Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 8

1) ONE SIDE OF A MAVOY IS AN OCEAN, AND THE OTHER SIDE A GARBAGE DUMP

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a case of a Mavoy which had one side that ended at the sea, and the other side ended at a garbage heap. What exactly is the case?

(a) RASHI and the RITVA apparently did not have the word "ended at" in their Gemaras. They explain that the sea and the garbage heap comprised the *sides* of the Mavoy and were not at the *ends* of the Mavoy. The reason they explain that the Mavoy's sides were made of the sea and the garbage heap, and not that it ended into those areas at each end, is because the Gemara says that we are worried that the water might recede and the area will turn into a sand bank, effectively taking away the Mavoy's Mechitzah on that side. If the Gemara is referring to a Mavoy which *ends* at the sea, though, what would happen if the sea would turn into a sand bank? Since the other end is a garbage heap, the Mavoy will only be open on one side like any other Mavoy Sasum, and a Lechi or Korah should suffice! Only if *both* the sea and the garbage heap are taken away will it become an invalid Mavoy (one that needs more than a Lechi or Korah to permit carrying in it).

(b) The RITVA cites others (see Rabeinu Chananel, Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos 17:5, and Me'iri) who explain that the garbage heap and the sea are at the two opposite *ends* of the Mavoy. Apparently, they learned that the Mavoy does not have a Lechi. Therefore, even if one end-wall is taken away (such as if the sea turns into a sand bank) it will become prohibited to carry in the Mavoy until a Lechi or Korah is made for it.

8b

QUESTION: Rabah maintains that a Mavoy leading into a Chatzer which has a breach in the wall exactly opposite the Mavoy ("Zeh k'Neged Zeh") is considered a Mavoy Mefulash and one may not carry in it. The Mavoy is valid only if the breach in the wall of the Chatzer is not facing directly opposite the opening of the Mavoy into the Chatzer ("Zeh she'Lo k'Neged Zeh"). The Gemara asks that according to Rabah, why did Rav have to teach us that it is permitted to carry in a Mavoy opening into a breached Chatzer when the Mishnah (cited on 8a) already teaches us that a Chatzer with two openings through which the public pass is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid with regard to Shabbos? According to Rabah, both Rav and the Mishnah are referring to a breach that was *not* exactly opposite the original opening. What, then, is Rav teaching that we do not know from the Mishnah? That is the question of the Gemara.

RASHI (DH Tarti Lamah Li) explains that it may be inferred from the Mishnah that carrying in the Chatzer is permitted *even* in a case where the breach is *exactly opposite* the other opening, and *certainly* when it is not exactly opposite the other opening. (The Acharonim suggest that the word "Mistama" should be corrected to read "Mishtama.")

(a) Why does Rashi say that? Where is there any indication that the Mishnah permits carrying in a Chatzer when the breach is exactly opposite the first opening? The Gemara is discussing Rabah at this point, who categorically forbids carrying in such a Chatzer ("Zeh k'Neged Zeh")!

(b) Furthermore, in the previous lines of the Gemara, it is evident that even if "Zeh k'Neged Zeh" *is* permitted, we would only have learned that from Rav's ruling, but not from the Mishnah! Why, then, does Rashi say here that it is implicit in the Mishnah that even "Zeh k'Neged Zeh" is permitted? (MAHARSHA, MAHARSHAL, KIKAYON D'YONAH, YA'AVETZ and others)

ANSWER: (Much has been written about this Rashi, yet no clear answer seems to emerge. The possibility that a typist's error cannot be ruled out: It would appear feasible that the words "Mistama, v'Afilu Zeh Keneged Zeh, v'Chol she'Ken Zeh she'Lo Keneged Zeh" belong above, in the first Rashi on the page, after the word "d'Kenegdo." This correction, will also lend our Girsa of "Mistama" meaning. -M. Kornfeld)