Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 34

1) SUMMARY: PLACING AN ERUV IN A WALL OR IN A "MIGDAL"

The Beraisa teaches when certain Eruvin are acceptable and when they are not. The first case in the Beraisa is when an Eruv (that is, the food used for Eruvei Techumim) was placed in a wall and the person intended to be *Koneh Shevisah* in Reshus ha'Rabim. If the Eruv is higher than ten Tefachim up the wall the *Eruv* is not valid, because it is in a Reshus ha'Yachid while the person is in Reshus ha'Rabim. If the Eruv in the wall is below ten Tefachim, then it is valid.

The second case in the Beraisa is when the person intended to be *Koneh Shevisah* at the top of a Migdal (a large cupboard) which is standing in Reshus ha'Rabim. If the *Eruv* was placed above ten Tefachim high in the Migdal then the Eruv is valid, and if it was placed below ten Tefachim, the Eruv is not valid, for reasons which we will discuss. The Gemara explains that if the Eruv in above ten Tefachim, even tipping the Migdal over to bring the top of the Migdal to within ten Tefachim of the ground will not help.

RASHI explains this Sugya in two ways. According to both explanations, in the case of the Migdal the person intends to make his Makom Shevisah at the top of the Migdal. The question is where he placed the food of the Eruv.

(a) In the first explanation of Rashi, the person placed his Eruv *in the Migdal* (that is, on a lower shelf or compartment than the one on which he was Koneh Shevisah), either ten Tefachim high in the Migdal or below ten Tefachim. If the shelf on which he placed the Eruv is below ten Tefachim from the ground, then it is in a Karmelis, which is a different domain than the one in which he was Koneh Shevisah (because the top of the Migdal is a Reshus ha'Yachid). If the shelf on which the Eruv was placed is above ten Tefachim, then it is in the same domain as his Makom Shevisah (Reshus ha'Yachid).

ERUV BELOW 10 TEFACHIM: The reason why it is not a valid Eruv when placed in the Migdal below ten Tefachim is because in order to have a valid Eruv, the food must be in the same place as one's Makom Shevisah. When the Eruv is lower down in the same Migdal as the person's Makom Shevisah, there are three conceivable ways for him to get the food to the place in which he was Shoves (the top of the Migdal):

(1) He could raise the food to his Makom Shevisah at the top of the Migdal through an internal chimney-type hole passing through the shelves, from the top one to the bottom one. This is not possible in our case because there are no holes in the shelves ("d'Les Lei Kavsa u'Misnah").
(2) He could reach out from the top of the Migdal, extend his hand over the side of the Migdal and reach in below to get his Eruv and bring it to him. This, too, is not a workable solution in our case because it involves the Isur of Moshit (transferring an object to a Reshus ha'Yachid by passing over a Reshus ha'Rabim).
(3) The third way that he could bring the food to him is by going out of the place in which he was Koneh Shevisah and bringing himself to the food. Rashi says that this will only work when his Makom Shevisah is in the same Reshus as the food. Here, though, the food is in a Karmelis and his Makom Shevisah is in a Reshus ha'Yachid. If he goes to the food he will no longer be in the Reshus in which he was Koneh Shevisah. Since none of these three options are available in this case, the Eruv is invalid.

When the Gemara suggests that the Eruv (which is below ten Tefachim) should be valid because he could tip over the Migdal, it is suggesting that the Eruv work through the mechanism of "Ho'il:" *since* he could tip over the Migdal and thereby *move his Makom Shevisah* (i.e., the top of the Migdal) into a Karmelis -- thus enabling him to bring the food, which is also in a Karmelis, to his Makom Shevisah without transgressing a Torah prohibition -- his Eruv should be valid. (This mechanism is based on the suggestion of Rebbi Yirmiyah (33b) that if the location of the food could be altered so that it would be available to him in his Makom Shevisah, the Eruv is valid. Here, the Gemara suggests changing the location of the *Makom Shevisah*, and not the food, in order to enable the food to be eaten there.)

The Gemara answers that the Migdal is so tall that if he were to tip it over, the location of his Makom Shevisah (i.e., the top of the Migdal) would be moved more than four Amos away from its original location. "Ho'il" only makes an Eruv valid if the Makom Shevisah could be moved to within the same general vicinity as the original Makom Shevisah, but not if it must be moved farther away than four Amos.

(This is the simplest way of understanding Rashi's first explanation, and it is the way that Tosfos understands the Gemara based on Rashi's first explanation.)

(b) According to Rashi's second explanation, the food of the Eruv is placed in a *wall* adjacent to the Migdal (and not on a lower shelf of the Migdal). The situation is such that it is possible to carry directly from the wall to the Migdal without carrying over Reshus ha'Rabim (thus avoiding the problem of Moshit). (The difference between this case and the first case preceding it, where the Makom Shevisah was in Reshus ha'Rabim, is that of the Beraisa is that in this case, his Makom Shevisah is in Reshus ha'Yachid (the top of a Migdal), while in the previous case his Makom Shevisah is in Reshus ha'Rabim. This causes a reversal of the rulings for over-10-Tefach and under-10-Tefach Eruvin). If the food placed in the wall is higher than ten Tefachim from the ground, then it is in a Reshus ha'Yachid and he may transfer the food directly to his Makom Shevisah, which is also a Reshus ha'Yachid. If, the food is below ten Tefachim (= 9 Tefachim high, which is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim), then he will have to transfer it from a Reshus ha'Rabim to his Reshus, a Reshus ha'Yachid, which is forbidden. The Eruv in therefore invalid.

The Gemara asks that the Eruv should be valid because if he wanted, he could tip over the Migdal so that his Makom Shevisah is within ten Tefachim from the ground, thus enabling him to take the food from the Reshus ha'Rabim (the wall) into a Karmelis (the top of the Migdal, after it is tipped over). The Gemara answers that the Migdal is so tall that the Makom Shevisah will be four Amos away from the original Makom Shevisah after it is tipped over (the Gemara's answer is the same as in Rashi's first explanation).

(Alternatively, explains Rashi, the Gemara's answer is that tipping over the Migdal will not work because the food in the wall will then be four Amos away from the Makom Shevisah at the top of the Migdal, and one may not carry four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim -- see next Insight.)

QUESTION: Rashi mentioned earlier in the Sugya (33a, DH v'Hu) that even if one's Makom Shevisah is in Reshus ha'Rabim more than four Amos away from the food, the Eruv is still valid, since one is able to carry the food to his Makom Shevisah by walking less than four Amos at a time ("Pachos Pachos me'Arba Amos"). Carrying in such a manner is not Asur mid'Oraisa, but only mid'Rabanan, and therefore it is permitted during Bein ha'Shemashos (see Insights to 32:3).

However, in Rashi's second explanation here (DH Lishna Acharina; see end of previous Insight), Rashi explains that the reason tipping over the Migdal will not help to make the Eruv valid is because his Makom Shevisah will then be four Amos away from the food and one may not carry four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rashi's words are problematic in two regards (TOSFOS HA'ROSH, RITVA):

(a) First, Rashi contradicts himself. Earlier, Rashi wrote that an Eruv is valid even though the food is more than four Amos away from his Makom Shevisah, because he only needs to transgress an Isur d'Rabanan to get the food to his Makom Shevisah (that is, he could carry the food in increments of less than four Amos). Here, though, Rashi says that the Eruv is not valid because the food is more than four Amos away from his Makom Shevisah!

(b) If Rashi changed his mind from what he said before and now he holds that it is *not* permitted to walk less than four Amos to carry food in Reshus ha'Rabim, even during Bein ha'Shemashos, then why did Rashi a few lines earlier (in his first explanation, DH d'Chi Mamti Lei) not mention that tipping over the Migdal makes it necessary to carry four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim?

ANSWERS:

(a) To answer the first question, it seems that Rashi did not change his mind. The reason Rashi ignores the possibility of carrying less than four Amos at a time is because the entire effectiveness of this particular Eruv is based on "Ho'il" -- *since* ("Ho'il") he could tip over the Migdal, the Eruv should be valid. Only one "Ho'il" can work at a time, and not a combination of two (TOSFOS 33a, DH v'Ha). In the case of the Migdal, Rashi does not apply a double "Ho'il:" (1) that one could tip over the Migdal, and (2) that he could then bring the food to his Makom Shevisah by carrying in increments of less than four Amos. (MAHARAM)

(b) In Rashi's first approach, when explaining why tipping over the Migdal would not work to make the Eruv valid, Rashi could not explain that it would be necessary to carry four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. In that case, the Eruv was on the lower part of the Migdal, in a Karmelis. If one were to carry the Eruv from there to the Makom Shevisah (also in a Karmelis), he would be doing an Akirah in a Karmelis and a Hanachah in a Karmelis while carrying through Reshus ha'Rabim. There is no Isur d'Oraisa since the Akirah and Hanachah did not occur in Reshus ha'Rabim.

In Rashi's second approach, though, the Eruv is resting in a wall in Reshus ha'Rabim. When one removes it from there, one is doing an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim (and there is a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim as well, because of "Mehalech k'Omed Dami"). (M. Kornfeld)

34b

QUESTION: The Mishnah (32b) states that if an Eruv is placed in a tree above ten Tefachim, then that Eruv is not valid. However, if it is placed in a pit, the Eruv is valid even if it is a hundred Amos deep. The Gemara asks what the difference is between a tree and a pit, and it answers that the pit which the Mishnah is discussing is in a Karmelis. If a person wants to make his Shevisah at the top of the pit, in a Karmelis, his Eruv in the pit is valid, since he may bring it from the pit, which is a Reshus ha'Yachid, to his position in a Karmelis.

The first part of the Mishnah, which discusses an Eruv placed in a tree, is discussing a tree which is standing in Reshus ha'Rabim. If the difference between the first part of the Mishnah and the second part is that the pit is in a Karmelis but the tree is in a Reshus ha'Yachid, why did it have to switch from a tree to a pit? The Mishnah should have simply taught that the Eruv is valid when placed in a *tree* in a Karmelis, and then the first and second parts of the Mishnah would be consistent. Why does the Mishnah switch to discussing a pit?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TORAS CHAIM answers that the Mishnah specifically wants to discuss a pit. We might have thought that a pit is not a Makom Chashuv because its floor is hard to use (see Shabbos 8b, Tashmish Al Yedei ha'Dechak), and an Eruv placed there would not be valid because it must be placed on a Makom Chashuv. Therefore the Mishnah teaches that a pit is indeed a Makom Chashuv.

The TIFERES YISRAEL gives a similar answer. We might have thought that the Rabanan invalidate an Eruv placed in a pit, because they feared that if one was permitted to make an Eruv in a pit, one might dig up dirt from the bottom of the pit when placing his Eruv there, thus transgressing the Melachah of Chofer. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches that this is not a concern and the Eruv is valid. (According to this, why did the beginning of the Mishnah discuss a tree? Since the beginning of the Mishnah was discussing a case of being Koneh Shevisah in Reshus ha'Rabim, it mentioned that the Eruv was placed in a tree, because it is not normal for a pit to be dug in Reshus ha'Rabim. A pit is usually dug in a field or other type of Karmelis, but not in Reshus ha'Rabim. When discussing an Eruv in a Karmelis, the Mishnah takes advantage of the situation to teach us the law of placing an Eruv in a pit as well --M. Kornfeld)

(b) The Mishnah mentions a pit *in order to teach* that the Makom Shevisah at the top of the pit is in a Karmelis. That is, pits are usually located in a Karmelis (as mentioned above). By telling us that the Eruv was placed in a pit, the Mishnah is effectively telling us that the person's Makom Shevisah is in a Karmelis, because that is where pits are usually found.

(c) The VILNA GAON on the Mishnah explains that both *the tree and the pit* are standing in a Karmelis. The Mishnah is not changing two factors from the first case to the second (from discussing a tree to discussing a pit, and from making an Eruv in Reshus ha'Rabim to making it in a Karmelis).

Why, then, does the Gemara say that the tree is in Reshus ha'Rabim? Furthermore, if the tree is in a Karmelis, why is the Eruv not valid when placed above ten Tefachim? If it is in a Karmelis, then it is permitted to take from Reshus ha'Yachid (the top of the tree) to a Karmelis during Bein ha'Shemashos, and the Eruv should be valid, just like it is valid when placed below 10 Tefachim although he must use transgress the Rabbinic decree against using a tree during Bein ha'Shemashos!

The answer is that now that the Gemara determines that the pit is in a Karmelis, we can also say that the *tree*, too, is in a Karmelis. Nevertheless, there is a difference whether the Eruv is placed above or below 10 Tefachim in the tree. The Eruv is not valid when placed above ten Tefachim, because then one needs to rely on doing *two* acts of Shevus during Bein ha'Shemashos (1. transferring from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Karmelis; 2. Mishtamesh b'Ilan). Even Rebbi agrees that an Eruv is not valid when it depends on two acts of Shevus being done during Bein ha'Shemashos. If it is in a pit, though, there is only one Shevus that needs to be done -- carrying from Reshus ha'Yachid to a Karmelis. There is no prohibition of Mishtamesh b'Ilan since the object is on the bottom of the pit and not in a tree. The difference between the beginning and end of the Mishnah thus depends exclusively on the Halachic differenced between a pit and a tree!