Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 79

1) TWO BALCONIES THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY OPPOSITE EACH OTHER

QUESTION: The Mishnah (78b) states that two balconies which are joined by a plank wider than four Tefachim may make one Eruv together if they want, or they may make two separate Eruvin. Rava says that if two balconies are not directly opposite each other and there is more than three Tefachim between them, they cannot be joined to make a single Eruv and each balcony must make a separate Eruv. It does not help to place a plank between them. RASHI explains that when Rava mentions two balconies that are "not directly opposite each other," he means that one juts out further into Reshus ha'Rabim than the other. Rashi seems to be saying that both of the balconies are on the *same* side of Reshus ha'Rabim, but one sticks out more than the other.

(a) According to Rashi's explanation, the residents should merely place a plank between the two balconies at the point where they are adjacent to each other (that is, at the beginning, and not the end, of the balconies)!

(b) Secondly, why did Rashi not explain that when the Rava mentioned two balconies that are "not directly opposite each other," he meant that they are on separate, facing sides of Reshus ha'Rabim? (This is indeed how the RITVA and other Rishonim explain the Sugya.) (REBBI AKIVA EIGER, RASHASH)

ANSWERS:

(a) To answer the first question, the NACHAL ARAVIM (as cited in Perush Chai, 7:63) explains Rashi to mean that the *building* from which the second balcony extends is, protruding beyond the end of the other balcony. Therefore, it is not possible to place a plank from one balcony to the other, for they have no common area. (See Graphics section)

(b) Regarding the second question, TOSFOS (78b, DH v'Chen) asks that if there is a plank between the two balconies, then even when they are not directly opposite each other, they should be considered connected by the plank!

The RITVA and Rishonim answer that since one who walks the plank between the balconies has nothing below him but a far drop down, he is more frightened to walk there. If the plank is at an angle (and offers much less support) due to the fact that the balconies are not directly opposite each other, he will not walk there at all.

Perhaps Rashi also understood that balconies cannot be combined because the plank between them would have to be placed at an angle. That is why he explained that the two balconies which are "not directly opposite each other" are on the same side of Reshus ha'Rabim, but one juts out further than the other and they have no common width, so a plank connecting them *must* be placed at an angle. Had the Gemara meant that the balconies are on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, the Gemara should have specified that they do not extend far enough so that they are side by side at a certain point, for then they would be able to be joined with a plank. (See Graphics)

79b

OPINIONS: The Beraisa states that if there is a pile of hay between the two Techumei Shabbos of two different cities, residents of each city may feed their animals on each side of the haystack. We are not concerned that one will take hay from within the other city's Techum, even according to Rebbi Akiva who holds that the law of Techumin is mid'Oraisa. Even though one might transgress an Isur d'Oraisa by taking from hay from within the other Techum into one's own Techum (RASHI DH Mahu d'Teima), the Rabanan were not concerned that this would happen and did not prohibit taking hay from the side of one's own Techum.

The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#24) wonders, according to Rebbi Akiva who holds that the law of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, is the law of Techumei Kelim (i.e., that an *item* may not be moved out of the Techum of its owner even by another person) also mid'Oraisa?

(a) The Minchas Chinuch points out that our Sugya proves that there is indeed a Techum d'Oraisa for objects. If not, why does the Gemara say that we might have thought that Rebbi Akiva would prohibit using the hay lest one take hay outside of its Techum? There would be no Isur d'Oraisa to take the *hay* out of its Techum, and thus no reason to make such a Gezeirah. It must be that the Techum of objects is indeed mid'Oraisa.

(b) It could be, however, that there is no proof from this Sugya, as is evident from the words of the RITVA here. The Gemara says only that the hay is between two Techumim (i.e., between the Techumim of the residents of two cities). It does not say that the hay is at the end of its own Techum (that is, perhaps the hay's own Techum extends beyond this point towards the second city).

If so, asks the Ritva, what is wrong with taking the hay from the other side? It must be that the Gemara is concerned that the *person* feeding his animal will *walk* to the other side of the haystack to take hay, and by doing so he will have walked out of his own Techum. This, then, is what Rashi means when he says that "one might take from a Techum that is not theirs." The Gemara is not discussing the Techum of objects at all.

(c) Although there is no proof from this Sugya, the YAD BINYAMIN points out that the RAMBAN (17b) indeed states, as the Minchas Chinuch asserted, that Kelim have a Techum d'Oraisa. (See also BI'UR HALACHAH OC 340, DH l'Man d'Amar)

QUESTION: The Mishnah describes how a Shituf is made. The Mishnah says that one person may be Mezakeh the contents of a barrel to all of the members of the Mavoy. He may be Mezakeh it to them by having his grown children, or a Jewish slave or maidservant, make an acquisition on their behalf. One may not have his children who are still below the age of adulthood be Mezakeh it to them.

It seems that one may not have a minor be Mezakeh because he does not have the ability to make an acquisition to others. If so, why does the Mishnah say that a Jewish maidservant (Shifchah) can be Mezakeh, if a maidservant is *always* a minor (because once she has signs of maturity, she goes free)?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH u'Mezakeh) explains that with regard to Shituf Mavu'os, there is a unique leniency allowing even minors to be Mezakeh to others, since the Shituf is only mid'Rabanan. When the Mishnah says that one's child who is a minor cannot be Mezakeh, it means specifically one's *own* child, who is dependent on his father's support, cannot be Mezakeh the Eruv. Such a minor is like an "extension" of his father and one cannot be Mezakeh his father's objects to others just as one cannot be Mezakeh his own objects to others (but must have someone else be Mezakeh it to them for him). Someone else's child, though, can be Mezakeh the food.