(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 7

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) When Rav Huna said that, according to Rav, 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Ken' - he was referring to Rav's ruling like the Tana Kama of Chananyah (who does not require doors by a Mavoy Mefulash); basically, he ruled like Chananya, which explains why, in Neherda'a, they ruled like Shmuel in this respect (in fact they were ruling like Rav in both issues, so they were not guilty of 'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech'.

(b) In the opinion of Rav Ada bar Ahavah - it is wrong to rule like the Chumros of both parties, only when they are contradictory (as we shall soon see); whereas the Chumra of Rav here ('Toraso ki'Mefulash') does not clash with that of Shmuel ('Halachah ke'Chananyah').refore, there is nothing wrong with ruling like both Chumros.

(a) According to Beis Shamai, the Shiur that negates the status of a Shedra is *two* vertebrae.

(b) 've'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech' applies in this case - inasmuch as if one vertebra is missing from the Shedra, according to Beis Hillel, the Shedra itself will no longer be Metame be'Ohel ha'Mes (a Kula), and the animal will be a Tereifah (a Chumra) - whereas according to Beis Shamai, the Din will be the reverse, a Chumra in the former case, a Kula in the latter (unless two vertebrae are missing). Consequently, to adopt the Chumros of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, would really be a matter of 've'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech'.

(a) Rebbi Akiva picked an Esrog on the first of Shevat, and gave Ma'aser Lechumra like both Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai - We are speaking here about the end of the second or of the fifth years (on which one was obligated to give Ma'aser Sheni) leading on to the third or the sixth (when the obligation changed to Ma'aser Oni). Rebbi Akiva gave both Ma'aser Sheni (like Beis Hillel) and Ma'aser Oni (like Beis Shamai).

(b) Rebbi Akiva ruled like both Chumros - because he was uncertain whether it was Beis Shamai who declared Rosh Hashanah as the first of Shevat and Beis Hillel the fifteenth, or vice-versa. So he adopted both Chumros Lechumra - mi'Safek - and "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech" applies to someone who adopts both Chumros on principle, not out of uncertainty, uin which case one is obligated to do so.

(a) A Seratya - is a main road (that either runs through the town or is an inter-city highway; whereas a Pelatya - is a major street with shops.

(b) If one end of the Mavoy runs into a *Karmelis* - Chananya will agree with the Tana Kama, that one makes a Tzuras ha'Pesach at one end and a Lechi or a Koreh at the other.

(a) If the Mavoy runs into a Rechavah - it does not require any Tikun at all - according to Rav Yosef quoting Rav Yehudah.

(b) They are speaking about a Rechavah - that opens out into a Reshus ha'Rabim on the opposite side.

(c) No! a Rechavah never requires an Eruv, because it is made for storage rather than for living in.

(d) A Mavoy that opens into a Chatzer - has the same Din as one that opens into a Rechavah, provided they made an Eruv with the B'nei Mavoy.




(a) The Gemara initially thinks that Rav forbade carrying in a Mavoy that leads into a Chatzer - because of the fact that a. it is open, and b. Chatzer has an opening to the Reshus ha'Rabim on the opposite side; consequently, it resembles a Mavoy Mefulash, and is Asur without a Tikun.

(b) If that is so, observes the Gemara, Rav Yehudah, who under similar circumstances, permits carrying in a Mavoy which ran into a Rechavah under similar circumstances, cannot be quoting (his Rebbe) Rav - because firstly, why should a Mavoy that opens into a *Rechavah* be permitted any more than one that opens into a Chatzer? Secondly, why did Rav Yehudah specifically speak of 'a Mavoy which ran into a *Rechavah*' (implying that if it ran into a Chatzer, the Chatzer too, would be Asur)?

(c) Consequently, Rav Yehudah must have been quoting - his second Rebbe - Shmuel.

(d) Rav Sheshes explains that when Rav forbade carrying in the Mavoy that opens into a Chatzer, he was talking about a case where they did not make an Eruv, which forbids carrying in the Mavoy, but not in the Chatzer. Had they made an Eruv, he concedes that even carrying in the Mavoy would be permitted. Consequently, Rav Yehudah may well have been quoting Rav, since a Mavoy leading into a Rechavah (which does not require an Eruv) has exactly the same Din as one which leads into a Chatzer (when they made an Eruv).

7) The reason that carrying in the Chatzer (when they did not make an Eruv) is permitted, but not in the Mavoy - is because whereas the breach in the Chatzer (where it opens into the Mavoy) is less than ten Amos and does not constitute the majority of that side of the Chatzer. it is no more than an entrance, which does not require a Tikun; the Mavoy, on the other hand, which opens *completely* into the Chatzer, is not considered an opening, but a breach.refore it requires a Tikun.

Next daf


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