Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 84

1) THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN RAV AND SHMUEL: " SHILSHUL" vs. "ZERIKAH"

QUESTION: When more than one Chatzer share a particular domain, the rule is that the use of the domain is allotted to the Chatzer which has the least difficulty in using in it. Rav and Shmuel (83b) argue concerning a case where the members of one Chatzer can use a certain domain only by throwing ("Zerikah") objects up onto it, and the members of an adjacent Chatzer can use that domain only by lowering ("Shilshul") objects down onto it. Who is considered to have the easier use of that domain? Rav says that both Zerikah and Shilshul are difficult ways to use the domain, and therefore the two Chatzeros have equal use of the area and thus the area is forbidden for both of them to carry into on Shabbos. Shmuel maintains that Shilshul is an easier way to use an area that Zerikah, and thus the Chatzer which can use it through Shilshul is given exclusive rights to it.

The Gemara (84a) asks from the Mishnah (83b) which says that the usage of a mound of dirt around a pit, and a large rock, which are ten Tefachim high is given to the residents of the balcony. Even though the residents of the balcony are able to use the top of the mound only by lowering things onto it, this is considered an easier usage than that of the residents of the Chatzer, who have to throw things onto the top of the mound. This seems to refute the opinion of Rav.

What is the Gemara's question? The Mishnah is discussing the use of the top of the *mound* around the pit, and not to the inside of the pit itself. The residents of the balcony do not have to lower anything down!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RITVA answers in the name of Tosfos (a different Tosfos than the one in our Gemara) that it cannot be that the Mishnah is referring to the use of the mound around the pit, because the normal mound does not have a width of four Tefachim at the top. It cannot become forbidden because it is like a Makom Petur and is subordinate to both sides, to the Chatzer and to the balcony. The Mishnah must be referring, then, to the inside of the pit.

(b) The RITVA gives a second answer. It must be permitted for the residents of the balcony to use the inside of the pit itself. It they were prohibited to use the pit, they would also be prohibited to use the mound around it since the usage of the mound is subordinate to the pit (since the primary structure and area of use is the pit). It must be that it is permitted to use the pit, even though they must lower things into it.

(c) The GA'ON YAKOV answers that the Gemara understands that when the Mishnah says "the mound around a pit or a rock" it must be referring to using the *inside* of the pit. If the Mishnah were referring only to the mound around the pit, that would be the same as the case of a large rock, and the Mishnah would not have to mention both of them.

QUESTION: The Beraisa says that when there is a wall separating a Chatzer from an Aliyah (a second story), the residents of the Chatzer may use the bottom ten Tefachim of the wall, and the residents of the Aliyah may use the upper ten Tefachim. The Beraisa explains that this Halachah applies when there is a ledge protruding from the wall. When it is within ten Tefachim of the bottom of the wall, the residents of the Chatzer may use it, and when it is within ten Tefachim of the top of the wall, the residents of the Aliyah may use it. This implies that when the ledge is exactly between the bottom ten Tefachim and the top ten Tefachim of the wall, it is forbidden to be used by both the Chatzer and the Aliyah.

This is a question on the opinion of Shmuel, who says that when one domain (the Aliyah) can use the ledge through Shilshul, and the other domain (the Chatzer) can use it only through Zerikah, the Aliyah gets exclusive rights to the ledge. The Beraisa, though, implies that the ledge may not be used by either domain, like Rav says.

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is referring to a wall that is 19 Tefachim high, where there is no space in between the top ten Tefachim and the lower ten Tefachim. Therefore, we cannot infer from the Beraisa anything about a case where one domain can use the ledge through Shilshul and the other through Zerikah.

(a) If the wall is 19 Tefachim high, then when the ledge is 9 1/2 Tefachim off of the ground, it is within the Aliyah's ten Tefachim. In such a case, both the Aliyah and the Chatzer are within ten Tefachim of and have use of the ledge. If so, the ledge should be forbidden to be used because it is shared by two domains. Why, then, does the Seifa of the Beraisa state that "if the ledge is below 10 Tefachim it goes to the *Chatzer*?" The ledge should have to be below *9* Tefachim for the Chatzer to use it!

(b) Similarly, why does it say in the beginning of the Beraisa that the residents of the Aliyah may use [the ledge when it is in] the upper ten Tefachim, and the residents of the Chatzer may use [the ledge when it is in] the lower ten Tefachim? It is not true -- they may each use only *nine* Tefachim, because the tenth is shared by both (since it is the tenth from above and the tenth from below)!

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA answers that when the Beraisa says "when the ledge is below ten Tefachim it may be used by the Chatzer," it does not mean below ten Tefachim from the ground, but below ten Tefachim *from the Aliyah*. Consequently, none of the ten Tefachim is a shared domain. But when the Beraisa says "when the ledge is *above* ten Tefachim it may be used by the Aliyah," it indeed means above ten Tefachim from the *ground*.

This, however, does not address our second question, since the beginning of the Beraisa says explicitly that the people of the Chatzer use the "ten lower Tefachim."

(b) The RASHASH answers the second question. When the first part of the Beraisa says that the residents of the Chatzer use the lower ten Tefachim, it does not mean that they *may* use the ten lower Tefachim on Shabbos, but that the fact is that they *tend* to use the ten lower Tefachim during the week. Similarly, the people in the Aliyah *tend* to use the upper 10 Tefachim. Because they both tend to use the tenth Tefach, the Beraisa concludes, it becomes prohibited for both to use it on Shabbos without an Eruv. That is, the Reisha is not presenting a Halachah, but introducing the case.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that two surfaces of different areas that are within ten Tefachim of each other are considered to be one and the same area. The Gemara demonstrates this from a statement of Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel regarding a case of a roof next to a Reshus ha'Rabim. Shmuel said, "A roof next to Reshus ha'Rabim requires a permanent ladder to permit [the Chatzer] to use it."

What exactly is this case referring to? What are the two surfaces that are within ten Tefachim of each other? Furthermore, why is it that the people in Reshus ha'Rabim prohibit the residents of the Chatzer from using the roof? Finally, how does it allow the residents of the Chatzer to use the roof when they lean a ladder against the roof in a permanent fashion?

RASHI explains that the Gemara is discussing a building that is at the edge of a Chatzer, with its back adjacent to Reshus ha'Rabim. The building is girdled by a balcony, which has a fence around it with an opening of less than ten Amos wide facing Reshus ha'Rabim.

Rashi explains that the roof is within ten Tefachim of the *balcony* (above the balcony), and the balcony is within ten Tefachim of the *Reshus ha'Rabim* (above Reshus ha'Rabim). The Gemara is attempting to show that the people of Reshus ha'Rabim -- by virtue of their presence within ten Tefachim of the balcony -- are considered to be as if they are living on the balcony, and therefore they may use the roof -- which is within ten Tefachim of the balcony -- from the Reshus ha'Rabim. That is, even though there is more than ten Tefachim from the Reshus ha'Rabim to the roof, they are considered to be within ten Tefachim of the roof. Since the people of Reshus ha'Rabim have use of the roof, the roof is prohibited to the residents of the Chatzer.

Why does a permanent ladder permit the Chatzer to use the roof? If they erect a temporary ladder from the balcony to the roof, on the side facing the Chatzer, then those who live on the second story (where the balcony is) are able to reach the roof and use it. This is a way of "staking a claim" on the roof, and showing that they intend to use it, which would prohibit the people of Reshus ha'Rabim from using it. However, a temporary ladder does not show that they are claiming the roof as theirs, and therefore they need a permanent ladder. A permanent ladder shows that they want to use the roof on a regular basis, and then it becomes prohibited for the Reshus ha'Rabim to use the roof because they would be trespassing on private property.

No mention is made in the Gemara of this balcony that Rashi says is included in the case. Indeed, Rashi mentions that some learn that there is only a roof and a Reshus ha'Rabim next to it, within ten Tefachim of each other (and Rabeinu Tam in Tosfos learns like that as well). Rashi, though, says that that cannot be the case, because if the roof is within ten Tefachim of Reshus ha'Rabim, then it is a Karmelis, and no matter how many ladders are placed there, it remains forbidden to carry from the Chatzer (a Reshus ha'Yachid) to the roof (a Karmelis). Rather, it must be that there is an unmentioned balcony between the roof and the ground. The roof itself is more than ten Tefachim from the ground and thus it is not a Karmelis.

QUESTION: Rashi explains that the *balcony* does not become a Karmelis because it has a fence around it (with a small break). Why, then, does Rashi insist that if there had been no balcony and the roof itself was within ten Tefachim of the ground, that roof would have been a Karmelis? Rashi should have answered that there is a fence around the roof, making it a Reshus ha'Yachid and *not* a Karmelis! (NACHAL ARAVIM; Rabbeinu Tam actually suggests that that is the case in the Gemara.)

ANSWER: Apparently, if the roof would have a fence, the fence itself would prevent the people of Reshus ha'Rabim from using it, and would stake a claim for the residents of the Chatzer to have exclusive use of the roof. A fence around the roof would serve the same function as a permanent ladder. Now that the roof has no fence, it is available for the people of Reshus ha'Rabim to use. With regard to the balcony, on the other hand, even though it has a fence, the fence does not stake a claim on the *roof* for the residents of the Chatzer, only on the balcony. Even though the people of Reshus ha'Rabim do not have use of the balconly due to the fence, nevertheless they are considered to be within 10 Tefachim of the roof simply because they are, Halachically, in the same Reshus as the balcony (i.e. in a Reshus which is within 10 Tefachim of the balcony). Since it is in the same Reshus as Reshus ha'Rabim, the people of Reshus ha'Rabim are thus considered to be within 10 Tefachim of the roof.

(b) The NACHAL ARAVIM answers that indeed, Rashi could have said that we were discussing a roof without a balcony, and that the roof has a fence around it (taking away its status of a Karmelis). However, he felt that it is farfetched to say that the roof has a fence around it when Shmuel did not mention anything about a fence. (Even though Rashi himself says that the *balcony* has a fence around it -- and Shmuel made no mention of a balcony or of a fence -- that was just a Hava Amina in the Gemara, and therefore the Gemara could suggest that as a forced interpretation. In the Gemara's conclusion, though, Rashi prefers not to say that the roof has a fence around it since Shmuel did not mention a fence.

84b