Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 53

1) "ME'ABRIN" OR "ME'ABRIN"?

QUESTION: The Mishnah describes how we "extend (Me'abrin) the cities" in order to determine the boundaries of the Techum Shabbos. The Gemara says that Rav and Shmuel argue whether the word "Me'abrin" in the Mishnah is spelled with an Ayin or with an Alef. According to the opinion that it is spelled with an Alef, it means extending the city by "adding appendages to it" (from the word "Ever," limb). According to the opinion that it is spelled with an Ayin, it means extending the city like the body of "a pregnant woman" (from the word "Ubrah," pregnant).

Rebbi Yochanan stated that the one thing that he learned as a youth from Rebbi Oshiyah was that the word "Me'abrin" is spelled with an Alef.

What difference does it make how the world is spelled?

ANSWER: The TORAS CHAIM explains that there is a difference in Halachah which depends on how the word "Me'abrin" in the Mishnah is spelled. The Gemara later (55b) says that a group of huts does not qualify as a city in order for its Techum to be measured from the outermost hut, because huts are not considered permanent dwelling places. Rather, each hut is viewed independently and has its own Techum. What is the Halachah if such huts were located on the outskirts of a real city (within 70 2/3rds Amos)? Would those huts be considered the border of the city from which the extension is measured, or, since they are not permanent dwelling places, they would not be considered part of the city and the city's extension would be measured from the last permanent house in the city?

According to the opinion that "Me'abrin" is spelled with an "Alef," the huts would not count as part of the city. Just like a limb is a permanent appendage on the body, so, too, the houses from which we measure the extension of the city must be permanent. On the other hand, the opinion which says that "Me'abrin" is spelled with an Ayin would permit measuring the extension from the huts, because only a temporary dwelling place is needed in order to determine the city's extension. Just like a pregnant woman's "extension" is only temporary, so, too, may the extension of a city be measured from a temporary structure.

QUESTION: The Gemara cites three more argument between Rav and Shmuel (see previous Insight).

(1) They argue whether "Machpelah" means that the Cave of Machpelah ("doubled cave") was two stories high, or that it was the burial place for "doubled" couples.
(2) They argue whether Nimrod's real name was Amrafel and he was merely called Nimrod, or his real name was Nimrod and he was called Amrafel.
(3) They argue whether the Pharaoh that reigned in Egypt after the death of Yosef was a new king, or was the same king who made new decrees against the Jews.

What difference does it make in each of these cases?

ANSWER: The TORAS CHAIM answers that there is a Halachic difference in each of the arguments.

(1) If someone tells his friend that he is selling him a "doubled" burial cave, the first opinion would hold that he is obligated to give him a cave with one plot above another plot, and the second opinion would hold that he is obligated to give him a cave that is large enough to hold four couples (like the Cave of Machpelah).

(2) One is not allowed to name his child by the name of a wicked person. If Nimrod's real name was not Nimrod but Amrafel, then one may name his child Nimrod, but not Amrafel. If his real name was Nimrod, he may name his child Amrafel, but not Nimrod.

(3) If someone sells to his friend a "new" house, according to the first opinion, he is obligated to give him a newly built house. According to the second opinion, he may give his friend an old house that was made to look like new.

[I] QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel argue about the meaning of the word "Machpelah" ("doubled"). One says that it means that the Cave of Machpelah was one room *on top* of another, and the other opinion says that it means that there were two rooms, one *behind* the other. The Gemara says that the word "Machpelah" implies that it was one room on top of another (that is, it was *discernibly* doubled when viewed from the outside). If so, how does the other opinion understand the word "Machpelah?" The Gemara answers that the other opinion holds that "Machpelah" means that it was the burial place for "doubled" couples.

How, then, does that opinion know that the cave of Machpelah was one room behind another, if the word "Machpelah" does not mean that (MAHARSHA)?

ANSWERS:

(a) RAV ELIEZER MOSHE HA'LEVI HOROWITZ answers that the one who says that the Cave of Machpelah was one room behind another *rescinded* his opinion, and instead maintains that "Machpelah" means that it was a cave for couples. He adds that the word "Ela" -- "rather" -- should be inserted into the text of the Gemara, to indicate a change of opinion. (The TORAS CHAIM also says that this opinion changed its mind, but he does not require the word "Ela" to be added to the Gemara, since the word Ela is often omitted when no question was asked by an Amora.)

RASHI on the Chumash (Bereishis 23:9) gives two explanations for the word "Machpelah," which seem to be the two opinions in our Gemara. First, he says that it means one room on top of another. Alternatively, it means a burial place for couples. Rashi seems to understand the Gemara like Rav Eliezer Moshe ha'Levi Horowitz, that one opinion changed its mind (this is how the SIFSEI CHACHAMIM understands Rashi).

(b) The SEFAS EMES answers that this opinion did not change its mind. Rather, he knew from a *tradition* that the Cave of Machpelah was one room behind another room, and he therefore interpreted the word "Machpelah" to mean a burial place for couples. (Accordingly, the Sefas Emes explains that Rashi on the Chumash did not learn that one opinion changed its mind. Rather, the two opinions had different traditions what the Cave of Machpelah looked like. They both agree, though, that the word "Machpelah" means a burial place for couples, but according to the first opinion the word "Machpelah" has another connotation as well, that it was one room on top of another.)

(c) Perhaps it was ordinary practice to bury each group in separate rooms. If there were many pairs buried in the Me'arah, then they were obviously buried in different rooms; hence, "one room within another room."

(d) It is interesting to note that there are other ways entirely of understanding the words "Me'aras ha'Machpelah." The RAMBAN (ad loc.) says that "Machpelah" must be the name of the area where the field and cave were located, as is clear from the verse later on ("Me'aras Sedeh ha'Machpelah." v. 17), and there is no need to search for deeper meanings of the word to understand the simple intention of the verse. (According to the Ramban, our Gemara is perhaps explaining why the Torah found it necessary to tell us the name of the cave.) Secondly, RAV ELIE MUNK zt'l (in "Call to the Torah") cites the Zohar (I:129a) which implies that "Machpelah" means the *counterpart* burial place of the body in this world. That is, just as the *Neshamah* ascends to its final place beneath the Divine throne, so, too, the *bodies* of the Avos are buried in a corresponding place -- the Cave of Machpelah.

53b

QUESTION: Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah relates an incident that he was once lodging as a guest at the inn of certain woman. The first two days, he did not leave over a portion of the food from his plate. The third day the hostess spoiled his food. When he did not eat from it, she asked him why he was not eating. She then said to him that even though the Chachamim taught that one does not leave over food in the pot in which it cooks, one does leave over food in one's plate so that the attending waiter will have something to eat.

The MAHARSHA asks why did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah in fact not leave food over on his plate? Did he not know this Halachah of Derech Eretz? Secondly, why was the hostess so upset that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah did not leave food on his plate for the attendant? Of what concern was it to her?

ANSWERS:

(a) RAV YAKOV EMDEN answers that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah thought that the attendant had already left food for himself in the pot, and that is why Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah did not leave food in his plate for the attendant. The hostess became upset because the attendant was coming to her to complain that he was not getting his share from the guest's plate, and she, as well, was not leaving over food in the pot for him, because she expected Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah to leave over some food from his plate. That is why she said both Halachos -- that one does not leave over food in the pot (and therefore, she did not leave food for the attendant in the pot), and that one should leave food on one's plate (and she expected Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah to leave over some food).

(b) The YAD BINYAMIN answers that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah thought that the requirement to leave food on one's plate applies only when there is an attendant. Here, there was no attendant; the hostess herself made the food and was serving it. Since she made the food, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananyah did not leave any food over on his plate, because he assumed that she was taking her share from the pot. She became upset because she felt that, as an attendant, she still deserved the left-over portion from the plate, since she followed the dictum of the Chachamim that one does not leave over food in the pot.