(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 95



(a) Abaye, who validates a Sucah which instead of walls, has four one- Tefach beams on all four sides, appears to follows the opinion of Rav (who permits 'Pi Tikra Yored ve'Sosem' on all four sides, and Rava, who invalidates it, appears to hold like Shmuel.

(b) Rava maintains that he too, holds like Rav. - Rav however, agrees that we will not say 'Pi Tikra Yored ve'Sosem' here, since the beams were not put up for the sake of a Sucah (even though real walls do not need to be put up for the sake of a Sucah, 'Pi Tikra' walls do).

(a) Rebbi Yossi, who holds (with regard to a courtyard whose walls were breached) that one cannot differentiate between this Shabbos and the next - comes to be Machmir, to say that, just as next Shabbos it will certainly be forbidden to carry there, so too, is it forbidden this Shabbos.

(b) When Shmuel said that he did *not* rule like Rebbi Yehudah in matters of Mechitzah, such as the case of the Mavoy, whose Lechi or Koreh were removed, where Rebbi Yehudah permitted carrying on that Shabbos - that was with regard to a Mavoy that opens into a Reshus ha'Rabim, where an Isur d'Oraysa is involved; whereas our case, where he *does* rule like Rebbi Yehudah, speaks about a Chatzer that opens into a Karmelis, which only involves an Isur d'Oraysa.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah permits carrying underneath an attic that is built between two houses, or underneath a bridge - either because he holds that two Mechitzos are d'Oraysa, or because, in his opinion, 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem', applies even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.

(b) We know that Rebbi Yehudah holds that two Mechitzos are sufficient mi'd'Oraysa - from the Beraisa where he permits the area in a Reshus ha'Rabim between two houses (one on either side of the street) with just two Lechayin or two Koros.

(c) If Rebbi Yehudah's reason for permitting carrying under the bridge in the Reisha would be because he holds that two Mechitzos are d'Oraysa - then why does the Tana need to add 've'Od Amar Rebbi Yehudah Me'arvin le'Mavoy ha'Mefulash'? Isn't that the same as the Reisha? But if his reason in the Reisha is because of 'Pi Tikrah' ... , as Rabah claims, then the Tana is justified in adding that the same will apply by a Mavoy ha'Mefulash (where 'Pi Tikrah' ... does not apply), because in any case, he holds that two mechitzos are d'Oraysa.

(d) The Rabbanan hold 1. that one cannot be Matir a Reshus ha'Rabim by means of 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem', and 2. that mi'd'Oraysa, at least three Mechitzos are required.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, someone who finds Tefilin lying in a field - should put them on and carry them home like that way, even if it means walking through the town with them.

(b) This does not however, apply to *new* Tefilin (whose Kesher has not yet been tied) - because it is not clear that they were made to be worn as Tefilin. Perhaps they were made to be worn as a Kemi'ah (an amulet), in which case they do not have the Kedushah of Tefilin and are not considered a Tachshit, and one will be Chayav for carrying them, even if he is wearing them.

(c) In time of danger, one covers them and leaves.

(a) The human chain (handing the Tefilin down the line, each one carrying them less than four Amos) must stop before they enter the city.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah also permits handing a baby who was born in the field in this way to be passed from one person to the next till they reach the town.

(c) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, who permits transporting a barrel of wine from outside the Techum in this way - on the grounds that the barrel may not be taken beyond the Techum of the owner - by anybody.



6) Rebbi Meir permits saving as many clothes from a fire on Shabbos as one can wear - since during the week wearing any number of clothes. Even *he* will agree however, that one is restricted to saving only *one* pair of Tefilin, since (because he Shabbos Z'man Tefilin Hu) putting on more than one pair of Tefilin will not be permitted any more than it would be during the week.


(a) At this stage, the Gemara presumes that, whoever holds that Shabbos is Z'man Tefilin, will not permit the saving of more than one pair of Tefilin at a time (because of 'Bal Tosif', as we shall soon see). Consequently, Raban Gamliel, who permits the saving of two pairs at a time - must hold that 'Shabbos *La'av* Z'man Tefilin (and he permits two pairs of Tefilin, because they do not constitute 'Bal Tosif').

(b) Nevertheless, Raban Gamliel restricts this Mitzvah to two pairs (and no more), because he holds that Chazal only permitted saving Tefilin, Derech Malbush (the way that they are normally worn), and there is room on both the head and the arm to wear just two pairs of Tefilin, and no more. Consequently, saving more than that will not constitute Derech Malbush and will remain forbidden.

(c) There is no proof from Rav Huna, who permits wrapping the Tefilin Shel Rosh around the arm, that there is room on the arm too, for two pairs of Tefilin - because who says that he is talking about wearing them in the location of the Tefilin (nor is it clear why the Gemara thought that he *was*)? Perhaps he is talking about wrapping them anywhere around the arm to spare them from being abused.

(d) We know that there is room on the arm too, for two pairs of Tefilin - because Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said so explicitly.

(a) The 'Kibores' is the muscle.

(b) The Tefilin Shel Rosh should be worn on the crown of the head, the equivalent spot where a baby's head is soft.

(a) Assuming that the dispute between the Tana Kama and Raban Gamliel is based on whether 'Shabbos Z'man Tefilin Hu' or not, the Tana Kama restricts the Mitzvah of saving them to *one* pair only - because otherwise, seeing as 'Shabbos Z'man Tefilin Hu', he would transgress 'Bal Tosif' by wearing two pairs of Tefilin.

(b) Raban Gamliel does not contend with that problem, because according to him, 'Shabbos La'av Z'man Tefilin Hu'.

(c) If the Tana Kama holds that Mitzvos do *not* require Kavanah - then someone who wears two pairs of Tefilin, will transgress *'Bal Tosif'* even without Kavanah to perform the Mitzvah (just as one performs the *Mitzvah* itself without Kavanah). Raban Gamliel permits saving two pairs of Tefilin, because, just as, in his opinion, the *Mitzvos* require Kavanah, so too, will one not transgress *'Bal Tosif'*, unless he intends to perform the Mitzvah.

Next daf


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