THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ERUVIN 92, 93 - have been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens,
N.Y., in loving memory of her late husband, Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu
Grunberger. Mr Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming
manner and is sorely missed by all who knew him.
1) HALACHAH: BRIDGES OVER "MECHITZOS"
The Gemara says that a Mechitzah which people walk over ("Darsi Lah
Rabim," or a Mechitzah Nidreses) is not considered a Mechitzah.
In many modern metropolitan Eruvin, the wall, or Mechitzah, around the
city sometimes passes underneath a bridge over which people travel. What
are the laws of a bridge that go over a Mechitzah? May that Mechitzah be
used as part of the wall around a city in a modern metropolitan Eruv?
The NODA BI'YEHUDAH (OC 2:42) writes a responsa to someone who asked him
about bridges over Mechitzos. The inquirer suggested that the only
potential problem is that people walk "through" the Mechitzah by way of
the bridge above it and that should be Mevatel the Mechitzah because of
the rule of "Asu Rabim u'Mevatli Mechitzasa" (Eruvin 22b). We rule (like
Tosfos 22b, see Insights to Eruvin 22) that the presence of people walking
through a Mechitzah only invalidates the Mechitzah if it is a natural, and
not a manmade wall. Therefore, if the bridge goes over a *man-made*
Mechitzah, then the Mechitzah should still be valid.
The Noda bi'Yehudah argues and says that when a bridge goes over a
Mechitzah, the Mechitzah is a Mechitzah ha'Nidreses, a trampled Mechitzah,
as mentioned in our Sugya. A trampled Mechitzah is different than one
through which people walk, and the presence of people trampling over the
Mechitzah will invalidate even man-made Mechitzos.
The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 373:118) rules that if the bridge is more than ten
Amos wide, it will effectively make a ten-Amah breach in the Mechitzah
below, invalidating the Mechitzah, and a Tzuras ha'Pesach must be built
over the bridge to close the breach in the Mechitzah. If the bridge or the
road that leads to the bridge crosses straight through from one side of
the Reshus ha'Yachid (that is, the enclosed city) to the other side of the
Reshus ha'Yachid, i.e. it is "Mefulash," it will not suffice to erect a
Tzuras ha'Pesach to close the breach. In such a case the road (or bridge)
coming into the city will require doors. (This applies, in fact, to any
Reshus ha'Rabim that is Mefulash to -- i.e. pierces through -- a Reshus
ha'Yachid, Eruvin 6b).
Therefore, a city that has bridges or roads going straight through it will
need doors at the points where the roads enter the city to permit carrying
in the city (which is practically impossible to accomplish in today's
It is not at all clear, though, what is considered Mefulash
(a) RAV MENACHEM KASHER (Torah Sheleimah 15:172) says that any road that
starts at one side of Reshus ha'Yachid and exits at the opposite side, no
matter how much it turns and bends in between, is considered Mefulash.
(b) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN (Igros Moshe OC 1:140) writes that a street is
only considered Mefulash if the road goes straight through the city,
without bending at all. (This is obviously a much more lenient ruling,
since it is very uncommon to have streets that "pierce" through cities.).
2) PLANTING GRAPEVINES AND WHEAT IN ADJACENT CHATZEROS
QUESTION: The Gemara says that when there are grapevines in the small
Chatzer, it is permitted to plant wheat in the large Chatzer adjacent to
it. As far as the larger one is concerned, it has Mechitzos and is
separate from the smaller Chatzer and there is no problem of Kil'ayim.
However, the smaller Chatzer does not have Mechitzos. Since it does not
have Mechitzos, when the wheat is planted in the large Chatzer, the
grapevines in the smaller one should become forbidden! If so, how can it
be permitted to plant wheat in the larger Chatzer if doing so will make
the grapevines in the smaller Chatzer forbidden as Kil'ayim?
(a) RASHI says that the Gemara is not talking about Kil'ei Kerem (mixtures
of grapevines and wheat). Rather, the Gemara is referring to mixtures of
other plants (Kil'ed Zera'im), such as vines and beans, which are only
forbidden mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan forbid such mixtures post facto only as
a penalty for planting in a manner forbidden by the Rabanan. When one
plants different species of plant together in a permissible way, such as
by planting one in the large Chatzer *after* having planted the other in
the small one, the produce of both plants is permitted. The Rabanan saw no
reason to penalize him in such a case. Therefore, even the plants in the
smaller Chatzer remain permitted.
(b) TOSFOS says that when there is a large and small Chatzer, not only are
the contents of the small Chatzer considered to be "together" with the
contents of the large one, but the classification that is given to the
large Chatzer is given to the small Chatzer as well.
The Torah forbids planting wheat in a "Kerem," a vineyard -- "You shall
not plant Kil'ayim in your Kerem." That is, the prohibition has nothing to
do with whether there actually are grapes there or not (in fact, in our
case there are *no* grapes within 4 Amos of the smaller Chatzer, and the
fruit themselves are not mixed), but rather with the fact that the area is
defined as a "Kerem." For this reason, when there are vines in the larger
Chatzer, making it a "Kerem," the smaller Chatzer becomes a "Kerem as well
and may not be planted with wheat. On the other hand, if there are
grapevines in the smaller Chatzer, the larger one is not designated a
"Kerem," since it is not affected at all by what is planted in the smaller
one. Therefore, it may be planted with wheat. (Although this will make the
smaller one takes on the name of a "Sadeh," or wheat-field, we do not find
that it is prohibited to plant grapes in a Sadeh; it is only forbidden to
plant *wheat* in a *Kerem*).