ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 19
ERUVIN 16-20 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 someone was sentenced to death by a king - they would place a piece
of wood in his mouth to prevent him from cursing the king who had sentenced
him - whereas when Hashem sentences someone to death, he is silent;
(b) Furthermore, he praises Hashem, and even more than that: his silence (in
the face of suffering) - or the tears of remorse that he sheds, is
considered as if he had brought a sacrifice.
(a) We learn Pasuk "Gam Berachos Ya'ateh Moreh" - that the sinners
accept Hashem's sentence, and proclaim that Hashem judged them fairly, and
that Hashem did well to create Gan Eden for the righteous and Gehinom for
(b) Resh Lakish learns Pasuk "ve'Yazt'u ve'Ra'u be'Figrei
ha'Anashim ha'Posh'im Bi" ( use of the present tense - "ha'Posh'im
Bi", rather than the past - "she'Pash'u Bi") - that even as they enter the
portals of Gehinom, they continue to rebel, refusing to repent.
(c) The former Pasuk ("Gam Berachos Ya'ateh Moreh") - speaks about *Jewish*
sinners, the latter ("ve'Yazt'u ve'Ra'u be'Figrei ha'Anashim ha'Posh'im
Bi"), about *non -Jewish* ones.
(d) If the Mizbe'ach ha'Zahav, which is no thicker than a golden Dinar,
withstood the heat of the fire that burnt on it constantly (for the Ketores
that was brought twice daily) for many years, without getting burned - then
the Jewish sinners, who are full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate is of
kernels, should certainly be able to withstand the fire of Gehinom!
(a) Resh Lakish learns Pasuk "ke'Felach ha'Rimon Rakasech" - that
even the sinners in Yisrael are full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate.
(b) "Ovrei be'Emek ha'Bacha" - refers to the Jewish sinners who are due to
go Gehinom, but only temporarily. However, Avraham Avinu comes and bails
them out (due to the merit of the B'ris Milah).
(c) Avraham Avinu only bails out those Jews whose Bris Milah is intact - but
not someone who had relations with a non-Jewish woman, whose Orlah re-grows
and covers the Milah (presumably, this includes those who stretched their
Orlaos [like Esav did], and those who grew up and failed to circumcise
themselves in the first place).
(d) Rav Kahana argues that, if we explain "ha'Posh'im Bi" to mean 'who
continue to rebel against Me' (present tense) - then we will also have to
explain the Pesukim "ha'Motzi Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim" (Kedoshim), and
"ha'Ma'aleh Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim" (Shemini), in the present tense
(which is obviously not the case)? Consequently, we will have to admit, he
says, that "ha'Posh'im Bi" refers to the past (referring to those who
rebelled against Hashem when they were alive), and not to the present.
(a) We learn from "ve'Yardu Kol Asher Lahem Chayim She'olah" - that there is
an entrance to Gehinom in the desert; and from "mi'Beten She'ol Shiva'ti" -
that there also one in the sea.
(b) the third entrance to Gehinom - is in Yerushalayim.
(c) Rebbi Yonoson ben Elazar did not preclude the location where smoke rises
from between the two date-palms in the valley of Ben Hinom, from his list -
because, he maintains, that *is* the exact location in Yerushalayim, which
he has already listed.
(a) She'ol, Avadon, Be'er Shachas, Bor She'on, Tit ha'Yaven, Tzalmaves and
Eretz ha'Tachtis - are the seven names of Gehinom.
The Gemara thinks that Gan Eden is particularly in Beis Sha'an (in Eretz
Yisrael), or in Beis Garam (in Arabia), or in Dumaskin (in between the
Rivers), which according to some commentaries, is Damascus - because the
fruit in those places is particularly luscious.
1. Gehinom is omitted list - because it is called by that name, not
intrinsically (because it is the name of one of its seven levels), but
because it is a very deep valley which was visited by all, for purposes of
'Chinam' (which refers to immorality).
2. Similarly, it is called 'Tofteh' - because people who are enticed by
their Yetzer ha'Ra go there.
(a) If the teams of cows are tied - that will be a Chumra in measuring the
space between the Deyumdin, because the tighter the cows are, the less space
they take up.
(b) We might have construed 'tied' to mean tied *loosely*. Therefore Rebbi
Yehudah adds 'and not loose', to add to the stringency, instructing us to
measure by means of cows that are *tightly* tied.
(c) 'Achas Nichneses, ve'Achas Yotzes' - means that the teams must not be
next to each other, but each one drawn slightly away other, so that
they will be even closer together.
(a) The width of a cow - is one and two thirds Amos.
(b) The reason that Rebbi Meir says *approximately* ten Amos, rather than
just ten Amos - is because of the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehudah says
*approximately* thirteen or fourteen Amos, which means more than thirteen
Amos (thirteen and a third), but less than fourteen.
(c) If the well is exactly eight Amos in diameter - then allowing two Amos
(for the head plus most of the cow's body) in each direction, will give a
total length of twelve Amos. Since the size of each piece of Deyumad is one
Amah, this leaves us with a gap of ten Amos between the Deyumdin. Ten Amos
is a Pesach - which Rebbi Meir permits without the need to add boards.
(d) And Rebbi Yehudah will agree with Rebbi Meir, that a well of twelve Amos
requires four boards - because by the same token as in the previous answer,
allowing two Amos for the cows in each direction will leave us with a total
length of sixteen Amos - including a gap of fourteen Amos between the
Deyumdim; and Rebbi Yehudah permits a gap of up to thirteen and a third Amos
(see Tosfos DH ' Bebor'), and no more. Consequently, in this case, Rebbi
Yehudah will agree that additional boards are required.
(a) When Abaye asked Rabah 'He'erich bi'Deyumdin le'Rebbi Meir, ke'Shiur
Deyumdin, Mahu? - he meant to ask him whether, according to Rebbi Meir, by a
well of between eight and twelve Amos, one needs to add *straight* boards,
or whether it is sufficient to extend the length of the Deyumdin, until the
gap between the Deyumdin is reduced to ten Amos?
(b) 'u'Vilevad she'Yarbeh *be'Pasin*' implies extending the length of the
Deyumdin - because otherwise, it should have written 'u'Vilevad she'Yarbeh
(c) The Gemara refutes this proof by simply changing the text to read
'u'Vilevad she'Yarbeh Pasin'.
(d) In the second Lashon - the Gemara began by suggesting that the Mishnah
meant that one should add straight boards, but concludes that it must mean
that one can extend the length of the Deyumdin, because of the Lashon
'u'Vilevad she'Yarbeh *be'Pasin*' - as the Gemara thought in the first
(a) Abaye's Sha'aleh is - whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is better
to add boards, because such a large gap requires a special Heker (and merely
extending the Deyumdin is not sufficient), or whether, since either way, the
gap has been reduced, it makes no difference how this is done - even by
extending the Deyumdin.
(b) The Lashon 'Zu Mechitzah, ve'Eilu Pasin', used by Rebbi Yehudah to
differentiate between a pen and a courtyard etc. on the one hand, and Pasei
Bira'os, on the other - does indeed imply that by a large area, Rebbi
Yehudah advocates adding boards (Pasin) rather than extending the length of
the Deyumdin. However, we can explain Rebbi Yehudah to have meant that,
whereas the pen and the courtyard are permitted by means of the *Din of
Mechitzah* (which is why an area of even more than a Beis Sasayim is
permitted), the area between the Deyumdin is permitted due to the *Din of
Pasei Bira'os* (even if the extra space is permitted by extending the
Deyumdim), in which case Chazal did not permit more than a Beis Sasayim.
(a) A mound that rises ten Tefachim within four Amos - has the Din of a
Reshus ha'Yachid with regard to Shabbos.
(b) A Deyumad that consists of a mound whose gradient is less steep than
that - has the Din of the ground, and is not eligible to be used as a
(c) The reason that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar concedes that a square stone can
serve as a Deyumad - is because of the Din of 'Ro'in' (i.e. we consider the
stone *as if* a square had been cut out of it, leaving the shape of a
Deyumad). He argues by a round stone however, because there, we need to add
a second 'Ro'in' (to also consider a square to be cut out of the circle),
and whereas he does hold that we say *one* 'Ro'in', he does not hold of
*two*. Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah contends that we
even say *two* 'Ro'in'.
(d) A mound that rises ten Tefachim within four Amos - will require two
Ro'in (like a round stone). Consequently, according to Rebbi Yishmael Be'no
shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, it *can* serve as a Deyumad, whereas
according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, it *cannot*.
(a) A Chitzas ha'Kanim - is a series of canes set in the ground within three
Tefachim of each other. Abaye asks whether Deyumdin made of Shesi is
permissible (like a Mechitzas Shesi is), or not.
A bunch of canes joined below may be worse than a square Deyumad - because
whereas a square Deyumad is solid, and it is possible to cut from it a
square, leaving the shape of a Deyumad, it is not possible to do this from a
bunch of canes. It is not clear in fact, why it is eligible to be used
according to anyone.
(b) The alternative interpretation of the Chitzas ha'Kanim mentioned in the
Beraisa - is a bunch of canes which are joined below, but separate above (in
which case, the Chidush of the Beraisa will be that we say 'Ro'in').
(c) Indeed, according to the second explanation - the Chitzas ha'Kanim of
the Beraisa is similar to the tree also listed there; however, the Beraisa
mentions two types of trees. Note: It is not clear why the Gemara does not
resolve the Sha'aleh from a Geder (which the Gemara compares to the initial
interpretation of Chitzas ha'Kanim i.e. a Mechitzas Shesi - see Ritva). It
appears Lashon of the Ritva, that whenever the Gemara understands a
Chitzas ha'Kanim to mean a Mechitzas Shesi, the Gemara asks 'But that is
equivalent to a Geder, which *could* mean a Mechitzas ha'Kanim. But if
Chitzas ha'Kanim were to mean a 'Gudrisa de'Kani', then we would have no
proof from Geder, since it could also mean a plain stone wall (though what
the Chidush will then be is not clear either).