ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 87
ERUVIN 87 - has been dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of
Ra'anana, Israel, to the memory of his father, Yisrael Shimon ben
Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel.
(a) Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya says 'Gezuztera she'Yesh Bah Arba Amos al
Arba Amos, Chokek Bah Arba'ah Tefachim al Arba'ah Tefachim u'Memale'. This
Shiur (of twenty-four Tefachim square) leaves us the possibility of
(theoretically) cutting the ten Tefachim of wood that remain on each side
of the hole, from the hole to the end of the board and bending the wood
downwards to form four Mechitzos surrounding a hole of four Tefachim
square. These four Mechitzos Teluyos permit one to draw water via the hole
- even though the walls do not reach the level of the water (just like the
opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah).
1. Rebbi Yehudah does not necessarily agree with Rebbi Chananya ben
Akavya: it is not because he holds of 'Gud Acheis Mechitzasah' that he
also holds of both 'Kof' (bend the wall) and 'Gud Acheis' ... together.
2. Nor does Chananya ben Akavya necessarily agree with Rebbi Yehudah -
because he only said 'Gud ve'Kof' etc., by the Sea of Teverya, due to the
fact that there are already other leniencies there (i.e. the fact that it
is surrounded by a steep slope [which already acts as a Heker], and it is
surrounded by towns and enclosures); otherwise, he may well not rely on
Mechitzah Teluyah at all.
(a) If the same plank (of which Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya speaks) would be
lying on two brackets that were fixed to a wall, with the edge of the
plank within three Tefachim of the wall, it would only need to be eleven
Tefachim and a fraction of a Tefach wide by Ten Amos - because the wall
will already count as one of the Mechitzos Teluyos. Consequently, we would
only need ten Tefachim for the opposite wall, plus the Tefach and a bit
that would be needed to add to the less than three Tefachim between the
board the wall - to make up the four Tefachim of hold through which the
water will be drawn.
(b) If the board was placed ...
1. ... near the wall but vertically - it would need to be ten Tefachim
tall by six Tefachim plus two Mashehuyin, and would have to be placed four
Tefachim from the wall. Consequently, the six Tefachim and two Mashehuyin
would allow us to bend one a bit Tefachim at each end, to form a four
Tefach hole and to bring the bent ends to within three Tefachim of the
existing wall which will render them joined, due to 'Levud'.
(c) The plank in the original case of Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya must have
been placed on four poles stuck in the ground in the water. Note: As to
why we do permit drawing water, even when the board is less than four Amos
square, because of 'Pi Tikrah Yored ve'Sosem' - see Tosfos 86b, DH
2. ... within three Tefachim of a corner, rather than a wall - it would
need to be ten Tefachim tall, and two Tefachim and two Mashehuyin wide (to
bend it in the middle, one Tefach and a Mashehu towards one side of the
corner, and one Tefach and a Mashehu towards the other, leaving a four
Tefachim hole in the middle.
(a) A stream of water that passes through a Chatzer has the Din of a
Karmelis. In order to draw water from it one requires a Mechitzah that
reaches within its banks, stretching from one bank to the other, both
where it enters the courtyard and where it leaves it.
A stream of water that is less than ten Tefachim deep and four Tefachim
wide - is not a Reshus on its own. Consequently, it adopts the status of the Reshus through which it passes. If it passes through ...
(b) A Mechitzah Teluyah only helps when it is clear that the Mechitzah was
made especially for that purpose (such as the case of the pit in our
Mishnah), but not here, where it would not.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Mechitzah Teluyah does not need to be made
specially for that purpose. Consequently, even the wall of the Chatzer
will be effective, too.
(d) The Rabbanan counter that the Mechitzah Teluyah that was erected over
stream of Avel was effectives only because it was not ten Tefachim deep
and four Tefachim wide, so that it was not a Karmelis.
1. ... a Reshus ha'Rabim - it is considered a Reshus ha'Rabim.
2. ... a Reshus ha'Yachid - it is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(a) If a stream passes by the windows of a series of houses in a Mavoy or
a Chatzer - the Tana Kama permits drawing water from the stream and
placing the bucket on the bank outside his window, provided it is less
than three Tefachim wide; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permits it as long as
it is not than *four*. The basis of their argument is what measurement
constitutes a Makom Petur.
(b) The Gemara rejects the suggestion that they are arguing about the
width of the stream - because then they would be arguing over the
dimensions of a Karmelis, whereas we presume Rebbi Yochanan's description
of a Karmelis as four by four Tefachim to be unanimous.
(c) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids using a Makom Petur to switch
from one Reshus to another - by Reshuyos d'Oraysa, whereas we are now
permitting it by Reshuyos de'Rabbanan (i.e. where even if he were to carry
directly, there would be no Isur d'Oraysa involved.
(a) When the Gemara quotes Rebbi Yochanan (above [77a], who permits the
residents of both courtyards to use a wall that is not four Tefachim wide,
provided they do not switch from one Chatzer to the other -even when they
are not Reshuyos d'Oraysa) - it is quoting the opinion of Zeiri in Rebbi
Yochanan; whereas Rebbi Yochanan in our Sugya, which permits switching by
Reshuyos de'Rabbanan, is quoted by Rav Dimi.
According to Ravina, the three and four Tefachim of the Tana Kama and
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel respectively, do not concern the width of the
stream, or even the width of the banks; they are arguing about the
Mechitzos that were put up at both the entrance and at the exit of the
stream, which were made of two sections with a gap in between: According
to the Tana Kama, a gap of three Tefachim is no longer considered joined
(because we only say 'Levud' until three Tefachim); whereas according to
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, we say Levud up to four Tefachim. (as we learnt
above on Daf 9a).
(b) Zeiri establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel in the Beraisa by the width of the stream. The basis of their
dispute is what are the dimensions of a Karmelis (the very explanation
that we rejected, in 5b).
(c) When the Gemara asks 've'Tehavi Ki Chorei Karmelis'? - it means to ask
that, even if the stream does *not* have the dimensions of a Karmelis, it
should still have the Din of a Karmelis, due to the fact that before it
reaches the town, the stream is presumed to have been ten Tefachim deep
and four Tefachim wide, in which case its continuation should be termed
'Chorei Karmelis' which (like the Din of Chorei Reshus ha'Rabim, which
have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim), should have the Din of a Karmelis?
(d) Rav Ashi says that even if there is a Din of Chorin by a Karmelis on
principle, that is only if they are close to the actual Karmelis (such as
the holes in a wall which adjoins a Karfaf of more than a Beis Sasayim),
but not here, where the part of the stream in question is so far away from
the part which is a Karmelis.
(a) A horizontal ledge suspended above the water will not permit one to
draw water on Shabbos, according to the Tana of our Mishnah - because
although he holds of 'Gud Acheis Mechitzasah' even by a Mechitzah
Teluyah), he does not hold of 'Kof ve'Gud' (like Chananya ben Akavya
(b) A Mechitzah of ten Tefachim must therefore be attached to the ledge,
either above it or below it.
(c) Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya permitted the men of Teverya to wrap with
Atza (the waste of legumes) - even though they collected it from the
fields early in the morning when it was covered with dew, and dew is one
of the seven liquids which is Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah. The reason for this
is because dew is only Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah when one is initially
pleased with it and wants it; Whereas the men of Teverya did not go out
early because they wanted the dew, but because by collecting the Atza
early in the morning, they would save themselves the need to interrupt
their work later in the day. In fact, they were indifferent towards the
(a) The third concession of Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya to the men of
Teverya - was to permit them to dry themselves with a towel (though it is
not clear in which way this is a special concession, considering that it
appears to be unanimously accepted).
(b) Rebbi Shimon even permits one to carry the towel home after the bath
(assuming that an Eruv exists in the town), and not to be obligated to
place it on the window-sill like the Tana Kama.
(c) The Tana Kama forbids carrying the towel home on the grounds that one
may come to wring out the towel.
(d) Chazal forbade giving the towel to the bath-attendants - because the
bath-attendants were suspected of wringing them out.