ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 15
ERUVIN 11-15 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) A 'Lechi ha'Omed Me'elav' - is a Lechi that happens to be correctly
placed to serve as a Lechi, but that was not put there to serve as a Lechi.
(b) Rav holds - that a 'Lechi ha'Omed Me'elav' is not a Lechi; Abaye agrees
with that if there was another Lechi in place when Shabbos entered, so that
*that* Lechi was not needed.
(c) According to the contention that their dispute extends to a Mechitzah
ha'Omedes Me'eleha - Rava will have to establish the Mishnah in Sucah (which
permits a Sucah whose walls consist of trees), by trees that were
specifically planted for that purpose. The Chidush is that we do not
invalidate such a Sucah, for fear that one may come to use the tree (i.e. to
climb it and break away a branch).
(d) Rava will explain the Beraisa 'Hayah Sham Geder O Chitzas ha'Kanim,
Nidon Mishum Deyumad' - in the same way as he explained the Mishnah in Sucah
- namely, that the Geder or the Chitzas ha'Kanim were planted specifically
to serve as Deyumdin. The Chidush is that a wall made up of canes spaced
within three Tefachim of each other, and which is considered a wall only
because of Levud, is Kasher by Pasei Bira'os, too. A Deyumad is two adjacent
post of at least one Amah each. Four of these dual posts serve as walls for
Pasei Bira'os, which will be explained in detail in the following Perek.
(a) An 'Ilan ha'Mesach al ha'Aretz' - is a tree with wide overhanging
branches. Carrying underneath it is permitted - provided its branches reach
to within three Tefachim of the ground, and according to Rava (at this
stage), it was specifically planted to use in this manner on Shabbos.
(b) The reason that carrying underneath it is restricted to a Beis Sasayim
(which is not the case by a house), is because this is a 'dwelling that is
made to serve the outside' (i.e. because it is uncomfortable to stay out in
the field - not because that is where he lives), as opposed to a house,
where it is *the field* which serves *the house*, and not vice-versa.
(c) A Beis Sasayim comprises fifty by a hundred Amos (the same area as the
Chatzer of the Mishkan).
(a) 'Shavas be'Tzel she'Hu Gavo'a Asarah ... ve'Chen be'Neka she'Hu Amok
Asarah ... ' - teaches us that if someone finds himself on a large mound of
earth (over ten Tefachim high and between four Amos square and a Beis
Sasayim in area, or in a ditch of similar dimensions) when Shabbos enters,
he is permitted to walk that entire area, and to consider it his home, to
walk two thousand Amos in all directions, because he has encamped in a
Reshus ha'Yachid - the former case due to 'Gud Aseik Mechitzos.
Abaye, who holds that 'Lechi Mishum Mechitzah', permits a Lechi that
happened to be strategically placed, just like a Mechitzah would be Kasher
in such a case; whereas Rava, who holds that 'Lechi Mishum Heker' - will
invalidate a Lechi that was not placed there deliberately, because that does
not constitute a Heker.
(b) 'Kamah Ketzurah, ve'Shibalos Makifos Osah' - refers to a field of
standing corn, where an area in the middle has been cut; the standing corn
that surrounds it constitutes Mechitzos, and one is permitted to walk there,
as well as to walk two thousand Amos in all directions. This does not
present Rava with a problem - because the cut area could easily have been
prepared deliberately for that purpose.
(c) A mound of earth and a ditch (in those days) would hardly have been man-
made, in which case, they were clearly not made specifically as Mechitzos.
Consequently, according to Rava (who currently extends the Din of 'Lechi
ha'Omed Me'elav' to Mechitzah), why should they be considered Mechitzos?
(d) We are therefore forced to concede - that the Machlokes between Abaye
and Rava (with regard to 'Lechi ha'Omed Me'elav') is confined to a Lechi,
and does extend to a Mechitzah.
(a) We may have thought that stones which protrude from a wall at different
widths cannot serve as a Lechi, even where there is less than three Tefachim
between one stone and the next - because, since builders usually build the
ends of walls in this way, when they have in mind to extend them to the wall
opposite, people will think that that is what is intended *here*, which
leaves us without a Heker (and Rav holds that 'Lechi Mishum Heker').
Nevertheless, the Beraisa teaches us that, since this wall was built
specifically as a Lechi, it is Kasher.
(b) The Beraisa too, of 'Kosel she'Tzido Echad Kanus me'Chavero, Bein
she'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shaveh mi'Bifenim, u'Vein she'Nir'eh mi'Bifenim
ve'Shaveh mi'Bachutz, Nidon Mishum Lechi' - speaks according to Rava, when
the extra section of wall was specifically built as a Lechi, and the Chidush
is that 'Nir'eh mi'Bachutz ve'Shavah mi'Bifenim, Nidon Mishum Lechi'.
(a) When the Lechi broke just as the servant was bringing Rav some water -
Rav hinted to him to stop walking (and to put down the jar of water where he
(b) He did not want to rely on the date-palm that was growing at the
entrance of the Mavoy - because they had not relied on it before Shabbos
(i.e. there was another Lechi there when Shabbos came in).
(c) The Gemara thought - that Abaye and Rava were arguing over a Lechi which
they did *not* rely on before Shabbos, and which Abaye permitted. In that
case, the incident with Rav would support Rava.
(d) No, answers the Gemara - their dispute was specifically in a case where
they *did* rely on the Lechi (i.e. where there was no other Lechi there
before Shabbos), in which case, both Abaye and Rava would conform with the
ruling of Rav. This is one of the six cases of 'Ya'al Ke'Gam', by which we
rule like Abaye.
(a) According to the Chachamim - an animal *can* be used as a Lechi, *is*
Metame if it is used as a Golel, and is valid as a Get, if a Get is written
(b) a Golel - is the lid of a coffin (according to Rashi).
(a) Rebbi Meir also disqualifies an animal from being used as the wall of a
Sucah, and of a Mavoy.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, a 'Sefer' in the Parshah of Sotah
means is a scroll of parchment (to exclude a live animal), and even after we
include other things from "ve'Kasav Lah", we learn from Sefer to exclude
living creatures. The Rabbanan however - argue, that the Torah did not write
"ve'Kasav ... *ba'Sefer*", but "Sefer", from which we can learn that the
husband must write the divorce statement (from the word 'Saper' - to tell).
(c) If not for the Pasuk ve'Kasav Lah", we would have thought that a man can
divorce his wife by giving her money - from the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysa"
(which compares the divorce to the Kidushin - just as the latter can be
effected with money, so too, can the former).
(a) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learns the above Din from "Sefer Kerisus" - 'Sefer
Korsah, ve'Ein Davar Acher Korsah'.
(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus" - Davar ha'Kores Beino
le'Veinah' (meaning that he must break with her, and not be permanently
bound to her by some condition or other.
(c) The Rabbanan - do not make any Derashos from 'Kares-Kerisus'. According
to them, 'Kerisus' is normal phraseology.
(d) A condition that would be effective by a Get - for example, would be 'if
he were to divorce his wife on condition that she does not go to her
father's house for thirty days.
(a) It will be permitted to carry inside an encampment consisting of a
circle of wagons and their paraphernalia - provided that a. the wall in
question is at least ten Tefachim high - and b. the gaps do not total more
than the standing wall.
(b) A breach of up to ten Amos is considered an entrance, one of more than
ten Amos is not.
(a) Rav Papa permits 'Parutz ke'Omed' - because, in his opinion, Hashem told
Moshe on Sinai not to leave more breaches than standing wall; Rav Huna Brei
de'Rav Yehoshua forbids it - according to him, Hashem told Moshe to leave
more standing wall than breaches.
(b) 've'Lo Yihyu Pirtzos Yeseiros al ha'Binyan' - implies that if the
breaches are not more than the wall (but only equal), then it is Kasher (a
proof for Rav Papa).
(c) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua? - the Mishnah should have
said 'Lo Yihyu Pirtzos ke'Binyan'.
(a) 'ha'Mekareh Sucaso bi'Shefudin O ba'Aruchos ha'Mitah, Im Yesh Revach
*Kamosan, Kesherah*' - also appears to prove the opinion of Rav Papa.
(b) The Gemara initially understood 'ke'she'Nichnas ve'Yotze' - to mean that
'Revach Kamosan' automatically means that one leaves plenty of room to place
Sechach the same width as the rods, because of the difficulty of fitting
them in. Consequently, the Gemara asks 've'Ha Efshar Letzamtzem' - why
should it be so difficult to fit the Sechach in gaps the same size as the
rods, if just the right amount of space is left for them (meaning that there
is no reason why 'Kamosan' should not be taken literally)?
(c) Rebbi Ami answers by establishing the Mishnah by 'Ma'adif' - meaning
that the Mishnah speaks when they left plenty of room to fit the Sechach -
easily (not because they *had to*, but because they *wanted to*).
(d) Rava establishes the Mishnah - by Sechach that is placed not parallel to
the rods, but adjacent to them. In that case, there will automatically be
more Sechach than rods. Why is that? Because each piece of Sechach stretches
from the top of one rod to the top of the next one.