Introduction to Eruvin

1)

(a) By Torah-law - it is only in a Reshus ha'Rabim that carrying is prohibited, and a Reshus ha'Rabim must be at least sixteen Amos wide and open at both ends (in addition, according to Rashi later, at least 600,000 people must live in the town though Rashi does not mention this here).

(b) Chazal forbade carrying in a Reshus ha'Rabim - because they were afraid that one may come to carry from the Mavuy into the Reshus ha'Rabim, or to confuse a Mavuy with a Reshus ha'Rabim, to say that just as one may carry in the one, so too may one carry in the other.

(c) One may carry in a Mavuy either by means of a Lechi (a vertical post) or a Koreh (a horizontal beam).

(d) The maximum height of a Koreh - is twenty Amos; if it is higher than that - it must be lowered (either literally, or by raising the height of the floor of the Mavuy).

(a) The entrance to a Mavuy renders the Tikun invalid if it is more than ten Amos wide - because, since entrances are not normally so wide, it is no longer called an entrance, but a breach, and a Mavuy must have an official entrance if one is to be permited to carry inside it.

(b) It is not necessary to diminish the width of the entrance - if it is made in the form of a Tzuras ha'Pesach (i.e. an upright with two side- posts).

(c) The Tana writes 'Pasul' (rather than 'Yim'at') by Sucah - because it is Pasul d'Oraysa (to say that if one made one's Sucah too tall, he has not conformed with the requirements of Sucah as told to Moshe). By Mavuy, on the other hand, the Pesul de'Rabbanan is only being taught now, and the Rabbanan are teaching it to us by telling us what to do about it. Alternatively, the Mishnah *there* prefers to say 'Pasul', because it also incorporates the other two Pesulim mentioned there in the Mishnah (thus avoiding having to use different terms for each type of Pesul).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah (in the opinion of Rav), the maximum height of a Mavuy - is forty Amos, and he learns it from the entrance of the Ulam (of the Beis-Hamikdash), which was forty Amos high.

(b) The Rabbanan learn that above twenty Amos is Pasul - from the entrance to the Heichal.

(c) According to Rav, Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan are arguing over the Pasuk in Vayikra "u'Shechato Pesach Ohel Mo'ed". The Rabbanan hold that only the Heichal is referred to as Ohel Mo'ed (and that any Avodah that had to be performed in the Heichal would be Pasul if it was performed in the Ulam). Consequently, the 'Pesach Ohel Mo'ed' refers exclusively to the twenty-Amah entrance of the Heichal; whereas, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Ulam was included in the Kedushah of the Heichal, and any Avodah which was due to be performed in the latter, was Kasher if it was performed in the former.
Consequently, 'Pesach Ohel Mo'ed' includes the Ulam, from which we see that even an entrance that is forty Amos high is still called a Pesach.

(d) In the Gemara's second answer - the Rabbanan would have agreed with Rebbi Yehudah, if the Pasuk had written "el Pesach ha'Ulam". However, now that it writes "El Pesach *Ulam ha'Bayis*", it is referring, not to the entrance of the Ulam, but to that of the Heichal leading to the Ulam (i.e. the entrance of the Heichal, which was twenty Amos tall).

(a) It is appropriate to learn Mikdash from Mishkan - because Mikdash is sometimes called Mishkan, and vice-versa.

(b) The Gemara proves this from the Din of Shelamim that were Shechted before the doors of the Heichal were opened - which is referring to Mikdash, even though the source for this is the Pasuk by Mishkan "ve'Nasati Mishkani be'Sochechem" (Bechukosai).

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asu Li Mikdash, ve'Shachanti be'Socham" (which refers to the Mishkan) - that Mishkan is sometimes called Mikdash.

(d) We cannot learn it from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Nas'u ha'Kehasim Nos'ei *ha'Mikdash* ve'Hekimu es ha'Mishkan Ad Bo'am" - because it refers, not to the Mishkan, but to the Aron, which was the most holy of all the vessels of the Mishkan.

5)

(a) We cannot learn that the maximum width of a Pesach should be twenty Amos, from the entrance of the Chatzer of the Mishkan - because the entrance of the Chatzer of the Mishkan is referred to as 'Pesach *Sha'ar he'Chatzer*', and not just a 'Pesach'.

(b) The Gemara did not ask that we should learn the *maximum* height of an entrance from the *height* of the Pesach he'Chatzer, which was five Amos - because the twenty Amos of the Pesach ha'Heichal exceeds that.

(c) What the Gemara means, when it answers that "Kela'im Chamesh-Esrei Amah el ha'Kasef" refers to the *height* of the entrance - is that the Pasuk is referring, not to the width of the entrance of the Chatzer, as we initially understood, but to the height, and that the five Amos from which we originally asked, refers to the five Amos that the Kela'im the height of the Mizbei'ach, not to their total height.

(a) The hangings of the Chatzer needed to be fifteen Amos tall - so that people who were standing outside the Chatzer, should not be able to see the Kohen doing the Avodah.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah does not make a point of arguing with the Tana of our Mishnah about the maximum *width* of a Mavuy - because he argues specifically in a Beraisa. That being the case, he is satisfied to argue in our Mishnah on the maximum height, and to rely on the Beraisa regarding his opinion regarding the maximum width.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah (in Rav's opinion), the maximum width of the entrance of a Mavuy - will be twenty Amos, just like that of the Ulam.

(d) When Bar Kaparah quotes Rebbi Yehudah as giving the maximum height of a Mavuy as a hundred Amos, we can say that he is merely exaggerating, and that in reality, Rebbi Yehudah holds that it was forty, like that of the Ulam. But why did the other Tana quoting Rebbi Yehudah, having given the height as forty Amos, see fit to add *fifty* Amos', since from the Ulam we learn that it was *forty*?

(a) When the Gemara concludes 'Ha Masnita At'isei de'Rav'- it means to say that, in actual fact, Rebbi Yehudah does not learn from the height (or the width) of the Ulam at all. So why did Rav think that it *was*? The answer is 'Ha Masnita' - this Beraisa, in which the Rabbanan learn from the measurements of *the Heichal* led Rav to believe that Rebbi Yehudah's source must be *the Ulam*.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah's true source - is the entrances to king's palaces, which were very high, certainly higher than twenty Amos. This explains why the Tana'im in the above-mentioned Beraisos quote Rebbi Yehudah the way they do (forty or fifty Amos, or a hundred Amos); both are merely giving a greater height than that of the Tana Kama, though in fact, Rebbi Yehudah's maximum height is not specified.

(a) The doors of the Heichal were not an intrinsic part of the entrance; they were only there for Tzeni'us (modesty). Therefore, we cannot learn from the Heichal that the entrance to the Mavuy has to have a door (since Tzeni'us of this nature is not applicable in a Mavoy).

(b) True, our Mishnah validates a Tzuras ha'Pesach that is more than ten Amos wide when it writes 'Ein Tzarich le'Ma'et'. - Rav however, who gives the Rabbanan's source as the entrance to the Heichal (which was ten Amos wide), changes the text to '*Tzarich* le'Ma'et'.