ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 9
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) According to Rav Ashi, Levud at *two* ends is no more Chidush than Levud
at *one* end.
(b) Rav Ashi therefore learns 'Meshuchah' to mean that the Koreh does not
quite reach the wall (as we learnt earlier), and 'Teluyah', that it is also
suspended slightly above the wall - by means of two sticks which protrude
above the walls, but are bent inwards. We now need to extend the Koreh
outwards (by saying 'Levud'), and downwards (by saying 'Chavot Rami' -
meaning that we consider the beam as if it was lowered on to the walls of
the Mavoy). Chidush, according to Rav Ashi - is that we apply both
(c) The two bent sticks - cannot supplement the Koreh, because they are less
than the minimum of one Tefach wide required to constitute a Koreh.
(a) When Rebbi Zakai quoted the Beraisa: 'Bein Lechayayim ve'Sachas ha'Koreh
Nidon ke'Karmelis' - Rebbi Yochanan told him to quote his Beraisa outside
the Beis ha'Medrash, because he holds that 'Koreh Mishum Mechitzah', and
that it is the *outer*-edge that is 'Yored ve'Sosem'.
(b) Rava maintains that Bein Lechayayim is also permitted and that Rebbi
Yochanan's objection extended to it, too.
(c) Rava proves his point from Rebbi Yochanan's other statement - where he
permits placing an article on something that is less than four by four
Tefachim, and that is standing between a Reshus ha'Rabim and a Reshus
ha'Yachid. Why? Because it is a Makom Petur, and is Batel to both the
Reshuyos in between which it stands. Similarly, Bein ha'Lechayayim is Batel
to both the Mavoy and the Reshus ha'Rabim, and one should be permitted to
(d) Abaye agrees on principle - that one should be permitted to carry in
line with the Lechi. However, he maintains that, unlike Rebbi Yochanan's
other case (of Makom Petur, which stands out as a Makom, because it is three
Tefachim tall), the Lechi does *not*. Consequently, out of concern that one
may come to carry beyond it into the street, Chazal decreed and forbade
(a) Rava explains that Rav, who did not permit the door-posts of a Mavoy to
be used as a Lechi - was speaking about a Mavoy that leads to a *Karmelis*,
whereas *he* permits carrying in a Mavoy that leads to a *Reshus ha'Rabim*.
(b) Is it not strange, asks the Gemara - that one should be more strict by a
Mavoy that leads to a Karmelis, than one that leads to a Reshus ha'Rabim?
(c) 'Matza Min es Mino, ve'Ni'ur' - in this context, means that whereas Bein
ha'Lechayayim' does *not* become part of the Reshus ha'Rabim (thereby
enabling it to become part of the Mavoy and of carrying there), it *does*
however, become part of the Karmelis (since it itself, is basically a
Karmelis, which does not have the full Shiur), preventing it from being
considered part of the Mavoy.
(d) Even Rava will agree that carrying in the space next to the Lechi is
prohibited, even if the Mavoy opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim - if the Lechi is
four Tefachim wide, because then, it is an independent domain which requires
a Lechi to permit carrying there.
(a) If one has a series of Lechayayim, starting at the entrance to the
Mavoy, each one further back in the Mavoy, within four Tefachim of the next,
one is permitted to carry ...
1. ... according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (in whose opinion all the
Lechayayim are considered joined - since he holds 'Levud' up to *four*
Tefachim) - only up to the innermost point of the *innermost* Lechi.
(b) Carrying up to the *outer* edge of the outermost Lechi is forbidden,
according to Rava - because the Beraisa is speaking about a Mavoy that leads
to a Karmelis (as we explained earlier - in 3c).
2. ... according to the Chachamim (who do not say Levud after three
Tefachim) - up to the innermost point of the *outermost* Lechi.
(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and
the Rabbanan when the Lechayayim were placed at intervals of less than four
Tefachim, but to a depth of four Amos into the Mavoy. Consequently,
according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who applies 'Levud' here, we now have
an independent Mavoy, which requires its own Lechi to carry in it; whereas
according to the Rabbanan, we do not say Levud we do not say Levud by more
than three Tefachim, it is not an independent Mavuy and a separate Lechi is
(b) Rashi concludes that, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - carrying
in the inner Mavoy is forbidden without an additional Lechi (presumably,
because the wall of a Reshus cannot double as a Lechi).
(c) When the Gemara asks that, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the
outer Mavoy should be permitted because it is 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh
mi'Bifenim' - it assumes that the outermost Lechi would have protruded
slightly into the street, so that it should be noticeable.
(d) We are currently concerned with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, answers
the Gemara - and Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh
mi'Bifenim', does not have the Din of a Lechi.
(a) 'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz' - speaks when one placed the
Lechi just inside the Mavoy, with the outside of the Lechi flush with the
outer wall of the Mavoy. Consequently, from the inside the Lechi is clearly
visible as a Lechi, whereas from the outside, it resembles nothing more than
a section of outer wall.
(b) The Gemara proves from the Beraisa: 'Kosel she'Tzido Echad Kanus
me'Chavero - Bein she'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim, Bein
she'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz' - that it is Rebbi Chiya (who
quotes this Beraisa), who holds 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' has
the Din of a Lechi (and not Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi).
1. 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim' - means that they added the
Lechi on to the length of the Mavoy flush with the inside of the wall of the
Mavoy. Lechi however, was not as thick as the wall of the Mavoy, in
which case, the difference between the two widths will be visible from the
*outside of the Mavoy*, but not from the *inside*.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan may well have known of the Beraisa without accepting it -
but then, *he* did not quote it, Rebbi Chiya did. So we can assume that
Rebbi Chiya follows the opinion quoted there.
2. If they were to place the same Lechi flush with the outside of the wall,
then the Lechi would be visible from the *inside* but not from the *outside*
- 'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz'.
(a) According to Rebbi Chiya, the Mishnah in Kol Gagos (which forbids
carrying in a small courtyard which opens into a large one - so that the
extended walls of the latter are visible to those standing there, but not to
those standing in the small courtyard) - speaks when the walls of the small
courtyard extend into the large one.
(b) Even though the Beraisa establishes the Mishnah when the large courtyard
is only one Amah wider than the small one, we cannot say Levud - because the
excess wall on one side is two Tefachim, but on the other side, it is four
Tefachim (where 'Levud' does not apply).
(c) Nor does it help to say 'Levud' on the one side where it *is*
applicable - because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi, who requires not
*one* board for a Chatzer, but *two*.