two Halachic walls adjacent to the walls of
his house, thereby forming a Reshus ha'Yachid of four walls in the middle of
the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a) One was not Chayav for carrying in Yerushalayim on Shabbos - because,
besides the specifications mentioned above (in 4a), it had doors which were
kept locked at night.
(b) Yerushalayim, like any walled city, had the Din of a Chatzer Me'ureves
(provided the doors were closed when not actually being used), and one could
carry in it by means of an Eruv Chatzeros.
(a) According to Chananyah in Beis Hillel - the door of the Mavoy does not
need to be shut for the Eruv to be effective.
(b) We cannot bring a proof from Neherda'a, whose doors could not be shut
due to the large amount of dust that had accumulated - because those doors
were permanently stuck - partially open and partially shut.
(c) When Rav Nachman said that they cleared away the dust - he meant to say
that they did so in order enable them to be shut.
(a) Regarding the bent Mavoy in Neherda'a ...
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech" - that it is
foolish to follow the Chumros of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
- ...y followed the Chumra of Rav - to consider it a Mavoy Mefulash.
- ... and the Chumra of Shmuel - who ruled like Chananyah (who requires a door).
(c) Why then, did they follow the Chumra of both Rav and that of Shmuel in
(a) The Bas-Kol announced 'Halachah ke'Beis-Hillel!'
(b) Yes, both statements could refer to *after* the Bas-Kol; however,
've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh' - follows the opinion of Rebbi
Yehoshua, who maintains 'Ein Mashgichin be'Bas-Kol'.
(c) In its third answer, the Gemara explains that 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos
ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh' - is only an example, and that it pertains to any
Machlokes between any other Tana'im or Amora'im except for that of Beis
Hillel and Beis Shamai (because of the Bas-Kol).