ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 86
ERUVIN 86 - was generously dedicated by an anonymous donor in Los Angeles
in honor of his son, Sam, who lives and teaches in Yerushalayim.
(a) Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion both a Jew and a gentile who are away for
Shabbos, *forbid* the remaining residents of the Chatzer to carry - holds
that a residence without residents *is* called a residence; Rebbi Yehudah,
who *permits* them to carry, holds that it is *not*.
(b) In principle, Rebbi Yossi agrees with Rebbi Yehudah; however, he is
concerned that the gentile may return on Shabbos, in which case he will
forbid the other residents to carry (and they will be perhaps be unaware
of his return and continue to carry).
(c) Rebbi Shimon specifically refers to a man going to stay with his
*daughter* in the same town - because even if he falls out with his son-
in-law, he will remain there; whereas if he went to stay with his son, and
then fell out with his daughter-in-law, he will return immediately. Why is
that? Because when a dog barks at a person, he still enters, but not when
a bitch barks at him.
(a) When the Tana Kama says that he requires a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim,
either below or 'Mitoch Ugno' - he means either below the water surface
(which will be explained shortly) or at least within the walls of the pit,
even though Mechitzah does not reach the water.
(b) According to Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel - 'Beis Shamai Omrim Milematah;
Beis Hillel Omrim Milema'alah.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Mechitzah that divides the two
Chatzeros is good enough to divide the water in the pit, too - even though
it does not extend to below the walls of the pit.
(a) Rav Yehudah explains 'Milematah' of Beis Shamai to mean at the foot of
the pit (actually touching the ground), and the 'Milema'alah' of Beis
Hillel, above the surface of the water.
(b) The Gemara initially ascribed Rev Yehudah's rejection of Rav Huna's
explanation of 'Lematah Mamash' (in Beis Shamai) - to the fact that
according to Rav Huna, the water between the two courtyards joins
*underneath* the Mechitzah.
(c) The problem with that is - that according to his explanation, too, by
a pit that is deeper than ten Tefachim, the water between the courtyards
will combine *above* the Mechitzah.
(d) The Gemara resolves the problem - by pointing out another statement by
Rav Yehudah, where he says that the Mechitzah must protrude at least one
Tefach from the water (Consequently, if the pit was twelve Tefachim deep,
shall we say, the Mechitzah would have to be thirteen Tefachim tall). All
this, according to Beis Shamai.
(a) According to Beis Hillel, we are not worried about the water of the
two Chatzeros mixing. What we are worried about is that it must look like
a Mechitzah. Rav Yehudah asks on Rav Huna that, according to him, if the
Mechitzah is on top of the pit, far from the water, then at the point of
the water, where the Mechitzah is really needed, one does not see a
(b) The problem with that is that - according to his opinion, too, no
Mechitzah is visible *in* the water, where it should really be.
(c) The answer to that is a Beraisa quoted by Ya'akov Karchina'ah - which
requires at least one Tefach of the wall to be submerged in the water.
(a) Rav Yehudah permits one to carry underneath a beam of four Tefachim
wide that stretches across the entrance of a ruin - because he follows the
opinion of Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi, who permits a Mechitzah Teluyah
even when it is not by water. Here too, he permits carrying under the
beam, because we say on both sides 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' (as if the
square edge of the beam extended to the ground, enclosing the space in
(b) The Halachah is like Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha, who permits
the same beam that is suspended over a pit of water - in spite of the fact
that the water mixes underneath the beam. This vindicates Rav Huna in the
previous question, who permits a Mechitzah even when it is well above the
water-level - not like Rav Yehudah, who requires that the Mechitzah is
submerged one Tefach in the water. (See Tosfos DH 'Koreh' and 'Ela', who
learns this Machlokes concerning 'Pi Tikra Yored ve'Sosem', and not a
(c) A Mechitzah Teluyah is only valid by water - exclusively, and not even
by a ruin or in a courtyard.
(a) A wall that starts from the ground upwards must reach a height of ten
Tefachim (either directly, or through Levud) in order to be a Kasher
Mechitzah (even if it does not reach the roof - because of 'Gud Aseik
(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that a wall starting from the top downwards -
needs to be no more than ten Tefachim - just like a wall starting at the
bottom. He holds 'Gud Acheis Mechitzasah'; the Tana Kama does not.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah permits a Mechitzah Teluyah between two courtyards, even
though it is not over water.
1. Rebbi Yehudah's Din may well be confined to Eruvin, which is
mi'de'Rabbanan - but not to Sucah (like Rebbi Yossi holds).
2. Rebbi Yossi's Din, on the other hand, may be confined to Sucah, which
is only a Mitzvas Asei, but not to Shabbos, which is basically an Isur
(a) It may well not have been Rebbi Yossi who permitted a Mechitzah
Teluyah one Shabbos in Tzipori - but his son, Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi
Yossi, who succeeded him.
(b) They once forgot to bring a Sefer-Torah to one of the courtyards which
had not made an Eruv. So they arranged sheets that were already hanging
there to form a Mechitzah Teluyah between the house which contained the
Sefer-Torah and the Shul. In the process, they formed a narrow Mavoy with
no Pesach leading to any other house in the Chatzer, so that there was
nobody in the 'new' Mavoy to forbid the residents of that house to carry
(c) The Gemara rejects the initial text of '*Parsu* Sadin al ha'Amudin' -
because it is only permitted to *add* to a makeshift Ohel that already
exists on Shabbos, but not to *make a new one*. Consequently, we change
the text to 'Matz'u Sadinim Perusim'.