ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf
Eruvin 23
|
ERUVIN 21, 22, 23, & 25 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.
|
Questions
1)
Had Shmuel only ruled like Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava - we would have thought
that he permits all public water, even that of public pits (and that Rebbi
Yehudah ben Bava restricted his statement to public *wells* (and not pits),
not to exclude public pits, but because he was referring to Rebbi Akiva, who
permitted even *private* ones. That is why Shmuel needed to issue his second
ruling (restricting Pasei Bira'os to wells of spring-water).
On the other hand, had he ruled only that Pasei Bira'os are restricted to
wells of spring-water - we would have thought that this applies even to
*private* wells. That is why it was necessary for him to rule like Rebbi
Yehudah ben Bava, who permits Pasei Bira'os only by *public* ones.
2)
(a) Rebbi Yehudah permits carrying in a walled garden or enclosure which is
seventy and two thirds Amos square - provided it contains either a guard's
hut or a dwelling, or it is close to the city (so that his mind is on it
constantly, making it 'Hukaf le'Dirah').
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, none of the above are required - as long as it
is seventy Amos and two thirds square, carrying there is permitted.
(c) Rebbi Yossi permits carrying in an area of seventy Amos and two thirds
square - even if it is not square, provided it is not more than twice as
long as it is wide.
(d) Rebbi Ila'i also heard from Rebbi Eliezer - that if one of the members
of the Chatzer forgot to make an Eruv, the other members - who remembered,
are permitted to carry from his house to theirs, and vice-versa.
3)
The reason that Rebbi Yehudah's second statement (that a Reshus ha'Rabim
that runs through Pasei Bira'os negates the concession of Pasei Bira'os)
does not begin with word 've'Od' - is because the Rabbanan, who answered
him, introduced a concept not mentioned by him (they said to him 'Lo Amru
Beis Sasayim Ela le'Ginah u'le'Karfaf' etc., which has nothing to do with
Pasei Bira'os, about which he was speaking). Whereas in the first Mishnah of
both Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava and Rebbi Eliezer, the Rabbanan did not do that;
therefore, in their second statements, they began with the word 've'Od'.
23b---------------------------------------23b
Questions
4)
(a) A Beis Sasayim is a fraction more than seventy and two thirds Amos
square. The Tana Kama permits carrying in an area of a Beis Sasayim, whereas
Rebbi Akiva permits only up to seventy and two thirds Amos square.
(b) The Chatzer ha'Mishkan - was a Beis Sasayim, fifty by a hundred Amos.
(c) When the Torah writes "ve'Rochav Chamishim ba'Chamishim" - it means that
one should place the Mishkan at the edge of fifty Amos, leaving fifty Amos
empty in front of it, and twenty Amos on each of the other three sides.
(d) The Davar Mu'at that distinguishes between Rebbi Akiva's seventy Amos
plus two thirds square and the Tana Kama's Beis Sasayim is - .05 Amah (the
difference between 70.66 and 70.71 - the square root of 100 times 50 Amos).
5)
(a) We amend Rebbi Eliezer's statement to read - 'Im Haysah Orkah Yeser al
Pi Shenayim be'Rochbah' ...
(b) Rebbi Eliezer holds that if the length of the Karfaf is more than double
its width, one may not carry there. However, this Din is derived
Chatzer ha'Mishkan; there is no Din however, that requires its length and
width to be the same. Consequently, as long as the length is not twice its
width, one may carry there Lechatchilah; whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi,
the Karfaf really ought to be a square, and if it is even only slightly
longer than it is wide, it is not ideal - though it is not Pasul unless its
length is more than twice its width - according to both opinions.
6)
Both ruling like Rebbi Yossi and ruling like Rebbi Akiva are leniencies, and
both are necessary - because had the Gemara ruled only Rebbi Yossi, we would
have thought that one may only carry there when there is a guard's-hut or a
dwelling - that is why it was necessary to rule like Rebbi Akiva. On the
other hand, had the Gemara ruled like Rebbi Akiva, we would have thought
that the Karfaf must be square - so they ruled like Rebbi Yossi, to teach us
that one may carry there, even when it is *not*.
7)
(a) Sowing seeds in an enclosure of more than a Beis Sasayim that is
attached to a dwelling - renders it no longer residential - since people do
not usually sow seeds in their places of residence; whereas planting trees
does not - because it is normal to plant trees in one's place of residence.
(b) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, the above Chumra of more
than a Beis Sasayim that is sown, will not apply if the sown section of the
enclosure is exactly a Beis Sasayim - since carrying in a Karfaf of a Beis
Sasayim is permitted even when it is not attached to a dwelling).
(c) We initially establish this statement of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua
like Rebbi Shimon - because otherwise, the sown area (a Karfaf) and the un-
sown area (a Chatzer) would forbid each other to carry in either, since they
open into each other completely. And it is Rebbi Shimon who permits carrying
there, because, since both areas belong to one person, they are all
considered like one Reshus.
(d) Rebbi Shimon permits carrying Karfaf to the Chatzer and vice-
versa - only as regards vessels which were lying in either of the two
Reshuyos when Shabbos entered, but not vessels that were carried on Shabbos
house to either Reshus.
8)
(a) The problem with the above statement (which permits carrying in the
unsown (minority) section of the area of more than a Beis Sasayim, since the
sown section is not more than a Beis Sasayim) - is that, even according to
Rebbi Shimon, the small un-sown section should be Batel to the majority of
the area which *is* sown, which means that he is being permitted to carry in
an area which is more than a Beis Sasayim which is not Hukaf le'Dirah?
(b) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, who adds that *that* only applies if the
minority was *less* than a Beis Sasayim, but if it was a Beis Sasayim, it is
Asur - holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon, who maintain that each
domain is independent, and one is forbidden to carry there, even though
there is nobody living there.
(c) Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti learns that Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua adds to
the initial statement ('Ha Mi'uta Shari'), that *that* speaks by a Beis
Sasayim (like Rebbi Shimon), but by more than a Beis Sasayim, it will be
Asur to carry there (even according to Rebbi Shimon, as we explained in the
previous question).
Next daf
|