Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 10

10b

QUESTION: If the opening of a Mavoy is 20 Amos wide (which is too wide to permit carrying in the Mavoy with a Lechi or Korah), Shmuel in the name of Levi says that one should place a board that is four Tefachim long and ten Tefachim high in the middle of the opening in order to split the opening into two smaller entrances. TOSFOS (DH Oseh) asks that by placing the board there, one effectively makes the Mavoy into a Mavoy Akum, a bent Mavoy (see Insights to 6:2). If there is more than ten Amos between the far end of the board and the end of the Mavoy, it should need a Tzuras ha'Pesach in the bend even according to Shmuel (see Gemara 6a). Why is this Mavoy not treated like a Mavoy Akum?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Oseh) answers that our Gemara is dealing with a case in which there is *less* than ten Amos between the end of the board and the end of the Mavoy, and therefore the bend does not need a Tzuras ha'Pesach according to Shmuel (the author of the statement in our Gemara). (Tosfos argues with the teachers of Rashi who require a Lechi in the bend according to Shmuel, see Insights to 6:1). If there were ten Amos between the Mechitzah and the end of the Mavoy, though, Tosfos maintains that the bend would require a Tzuras ha'Pesach.

(b) The ROSH and TUR (OC 363) rule, like Tosfos, that if there were less than 10 Amos between the end of the board and the end of the Mavoy no Tzuras ha'Pesach is required. However, this ruling is problematic, since they also rule in accordance with *Rav*, who requires a Tzuras ha'Pesach even in a Mavoy Akum with less than 10 Amos in its bend! (BEIS YOSEF) The TAZ (363:26) explains the opinion of the Rosh and Tur as follows. Normally, a Mavoy Akum consists of *one long Mavoy* with a bend in middle. In the case we are discussing, though, the board in the middle serves as a *wall* that completely divides the two Mavoys, along their entire length (except for the few Amos at their end). In this case, we are clearly dealing with two separate Mavoys which have an entranceway leading from one to the other, rather than with a single Mavoy Akum. Therefore, no Tzuras ha'Pesach is required in the bend. (If, however, the distance from the end of the board to the wall at the end of the Mavoy is ten Amos, then that break is too large to be considered a doorway from one Mavoy into the other. It is considered a Mavoy Akum and needs a Tzuras ha'Pesach even according to the Rosh.)

(c) The RITZBA (cited by Tosfos) says that the Mavoy of our Gemara, it is not judged to be a Mavoy Akum because both openings of the Mavoy are next to each other, and leading into the *same* Reshus ha'Rabim. (He understands that the two entrances of the the Mavoy Akum that was in Neherda'a (Daf 6b) opened into two *different* Reshuyos ha'Rabim.)

(d) The RITVA explains that the board cannot make the Mavoy into a Mavoy Akum. It is not placed in the Mavoy in order to divide it into *two* Mavoys. Rather, it merely serves as a Heker to *split the entrance* and create two *doorways*.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 363:33) rules in accordance with the opinion of Tosfos (a), and thus a Mavoy with an entrance 20 Amos wide that was split by a board at least four Tefachim long is considered like a Mavoy Akum. Since we rule that a Mavoy Akum needs a Tzuras ha'Pesach in its bend, such a Mavoy must have a Tzuras ha'Pesach.

The REMA cites the opinion of the Rosh (b), who does not require a Tzuras ha'Pesach in the bend, but the MISHNAH BERURAH (363:143) says in the name of the Acharonim (MAGEN AVRAHAM etc.) that the Halachah follows the first opinion (that of Tosfos).

(The BI'UR HALACHAH, however, explains that there is logical ground to follow the opinion of the Rosh (b), who requires a Tzuras ha'Pesach only when there is more than 10 Amos between the end of the board and the end of the Mavoy, and perhaps even to follow the opinion of the Ritzba (c) and Ritva (d), who never require a Tzuras ha'Pesach for such a Mavoy.)