Daf Ditty Eruvin 25: Genetic Curses
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Daf Ditty Eruvin 25: Genetic Curses 1 The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rava and Rabbi Zeira dispute the same point that was the subject of dispute between Rav and Shmuel. These amora’im disagreed about the following, as it was stated: With regard to an enclosed veranda [akhsadra], which is a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, in a field that has the status of a karmelit, Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, as it is considered a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits. The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, since we say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the enclosed veranda on all sides; consequently, it is considered a separate private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and closes up the enclosed veranda. 2 Jastrow The Gemara rejects this argument: If the roof in the covered section of the karpef were made like an enclosed veranda whose roof is level, indeed, both Rava and Rabbi Zeira would agree that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the area. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the roof is made like a hammock, i.e., slanted, and therefore one cannot say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and encloses the area. 3 Our Daf 1 introduces the concept of “pi tikra yored v'sosem” (literally: the lip of a roof comes down and closes; see also 94b). 1 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20025.pdf 4 The principle, as defined in the Shulchan Aruch, (Orach Chaim, 361:2), is that when a roof is at least four tefachim by four tefachim and set atop two complete walls, we view the thickness of the roof as an imaginary wall for the remaining two sides. (To employ the principle of pi tikra the structure must have two walls adjacent to each other connecting at a corner, not two parallel walls, see Rama, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 361:2). In one of the early works on eruvin in modern cities, the Tikvas Zecharia, Rabbi Zecharia Rosenfeld, the first Chief Rabbi of St. Louis, notes that telegraph poles often support a thicket of wires at their tops. These wires are well within three tefachim of each other. Viewing them, halachically, as connected, allows one to consider the thicket as a roof. One could then apply the principle of pi tikra yored v’sosem to them. In practice, however, Rabbi Rosenfeld does not utilize this approach in sanctioning the use of the telegraph poles and wires as halachic walls, preferring instead the already accepted trend to view them as comprising tzuros ha'pesach. He does, however, propose that the presence of these “roofs” along the length of a street will diminish their potential to be regarded as a reshus ha'rabbim, since roofed over reshuyos ha'rabbim are automatically downgraded to carmelis status. – (see Nesivos Shabbos 3:1) and note 5 6, where he considers (inconclusively) how much of a roof is necessary to negate a reshus ha'rabbim. Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2 Rav and Shmuel argue whether the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem" ("the edge of a roof- beam descends and encloses") applies to an awning that covers part of a valley (which is less than Beis Se'asayim in size). What exactly is the case? RASHI says that they argue only about a case in which there are four open sides to the awning (that is, it is merely a roof placed above four poles). If even one side would have a real Mechitzah, then both would agree that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem." TOSFOS in the name of RABEINU TAM explains that they argue about a case in which there are two or three Mechitzos. If there is only one Mechitzah, everyone agrees that we do not apply the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem." If the awning has more than three Mechitzos (such as three and a half), everyone agrees that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem." However, we may ask a fundamental question about the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem." Whether we understand the argument as Rashi explains it or as Tosfos explains it, how is it ever possible to apply the rule of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem"? Since there is no Mechitzah on the side at which we view the roof-beam to descend and enclose the area, the area is exposed, and young goats are able to pass through it ("Gediyim Bok'in Bah")! Whenever there is a gap between the ground and a partition of more than three Tefachim, Gediyim Bok'in Bah prevents that area from being viewed as closed by a Mechitzah. Why, then, do we say that the edge of the roof-beam descends to form a Mechitzah, if there is a gap greater than three Tefachim below it? The answer is that the principle of Gediyim Bok'in Bah does not invalidate a Mechitzah in every case of a three-Tefach gap. When a hanging Mechitzah is ten Tefachim high, and the normal law of Gud Achis is used to extend it to the ground, the principle of Gediyim Bok'in Bah prevents Gud Achis from extending the Mechitzah to the ground. However, when an area is covered (by an awning or other form of roof) and the law of "Pi Tikrah" is used, even though "Pi Tikrah" works through the same principle as Gud Achis, Gediyim Bok'in Bah does not prevent it from extending to the ground. (RITVA, 14a, 17b, 102a; see also KEHILOS YAKOV #3.) 2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-025.htm 6 The logical basis for this difference may be as follows. In order for a wall to be viewed as complete, it must serve not only as a wall, but it must serve as an indicator that a separate Reshus begins beyond it (that is, it must serve as a "Heker"). If a Mechitzah is raised more than three Tefachim from the ground, Gediyim Bok'in Bah invalidates it because it does not serve its purpose of indicating that the area inside is separate from the area outside. However, when a roof-beam is viewed to descend and form a Mechitzah, the roof itself serves to indicate that the entire area underneath it is separate from the area outside. Therefore, the presence of animals walking through the area does not invalidate the Halachic Mechitzah that "Pi Tikrah" creates. We have learned that when a karpeif that is enclosed for non-residential purposes covers an area larger than two se’ah, our sages have prohibited carrying in it farther than four amos. Yet, in order to remedy the situation, there are several options. One solution is to diminish the size of the area to be enclosed, so that it is less than two se’ah. Our Daf speaks about an area which was three se’ah, and in order to make it smaller, the owner built a roof over an area of one se’ah. The remaining open area was now less than two se’ah. The efficacy of this solution is a matter of dispute between two amoraim, Rava and Rebbe Zeira. Rava is of the opinion that this is of no help. The area under the roof combines with the area which is open, and the total area of the karpeif is still more than two se’ah. Rebbe Zeira sees the roofed area as separate from the area which is open. They are distinct, because the area which has a roof benefits from the Halacha le’moshe mi’sinia. that the roof seals off the edge and encloses the area beneath it. ,only by level roofs (see above, S.A. 361:2 םתוסו דרוי הרקת יפ Although we generally use the rule of M.B. #14), here we can apply it even by a slanted one. The reason is that the restriction of not allowing carrying in a karpeif, which is really a private domain, is only rabbinic. Here, the rabbis will be lenient. Summary 7 The Gemoro asks: May it be assumed that Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira differ on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed? For was it not stated: If a pavilion (one with a flat roof) was situated in a valley, Rav ruled: It is permitted to carry objects within its entire interior; but Shmuel said: Objects may be carried only within four amos. Rav ruled that it was permitted to carry objects within its entire interior, because we apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up (and is a valid partition), but Shmuel ruled that objects may be carried only within four amos, because we do not apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up? The Gemoro disagrees with the suggestion: If the roof over the beis se’ah was made like a pavilion, the ruling would indeed have been the same, but here we are dealing with one that was made in the shape of a shed (i.e., it was slanted). Rabbi Zeira stated: I admit, however, that where a karpaf has a gap across its entire width towards a courtyard [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden.