ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 7
ERUVIN 6-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) When Rav Huna said that, according to Rav, 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Ken' -
he was referring to Rav's ruling like the Tana Kama of Chananyah (who does
not require doors by a Mavoy Mefulash); basically, he ruled like Chananya,
which explains why, in Neherda'a, they ruled like Shmuel in this respect (in
fact they were ruling like Rav in both issues, so they were not guilty of
'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech'.
(b) In the opinion of Rav Ada bar Ahavah - it is wrong to rule like the
Chumros of both parties, only when they are contradictory (as we shall soon
see); whereas the Chumra of Rav here ('Toraso ki'Mefulash') does not clash
with that of Shmuel ('Halachah ke'Chananyah').refore, there is nothing
wrong with ruling like both Chumros.
(a) According to Beis Shamai, the Shiur that negates the status of a Shedra
is *two* vertebrae.
(b) 've'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech' applies in this case - inasmuch as if
one vertebra is missing from the Shedra, according to Beis Hillel, the
Shedra itself will no longer be Metame be'Ohel ha'Mes (a Kula), and the
animal will be a Tereifah (a Chumra) - whereas according to Beis Shamai, the
Din will be the reverse, a Chumra in the former case, a Kula in the latter
(unless two vertebrae are missing). Consequently, to adopt the Chumros of
both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, would really be a matter of 've'ha'Kesil
(a) Rebbi Akiva picked an Esrog on the first of Shevat, and gave Ma'aser
Lechumra like both Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai - We are speaking here about
the end of the second or of the fifth years (on which one was obligated to
give Ma'aser Sheni) leading on to the third or the sixth (when the
obligation changed to Ma'aser Oni). Rebbi Akiva gave both Ma'aser Sheni
(like Beis Hillel) and Ma'aser Oni (like Beis Shamai).
(b) Rebbi Akiva ruled like both Chumros - because he was uncertain whether
it was Beis Shamai who declared Rosh Hashanah as the first of Shevat and
Beis Hillel the fifteenth, or vice-versa. So he adopted both Chumros
Lechumra - mi'Safek - and "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech" applies to
someone who adopts both Chumros on principle, not out of uncertainty, uin
which case one is obligated to do so.
(a) A Seratya - is a main road (that either runs through the town or is an
inter-city highway; whereas a Pelatya - is a major street with shops.
(b) If one end of the Mavoy runs into a *Karmelis* - Chananya will agree
with the Tana Kama, that one makes a Tzuras ha'Pesach at one end and a Lechi
or a Koreh at the other.
(a) If the Mavoy runs into a Rechavah - it does not require any Tikun at all
- according to Rav Yosef quoting Rav Yehudah.
(b) They are speaking about a Rechavah - that opens out into a Reshus
ha'Rabim on the opposite side.
(c) No! a Rechavah never requires an Eruv, because it is made for storage
rather than for living in.
(d) A Mavoy that opens into a Chatzer - has the same Din as one that opens
into a Rechavah, provided they made an Eruv with the B'nei Mavoy.
(a) The Gemara initially thinks that Rav forbade carrying in a Mavoy that
leads into a Chatzer - because of the fact that a. it is open, and b.
Chatzer has an opening to the Reshus ha'Rabim on the opposite side;
consequently, it resembles a Mavoy Mefulash, and is Asur without a Tikun.
The reason that carrying in the Chatzer (when they did not make an Eruv) is
permitted, but not in the Mavoy - is because whereas the breach in the
Chatzer (where it opens into the Mavoy) is less than ten Amos and does not
constitute the majority of that side of the Chatzer. it is no more than an
entrance, which does not require a Tikun; the Mavoy, on the other hand,
which opens *completely* into the Chatzer, is not considered an opening,
but a breach.refore it requires a Tikun.
(b) If that is so, observes the Gemara, Rav Yehudah, who under similar
circumstances, permits carrying in a Mavoy which ran into a Rechavah under
similar circumstances, cannot be quoting (his Rebbe) Rav - because firstly,
why should a Mavoy that opens into a *Rechavah* be permitted any more than
one that opens into a Chatzer? Secondly, why did Rav Yehudah specifically
speak of 'a Mavoy which ran into a *Rechavah*' (implying that if it ran into
a Chatzer, the Chatzer too, would be Asur)?
(c) Consequently, Rav Yehudah must have been quoting - his second Rebbe -
(d) Rav Sheshes explains that when Rav forbade carrying in the Mavoy that
opens into a Chatzer, he was talking about a case where they did not make an
Eruv, which forbids carrying in the Mavoy, but not in the Chatzer. Had they
made an Eruv, he concedes that even carrying in the Mavoy would be
permitted. Consequently, Rav Yehudah may well have been quoting Rav, since a
Mavoy leading into a Rechavah (which does not require an Eruv) has exactly
the same Din as one which leads into a Chatzer (when they made an Eruv).