Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 94

1) A WALL BETWEEN A CHATZER AND RESHUS HA'RABIM THAT FELL DOWN

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a wall falls down between a Chatzer and Reshus ha'Rabim, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the area where the wall used to stand becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim. According to the Chachamim, that area becomes a Karmelis. In the Gemara's second explanation, the Gemara says that the argument is whether or not the area that broke down becomes "Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim" (the sides of Reshus ha'Rabim). Rashi explains that it is evident that there used to be a wall standing on that area, but now the people of Reshus ha'Rabim use it and claim it as theirs.

We know that "the prohibition of Gezel applies on Shabbos," so that a person is not considered to be a user of a Reshus on Shabbos if he is using it illegitimately (88a). If so, how can the people of Reshus ha'Rabim make this area forbidden to the owner if they do not have the right to use it?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA explains that the Gemara is referring to a case where the owner of the Chatzer originally allowed the people of Reshus ha'Rabim to use the area where he later built a wall. Therefore, that area falls into the category mentioned in Bava Basra (100a) of a path used by Reshus ha'Rabim at one point legally, which may not be taken away from them.

(b) The CHAZON ISH (107:10) points out that TOSFOS does not seem to take this approach. Tosfos seems to hold that even if it is not an area to which the public originally had a legal claim, it still belongs now to Reshus ha'Rabim. He suggests that any Reshus which is secondary and subordinate to Reshus ha'Rabim becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim. (Even if it is used by Reshus ha'Rabim illegally, it can become Reshus ha'Rabim if it is associated with Reshus ha'Rabim geographically.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that if the walls on two sides of a Chatzer are breached, it is forbidden to carry in that Chatzer on future Shabbosim. The Gemara asks what difference does it make if it was one or two sides? If the breach is wider than ten Amos, then even if only one side was breached, it is forbidden, the Gemara asks.

What is the Gemara asking? We know that a private domain with three walls is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa. If it only has two walls, then it is not a Reshus ha'Yachid. Here, the Mishnah is talking about a Chatzer with four walls. If only one was breached, even totally, there are still three walls and the area is still a Reshus ha'Yachid! That is why the Mishnah must say that two walls were breached; the Chatzer now only has two walls and is not a Reshus ha'Yachid! Why, then, does the Gemara ask why the Mishnah had to say that two walls were breached?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Mai Shena) answers that this Gemara is going according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that even if a Chatzer has two Mechitzos, it is still a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa. If so, there was no reason for the Mishnah to specifically say that two sides were breached. (The Gemara is asking according to Rebbi Yehudah, because he is mentioned in the Mishnah.)

(b) A normal Chatzer usually has only three Mechitzos to begin with. Instead of the fourth Mechitzah, the fourth side is open and usually has a Pas. As soon as one Mechitzah falls down, it is no longer a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, because it only has two walls. Therefore, the Gemara asks what is the difference if one or two Mechitzos fall down? If the breached area is greater than the standing area (Parutz Merubah), then even if one Mechitzah falls it is not a Reshus ha'Yachid. It must be that the breached area is *not* greater than the standing area, and if so, what difference does it make if one or two sides fell down?

94b

QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel argue concerning the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem." Rav maintains that the edge of the roof beam is viewed as descending and closing off the area, and Shmuel maintains that it does not close off the area. The Gemara records two opinions concerning the exact case where Rav and Shmuel argue. One opinion says that they argue only if the open area is larger than ten Amos wide; if it is ten or less, everyone agrees that Pi Tikrah is Yored v'Sosem. The other opinion says that they argue when the open area is ten Amos wide or less, but when it is more than ten Amos wide, then both Rav and Shmuel agree that Pi Tikrah is *not* Yored v'Sosem.

RASHI suggests that the reason everyone agrees, according to the first opinion in the Gemara, that Pi Tikrah is Yored v'Sosem when the open area is less than ten Amos wide, is because even without Pi Tikrah, there is a Pesach, an entranceway. That is, Rashi understands the case as one of a Tikrah (beam) supported by two poles at the ends, so that they form a Pesach and Pi Tikrah is not necessary to close off the area.

The Rishonim ask on Rashi's explanation that according to the second opinion in the Gemara, even when the area is less than ten Amos, Rav and Shmuel argue, and Shmuel says that Pi Tikrah does not work. But if there is a Pesach, as Rashi says that there is, why does Shmuel say that it is not good? Pi Tikrah is not necessary where there is a Pesach!

Second, how can Rashi say that there is a Pesach here? If there are only two poles at each end, it is Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed -- the open area is greater than the standing area, and it should not be considered a Pesach. Also, the rule of "Asi Avira d'Hai Gisa u'd'Hai Gisa u'Mevatli Mechitzah" (the larger airspace on each side of the standing parts are Mevatel those parts) should prevent this from being called a Pesach. The only time that such a structure is considered a Pesach, despite the problems of Parutz Merubah and Asi Avira, is regarding Pasei Regalim (17b), where a special leniency was instituted (see Insights, there).

ANSWERS:

(a) Granted, it is not a fully acceptable Pesach because it is Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed. However, mid'Oraisa, the fact that the open area is greater than the standing area will *not* disqualify a Mechitzah (see Insights to 17b). This is what Rashi means here -- if the Pi Tikrah is necessary to enclose only ten Amos, then mid'Oraisa there is a Pesach and Pi Tikrah is only needed because the breach is too large mid'Rabanan. According to the first opinion in the Gemara, Shmuel agrees the Pi Tikrah works when -- mid'Oraisa -- there are Mechitzos. When there are no Mechitzos mid'Oraisa (such as when the open area is wider than ten Amos), then Pi Tikrah does not work according to Shmuel. According to Shmuel in the second opinion in the Gemara, Pi Tikrah does not work even when the Mechitzah is invalid only mid'Rabanan, because of Parutz Merubah. (M. Kornfeld)

(b) TOSFOS (DH b'Shtei Ruchos and DH b'Eser) argues with Rashi, and explains that there are no poles at the sides of the beam, and therefore there is no Pesach here at all, even if the breach is less than ten Amos. Consequently, it is Parutz b'Milu'o l'Makom ha'Asur Lo. If so, what is the difference between the opening being more than ten Amos and less than ten Amos? The difference is that Pi Tikrah cannot make the space underneath the beam into a Mechitzah, but it *can* make it into a doorway, a Pesach. When the area is less than ten, then Pi Tikrah makes the area into a Pesach.

The RITVA adds that Rashi, too, does not actually mean that there is a Pesach with sideposts on each side below the beam, because then the principle of Pi Tikrah is certainly not necessary. Rashi means to explain, similar to Tosfos, that Pi Tikrah makes it considered as though there are sideposts, and thus there is a Pesach.