(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 84


(a) We just established our Mishnah, according to Rav (who holds la'Zeh be'Shilshul, ve'la'Zeh bi'Zerikah, Sheneihen Asurin') by the residents of the Mirpeset.
Then how will he explain the Seifa: 'Pachos mi'Kahn, le'Chatzer', since this appears to be 'la'Zeh ba'Pesach, ve'la'Zeh ba'Pesach'?

(b) What is the proof for this from the Seifa 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Semuchah, Aval be'Mufleges, Afilu Gavo'a Yud Tefachim, le'Chatzer'?

(c) How does *Shmuel* explain the Seifa of our Mishnah? What does 'le'Chatzer' mean?

(a) Our Mishnah gives the pit, as well as the mound of earth surrounding it (which raises it to the height of ten Tefachim) to the residents Mirpeset. In order to accomodate Rav, the Gemara first attempts to establish this Mishnah when it is full of water.
What is the problem with that?

(b) The Gemara does not like the suggestion that since, when the pit is full it is permitted, it remains permitted even when the water-level in the pit has decreased.
Why not?

(c) So we establish the Mishnah by a pit full of Tevel crops.
Why is this better than a pit full of water?

(d) How does the Gemara prove this answer from the fact that the Tana mentions 'Chulyas ha'Bor' together with 'Sela'?

3) According to Rav, if not for the case of Sela, we would have established 'Chulyas ha'Bor' by a pit that is full of water.
Seeing as the Chidush of 'Chulyas ha'Bor' is exactly the same as that of 'Sela', why did the Tana find it necessary to mention the case of Chulyas ha'Bor at all?


(a) In a case where the residents of a Chatzer and those of an attic forgot to make a joint Eruv, the Tana in the Beraisa gives the ledge on the lower half of the wall to the residents of the Chatzer, and the ledge on the upper half to the residents of the attic.
How is this Beraisa a proof for Rav?

(b) How does Rav Nachman reconcile this Beraisa with Shmuel's opinion?

Answers to questions



(a) The Mishnah later in the Perek forbids both owners of suspended balconies at different heights, who built the required walls (either above or below the ledge) by only *one* of the balconies, to draw water via the Mechitzos.
How is this a proof for Rav?

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah answers this Kashya by establishing the case when the owner of the lower balcony has access to the upper one.
How does this answer the Kashya?

(c) Abaye explains 'Kegon de'Kayamin Betoch Asarah, ve'Lo Mibaye Ka'amar'. What does he answer, and what does he mean by 've'Lo Mibaye Ka'amar'?

(a) Abaye proves his point from Rav Nachman, who quotes Shmuel as saying that, in order to carry from a Mirpeset to a roof that has a Reshus ha'Rabim running alongside one of its sides, one requires a fixed ladder from the Mirpeset to the roof.
How does Abaye explain this?

(b) Since the Mirpeset is less than ten Tefachim above the Reshus ha'Rabim, why is it not a Karmelis (in which case, a ladder would make no difference, because one would then be carrying from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Yachid)?

(c) Rav Papa's refutes Abaye's explanation.
How does Rav Papa establish Shmuel's Din even when there *are* ten Tefachim between the ground and the Mirpeset? What does the fixed ladder then achieve?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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