(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 104



(a) Scattering salt on the ramp of the Mizbei'ach was necessary, because the rains made its smooth surface slippery, and a layer of salt gave them a firmer foot-hold.

(b) This is forbidden on Shabbos outside the Beis -Hamikdash - because of 'Ashvuyei Gumos' (filling in the holes), which is a Toldah of Boneh.

(c) The Beraisa nevertheless permits scattering straw in one's yard after a heavy rainfall - because straw retains its usefulness even after it has been scattered on the ramp, and one therefore tends not to be Mevatel it there. Consequently, it does not fall under the category of 'Ashvuyei Gumos'.

(a) If they were Mevatel the salt on the ramp of the Mizbei'ach, it would be like adding a layer to the ramp, and it is forbidden (even during the week) to add to the dimensions of those laid down by David Hamelech and Shmuel, and subsequently used by Shlomoh.

(b) Salt that had been trodden on - was subsequently used to salt the skins of Kodshim.

(c) The salt was not a Chatzitzah - because we are talking about carrying wood on to the Mizbei'ach, which is not an Avodah, and was therefore not subject to disqualification by means of a Chatzitzah.

(d) The Gemara rejects the suggestion that we are dealing with carrying the limbs on to the Mizbei'ach, which is not an Avodah - on the grounds that the very contention is fallacious; because we learn from the Pasuk Vayikra "*ve'Hikriv ha'Kohen* es ha'Kol ve'Hiktir ha'Mizbeichah' - that carrying the limbs on to the Mizbei'ach *is* an Avodah.

(a) Rabah (or Rava) point out to Ula that it is only a noise that is made for musical purposes that Chazal forbade.


1. ... 'Ma'alin bi'Deyufi (b'Shabbos)' - means one is permitted to transfer wine from one barrel to another using two connected straws. This was done by placing one of the straws inside the barrel with the wine and sucking once on the other straw, to cause the wine to begin flowing.
2. ... 'Mi'arak le'Choleh b'Shabbos' - means to make a noise in front of a sick person, by means of a sprinkler, which sprinkles water into a metal receptacle. This is done by putter a stopper in a hole on top of the sprinkler, and removing it when one wishes the water to begin dripping.

(c) We can infer that this is only permitted for a sick person, but not for someone who is healthy. Now if we are speaking about 'Mi'arak' to awaken the sick person, then the noise would be a loud, unmusical one, and didn't Raba just say that an unmusical noise is generally permitted on Shabbos? Consequently, we must be speaking about putting the sick person to sleep, which requires a gentle musical rhythm, and it is there that we can infer that for a healthy person, this would be forbidden.

(d) Clapping one's hands to scare away birds and wild animals from one's field is forbidden - because we are afraid that he may pick up a clod of earth and throw it at the animal in the street (which is an Isur d'Oraysa), but not because of the noise.

(a) The reason that Rav forbids women to play with nuts by rolling them down a board and along the ground (in the course of which they would knock them together to create a cracking effect) - is not because of the noise (which is not emitted for musical purposes), but because they might, in the process, come to fill in any holes that prevent the nuts from rolling properly.

(b) The reason for this prohibition cannot possibly have been because of the noise of the nuts cracking together - because if so, why did Rav Yehudah extend the prohibition to apples, which do not make a cracking noise?

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids drawing water from wells - before one is likely to draw a lot of water to water one's garden or store-yard. Note: This prohibition is confined to wells with big wheels to which one can attach many buckets.

(d) Ameimar changed his mind, forbidding the residents of Mechuza to draw water from their well, despite the fact that they had neither gardens nor wood-stores at the back of their houses - because they began to soak flax in the water that they drew.




(a) 'Bor ha'Kar' was a well that returnees from Galus Bavel desperately needed upon their return; so they discussed the matter and *read out* a proclamation regarding permitting the Sh'vus on wells because of the urgency of the situation. 'Bor ha'Kor' means the well which they read out.

(b) If that was why they called it 'Bor ha'Kor', then how can the Beraisa say 'Lo Kol ha'Boros ha'Koros Hitiru Ela Zu Bilevad'? How many wells were about which such a proclamation was made?

(c) The real reason that they gave it that name is because it was a spring (from the word 'Mekor' - source). It was the only spring that the returnees permitted.

(d) The prophets referred to in the Beraisa are Chagai Zechari'ah and Malachi. The actual source of the concession was the Minhag of their fathers.

(a) Someone who finds a dead Sheretz in his home - should cover it, if need be with an overturned receptacle.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah prescribes carrying it out with the Kohen's belt rather than with a pair of wooden tongs - because the latter method entails a delay whilst one goes to look for a pair of tongs, and it is essential to get rid of the Tum'ah as quickly as possible..

(c) Carrying out a Sheretz in this way does not render the person carrying it Tamei Masa - because a Sheretz is not Metamei b'Masa, only b'Maga.

(d) Nor does he become a Sheni le'Tum'ah through contact with the belt, which became a Rishon through contact with the Sheretz itself - because a Rishon has the power to transmit Tum'ah to food and drink, but not to people or vessels.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah prefers removing the Sheretz with a pair of wooden tongs - because, in his opinion, it is better to delay removing the Tum'ah than rendering Tamei the Kohen's garments.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Nanes, (who lists the locations included in the Heter as the Heichal, the Ulam and between the Ulam and the Mizbei'ach..) and Rebbi Akiva (who says from wherever one is Chayav Kares or Chatas - for entering in a state of Tum'ah) argue over the rest of the Azarah: Ben Nanes forbids carrying the Sheretz out from there on Shabbos, Rebbi Akiva permits it.

(c) Rebbi Akiva concedes - that the rooms leading off from the Azarah are not included in the concession.

(a) Shmuel exempts someone who carries a dead Sheretz into the Beis Hamikdash from a Chiyuv Kares or Chatas (despite the Kal va'Chomer from a Tamei Sheretz) - because the Torah writes in Naso "mi'Zachar ad Nekeivah Teshaleichu", from which he learns that it is for bringing someone or something that can become Tahor though Tevilah into the Mikdash that one is Chayav Chatas, but not a Sheretz, which cannot become Tahor.

(b) There is no proof for Shmuel from a Beraisa, which renders earthenware vessels Patur - because that may well be because earthenware vessels cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah (similar to "mi'Zachar ve'Ad Nekeivah Teshalechu"), and not necessarily because they cannot become Tahor in a Mikvah.

(c) The Gemara at first thought that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who prescribes taking the Sheretz out as quickly as possible) holds that one is Chayav for bringing a Sheretz into the Mikdash (not like Shmuel); whereas Rebbi Yehudah (who does not mind delaying in order to minimize the Tum'ah) - holds like Shmuel, that someone who brings a Sheretz into the Mikdash is Patur (like Shmuel).

(d) We conclude that, in fact, both Tana'im hold that he is Chayav (not like Shmuel) and this is the basis of their Machlokes - Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah holds that delaying Tum'ah is worse, and Rebbi Yehudah holds that extending Tum'ah is worse.

9) We see that although the Torah permitted the Kohanim to remove the Tum'ah from inside and to place it in the Azarah, but from there it is the Levi'im who removed it to the Valley of Kidron. According to ben Azai we learn from here that (even though one is Chayav for bringing a Sheretz into the Azarah), when it comes to removing it, it is a little less stringent. Consequently, we will not permit any Shevus with regard to removing a Sheretz from the Azarah. Whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, we only require the Kohanim to remove the Sheratzim from the Heichal, because the Levi'im are totally forbidden to enter there. Once however, the Sheretz is in the Azarah, where the Levi'im *are* permitted to enter. Therefore the obligation to remove the Tum'ah is now transferred to them - but not because the Kedushah there is any weaker than the Heichal etc. Consequently, the Sh'vus of not moving the Sheretz does not apply there either.

Next daf


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