REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 6
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) Rav Chanin bar Rava quotes Rav as saying 'Mavuy she'Nifratz mi'Tzido
be'Eser, me'Rosho be'Arba'ah'.
What is meant by the first part of the
statement? Where exactly, is the breach?
(b) What is meant by the second part of the statement?
(c) Seeing as a breach of up to ten Amos at the side of the Mavoy is Kasher
(because it is considered an entrance), why should it not also be considered
part of the entrance when it is at the front of the Mavoy?
(d) Rav Huna disagrees with Rav Chanin bar Rava. According to him, both
invalidate the Mavoy if they are four Tefachim. He attempts to prove his
point from Rav, who once arrived in Damcharyah, where he disqualified a
Mavoy because of a breach of four Tefachim in one of its side walls. How
did Rav Chanin bar Rava refute that proof?
(a) The Gemara tries to prove Rav Huna's Din following case: If two
Mavo'os leading off from two main roads (or from a bent Reshus ha'Rabim)
meet at right angles (to form a square or a rectangle with the two sections
of main road from which they branch off), they have a Din of a Mavoy
Mefulash according to Rav, and of a Mavoy Sasum according to Shmuel.
According to Rav Chanin bar Rava, Rav considers the Mavoy to be a Mefulash
due to a breach at the side, because it is open to the Reshus ha'Rabim, and
therefore accessible to the people street; whereas Rebbi Ami and
Rebbi Asi, who permitted a breach in the side of a Mavuy up to ten Amos, are
speaking when it is not accessible to the people street. How does
Rav Huna, who disqualifies even a breach of four Tefachim when it is *not*
accessible to the people street, explain Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi's
are the ramifications of ...
(b) Why must the Mavu'os be less than ten Amos wide?
- ... Rav's interpretation?
- ... Shmuel's interpretation (according to Rashi's original explanation)?
(c) How does this prove Rav Huna's opinion?
(d) How does Rav Chanin bar Rava reject this proof?
(a) Which four conditions are required for a street to be called a Reshus
Answers to questions
(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, one makes an Eruv in a Reshus
ha'Rabim by arranging a Tzuras ha'Pesach at the one end and Lechi or a Koreh
at the other. Chananyah quotes a Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
(c) The Gemara concludes that it is not possible to permit a Reshus ha'Rabim
through an Eruv (except by encircling the town with walls. What then, is
the Beraisa talking about?
- ... Beis Shamai ...
- ... Beis Hillel hold?
(a) 'Yeser al Ken Amar Rebbi Yehudah: Mi she'Hayah Sh'nei Batim mi'Sh'nei
Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim' etc.
What Halachah is Rebbi Yehudah teaching here?
(b) What was his previous Chidush, to which he adds 'Yeser al Ken'?
(c) What did the Rabbanan say to Rebbi Yehudah?
(d) How do we know that the Rabbanan were not just disqualifying a Reshus
ha'Rabim that is rectified *in this way*, but that one *can* permit a Reshus
ha'Rabim by means of a door at one end and a Lechi or a Koreh at the other
(like Beis Hillel)?
(a) Why was one not Chayav for carrying in Yerushalayim on Shabbos?
(b) What Din did Yerushalayim have? What sort of Reshus was it?
(a) According to Chananyah in Beis Hillel, does the door of the Mavuy need
to be shut for the Eruv to be effective?
(b) Why is there no proof from Neherda'a, whose doors could not be shut due
to the large amount of dust that had accumulated there - whilst Shmuel (who
was Rav of Neherda'a) said nothing?
(c) Rav Nachman answered that they cleared away the dust.
What does he mean
(a) Regarding the bent Mavuy in Neherda'a, they followed the Chumra of Rav
and the Chumra of Shmuel.
(b) What do we learn Pasuk in Koheles "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech
- Which Chumra of Rav?
- Which Chumra of Shmuel?
(c) Why does that leave us with a Kashya on the Poskim of Neherda'a?
(a) The Beraisa seems to contradict itself, when it first writes 'Le'olam
Halachah ke'Beis Hillel', and then 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai,
Oseh'. The Gemara first answers that the first statement was made after the
Bas-Kol, the second, before the Bas-Kol.
Answers to questions
What did the Bas-Kol announce?
(b) Is it possible to explain the Beraisa by establishing both statements
*after* the Bas-Kol?
(c) In the Gemara's third answer, how does the Gemara interpret the
statement 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai, Oseh'?