Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 11

11b

OPINIONS: The Gemara lists several requirements that are necessary to meet in order to build a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach to permit carrying in a Mavoy:

(1) Rav Chisda rules that the board or cord that serves as the top of the Tzuras ha'Pesach must be resting on the *top* of the two sideposts. If it is resting on (or wrapped around) the sides of the posts, it is not a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach.
(2) Rav Chisda also rules that the Tzuras ha'Pesach must be strong enough to* support a door* (even though one does not actually have to affix a door), but the door can be made of a light material, such as straw.
(3) Reish Lakish in the name of Rebbi Yanai rules that a Tzuras ha'Pesach must have a recognizable place in which to *insert a door-hinge* (i.e. a small hole in the ground near one sidepost of the Tzuras ha'Pesach).
(4) Rav Nachman adds that there is a *leniency* in the laws of Tzuras ha'Pesach. The two sideposts *do not have to reach* the board on top (although they must be directly below it), they may even be several Amos away from it. (The concept of "Gud Asik" makes it as if they reach the top board.) Rav Sheshes argues and requires the board to be actually resting on the sideposts.

However, the students of Rav Ashi told Rav Acha the son of Rav Avya that Rav Ashi did not teach any requirements for the Tzuras ha'Pesach. What does this mean?

(a) The RA'AVAD cited by the Ritva understands that Rav Acha only wanted to know if Rav Ashi had taught any *other* laws concerning a Tzuras ha'Pesach, and the students answered that he had not taught any other laws. He never argued on the conditions required by Rebbi Yanai or Rav Chisda, though, and thus both of those conditions are still necessary. This is the ruling of the ROSH and the TUR.

Similarly, RAV YAKOV EMDEN explains that Rav Acha was the son of the Rav Avya who had explained what Reish Lakish meant by "Heker Tzir." Rav Acha wanted to know whether or not Rav Ashi had argued with his father's explanation of "Heker Tzir." The students of Rav Ashi answered that he did not argue, and the Halachah therefore follows Reish Lakish and Rav Avya's explanation of "Heker Tzir."

(b) The RITVA and RASHBA cites one explanation that says that this statement is referring to the previous statement, that of Reish Lakish, who required a hole for a door-hinge. The students of Rav Ashi were saying that Rav Ashi did not require such a hole. (They were not referring to any of the other requirements.) The RIF, RAMBAM, and RIVASH indeed rule as the Halachah that a hole for a door-hinge is not necessary. (The ROSH suggests that they were relying on the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan mentioned in the Yerushalmi who argues with Reish Lakish and does not require a hole for a door hinge.)

(c) The TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ (cited in the RITVA) explains that this statement is referring to the previous *two* statements, that of Reish Lakish and the second statement of Rav Chisda, that the sideposts must be strong enough to support a door. The students of Rav Ashi were saying that Rav Ashi did not require *either* of these two conditions. This is how the RASHBA rules (Avodas ha'Kodesh 2:2:1), although he cites dissenting opinions and says that it is best to be stringent like those opinions.

(d) The RASHBA suggests that perhaps Rav Ashi did not have *any* requirements for a Tzuras ha'Pesach; that is, he disagrees with all of the three previously mentioned conditions, and validates even Tzuras ha'Pesach Min ha'Tzad.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 362:11) rules that it is necessary to fulfill conditions (1) and (2) in order to have a valid Tzuras ha'Pesach (this is like the Rif, Rambam, and Rivash mentioned above, (b)). He also rules in accordance with Rav Nachman that it is not necessary for the sideposts to reach the top board.

QUESTION: Rav Nachman says that the sideposts of the Tzuras ha'Pesach do not have to actually touch the top of the Tzuras ha'Pesach. Even if the top is supported by some other means, even if it is several Amos away from the top of the sideposts, as long as it is directly over the sideposts it is sufficient. REBBI AKIVA EIGER citing TESHUVOS HA'RE'EM (Rabeinu Eliyahu Mizrachi) explains that the reason is because we apply the concept of "Gud Asik" ("the wall goes up") and it is considered as if the sideposts reach the board or cord on top, forming a complete Tzuras ha'Pesach. (The MISHNAH BERURAH in OC 362:62 also cites the words of Rebbi Akiva Eiger.)

If the sideposts do not have to actually touch the top of the Tzuras ha'Pesach because of "Gud Asik," why -- according to Rav Ashi earlier (9a) - - does the Korah that lies across the Mavoy have to actually touch the top of the walls of the Mavoy (or be at least within three Tefachim of the walls)? The Korah should be able to be far above the walls of the Mavoy, and "Gud Asik" will make it as if it is resting on them!

ANSWER: TOSFOS (9a, DH she'Ein) explains that we do not apply many of the theoretical concepts of structural extension to a Korah on a Mavoy. The reason is because the enactment of Korah enables carrying in the Mavoy by serving as a Heker, a recognizable indication that the Mavoy ends at that point. (Even according to the opinion that Korah Mishum Mechitzah, it is *also* a Heker, and not just a Mechitzah.) If it is not resting directly on the walls of the Mavoy, people do not notice it and it does not serve its purpose. A Tzuras ha'Pesach, on the other hand, does not work by serving as a Heker, but rather it forms a Mechitzah, a partition, which does not have to be readily apparent to an onlooker. (RESHASH)