Eruvin, daf yud-alef (eleven). Today's daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Esther, and for a refuah sheleimah (complete recovery) for Dinah bat Sarah, and a refuah sheleimah for Eliezer Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka. We begin today's daf on yud-alef amud bet (the second side). We are starting from the two dots. It's actually a quote from our Mishnah. Actually, we're starting from tnan (we learned), tnan hatam—we learned over there—or asla.
Okay, let's review what asla (leather seat) is. It's right in the middle, mamash right in the middle of yud-alef amud bet. Tnan hatam, we learned over there. Where's over there? It's a Tosefta. Where is the Tosefta? Tosefta—okay, it's actually a baraita. Anyway, what does it say? Asla. Asla used to be, you'll forgive me, what we would call today in the vernacular a potty, where the bnei melachim (sons of kings) used to go to the bathroom. It was a circular item with leather on top of it, and in the middle there was a hole. That's where they would sit. So there was leather on both sides with a circular hole in between.
The discussion over here is: let's say you have tum'ah (ritual impurity) underneath this asla. Look at this over here—make-believe that maybe there's a hole that goes across through it, and maybe underneath you have tum'ah. If you say that this is an ohel (tent; covering), then the tum'ah underneath is under an ohel. If there are kelim (vessels) over here, the kelim will receive tum'ah. The question is that there's a hole over here. If there's a hole, how can you say it's an ohel? There's something separating it. But we're going to use the rules that if you have leather on one side, leather on the other side, and a little hole in the middle, maybe you can close up the hole. We're using the principle that there's more omed—material in this case—than parutz, space; there's more material there than there is opening. So we're going to use these rules legabei (regarding) this asla. That's what this subject has to do with: making this an ohel to metamei (impart impurity to) something underneath.
So the Gemara says, “or asla ve-hachalal shelo” (the leather seat and its cavity), and the chalal—the hole itself—mitztarfin be-tefach (combine to make a handbreadth). It can be mitztaref (combine) to get the shi'ur (measure) of a tefach (handbreadth), which is the shi'ur of tum'ah: a tefach. As long as the ohel is a tefach, it brings tum'ah. So the question is: how much leather is on this side? How much leather is on this side? And how big is the hole? They have a machloket (dispute) over here.
First of all, mai or asla—what is this asla in the first place? Amar Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar Rabbi Yochanan (Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan): or kisui shel beit ha-kisei (leather covering of the privy). That's the leather that was used by the melachim as a beit ha-kisei (privy). And how much is the shi'ur? Ki ata Rav Dimi, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, amar: etzba'ayim (finger-breadths) mikan, etzba'ayim mikan, etzba'ayim revach ba'emtza. There are two etzba'ot of leather over here, two etzba'ot of leather on the other side, and the hole itself is two etzba'ayim. All together, six etzba'ot. How much does six etzba'ot equal? One tefach. So that's the breakdown: two, two, two.
Ki ata Ravin, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, amar: etzba u-mechtza mikan, etzba u-mechtza mikan, ve-etzba revach ba'emtza. Either know one and a half etzba on this side, one and a half on this side, and one in the middle. So one rabbi basically came out with a shi'ur of six etzba'ot—two, two, two—and one came out with four etzba'ot—one and a half, one and a half, and one. Is there a machloket over here? It seems there's definitely some sort of machloket over here.
The Gemara says no. Amar lei Abaye le-Rav Dimi, so Abaye tells Rav Dimi, “mi peligitu?”—are you arguing, are you and Ravin arguing over this concept? Amar lei, Rav Dimi told Abaye, “No, we're not arguing. Ha be-ravrevata ha be-zutreta ve-lo paligna”—we all agree the shi'ur is a tefach. We're just arguing over whether the tefach is measured in etzba'ot gedolot, which means that if you measure in etzba gedolot, each etzba is a bigger tefach. Each etzba is the width of the thumb. Or you're measuring with the etzba, which is the size of a regular finger.
If you go with the etzba of the thumb, then you need fewer etzba'ot to make a tefach. That'll be four etzba'ot per tefach. If you go with the smaller shi'ur, then you need six etzba'ot. We're just arguing about which etzba you're using. Basically, we're saying the same thing. We're not arguing. We both agree to the same principles. He just holds of the smaller tefach, and I hold of the bigger tefach. That's basically what Rav Dimi said: we're not arguing. Which etzba are we using?
Amar lei, Abaye tells Rav Dimi, “No, I'm sorry, you're arguing. Le'ayela peligitu—you are arguing!” There's a machloket between what you're saying. What's the machloket? Uve'omed merubah al haparutz mishtei ruchot (where the solid portion exceeds the open space from two sides). Aha, where you have omed—material in this case—merubah al haparutz, is the merubah al haparutz from both sides? From both sides, can you mitztaref the two sides to break up the avir (airspace) in the middle? What's the pshat (plain meaning)?
So the Gemara says like this: ledidach—according to you—havei omed mishtei ruchot (it is standing material from two directions). According to you, you're being mitztaref both sides. Which opinion is this? Abaye is telling Rav Dimi. What was Rav Dimi's opinion? Rav Dimi said two, two, and two. Now, one side will not mevatel (nullify) the avir. You need two sides to mevatel the avir in between. You need the two and the two to be the majority against the two in the middle. So you hold that you can use two sides of omed to mevatel the two in the middle, the minimum, the avir.
The other rabbi will say no. “UleRavin meruach achat havei omed, mishtei ruchot lo havei omed”—I only say you do this from one side, but not from both sides. That's why he gave the case where the middle, the hole, was one, and one side was one and a half. He made at least one side bigger than the hole, because he holds that you cannot use both sides to mevatel the avir; you can only do it from one side. So don't tell me it's not a machloket. It's a big machloket over here. The machloket is: can you use both sides to mevatel the middle? The other rabbi, who says two, two, two, says that the two and the two are equal, so you're using both sides to mevatel the avir. But the rabbi who says one and a half, one and a half, one in the middle says that you're using one side to mevatel the middle over there. That is the machloket: can you mevatel the avir from one side, or even from two sides?
So why didn't he give two and a half, one, two and a half? It should be six, six, but he gave six, five. “Six, five?” No, everybody said six. Everybody said six. Everybody holds it's a tefach. “Everybody said one and a half.” One and a half, one and a half, one. One and a half, one and a half, one in the middle. “Yes, how much is it?” Four. Four. But the other rabbi said six: two, two, two. Everybody agrees it's a tefach. They're just asking whether it's a tefach measured from the thumb, which is a bigger tefach—a bigger etzba, I should say—or measured here. That doesn't change. The question is how do you divide this tefach? Then we would stay with the same argument: two and a half, one, two and a half.
The Gemara says, de'i salka da'atach lo peligitu—if you're telling me that they did not argue, if you're telling me that basically you're just saying the same thing, and each one is just giving a different shi'ur for which type of etzba you're using—he gave a six-etzba measurement and you gave a four-etzba measurement—leRavin hachi ibei leih lemeimar (Ravin should have said this): etzba ushelish (a finger-breadth and a third) mikan, ve'etzba ushelish mikan, ve'etzba ushelish revach be'emtza. Exactly. If you tell me you're not arguing and you're just arguing over which etzba you're using, and your magic number is four, you should have kept everything equal. The first rabbi said two, two, two, so you should have said one and a third, one and a third, one and a third.
That way you get to four. If the whole machloket between you is which etzba you're using, then you hold of six etzba'ot per tefach and he holds of four etzba'ot per tefach, so split it up like the first rabbi split it up. The fact that you split it up one and a half, one and a half, one shows that you're getting involved in the subject of one side being mevatel the avir. If you agreed with the other rabbi in principle that two sides can mevatel, you should have said one and a third, one and a third, one and a third. The difference would be that the two sides, which are two and two thirds, can mevatel the middle, which is one and one third. The fact that you gave it as one and a half, one and a half, and one shows that you're getting involved in one or two sides being mevatel the avir. So don't tell me you're not arguing. You are arguing.
The Gemara says, ve'ela mai peliginan? So Rav Dimi tells Abaye, “What do you want to tell me, that we are arguing? That there's a machloket?” Ledidi hachi ibei li lemeimar (in my view, I should have said this). I should have said like this: etzba ushnei shelishim mikan, ve'etzba ushnei shelishim mikan, ve'etzba'ayim u... shelishim revach be'emtza. What did Rav Dimi say? What was Rav Dimi's shitah (position)? Rav Dimi's shitah was two, two, and two. He says that if there was a machloket, then I should have said one and etzba ushnei shelishim mikan—that's one and two thirds on one side, one and two thirds on the other side, and two and two thirds in the middle—which altogether would be six etzba'ot.
That would teach you the principle: each side alone is not bigger than the middle. One and two thirds and the middle is two. So if I wanted to teach that principle, I would have told you that you need both sides to mevatel the center, which is bigger. Why did I tell you that? If that's the principle we're trying to teach here, I should have taught you the big chiddush (novel point). I should have told you one and two thirds, one and two thirds, and the middle is two and two thirds. That chiddush would be that you need both sides. Why did I give you two, two, two, which is equal? I should have told you an even better case.
So the Gemara says, ela ei ika lemeimar defaligi (rather, if you say they disagree): if you want to say there is a machloket here, there is a machloket, but it's about a different concept. What's the machloket? Befarutz ke'omed palginan (they disagree about open space equaling solid space). That means: do you say that when everything is equal, parutz ke'omed? The first rabbi is going to say that when he said two, two, and two, his chiddush is that parutz and omed—the space and the solid area—are equal, and you can mevatel it. The second rabbi said no, in order to be mevatel the parutz, it has to be bigger. That's why he chose one and a half, one, and one and a half.
But you don't have a machloket about both sides. The machloket here is whether, when you have two, two, and two, one rabbi says the two can mevatel the two. Parutz can be mevatel omed when they're equal. It doesn't have to do with one or two sides. The other rabbi says no, it has to be bigger; that's why he chose one and a half and one. So don't get involved with the both-sides issue. If there were a both-sides issue, he would have chosen a case of one and a third, one and a third, and two and two thirds in the middle, because then you need both sides to be mevatel. The fact that he picked two, two, and two means it's a different machloket. The machloket is: can equals mevatel each other when parutz and omed are equal on one side? So the first rabbi will say that here, two and two can mevatel the two. The two omed can mevatel the two of the hole. The other rabbi says no; that's why it's one and a half, one.
Okay, now we go to the next point: “im yesh lo tzurat hapetach af al pi sherachav me'eser eino tzarich lema'et.” This is a quote from the Mishnah. You remember we said that if the opening of the mavoi (alleyway) is more than ten amah (cubits), it's not called a petach (doorway) anymore; it's called a pirtzah (breach). For a pirtzah, you cannot make a tikkun (remedy) of a lechi o korah (sidepost or crossbeam). The only way to fix it—I wouldn't say the only way, but one of the ways—is to minimize it or make a tzurat hapetach. What is tzurat hapetach? A doorpost. You put two posts on the sides and a mashkof—a lintel—on top. Once you make the doorpost, it's obvious. Even though it's twenty amah, who cares? You see tzurat hapetach. The whole problem is that once it's more than ten amah, it doesn't look like a petach anymore. It looks like a pirtzah, a breach. But when I make a tzurat hapetach, it's a tzurat hapetach. So that was the Mishnah: “im yesh lo tzurat hapetach af al pi sherachav me'eser eino tzarich lema'et.”
So the Gemara says, ashkachan tzurat hapetach demahanya berochbo (we find that a doorway form helps with its width). Now we're finding two different pesulim (disqualifications) here. Remember, we said that if it's more than ten wide, it's a problem, and we said in the Mishnah that if it's more than twenty high, it's also a problem. Now we've fixed the more-than-ten-wide case. How did we fix it? We had a tzurat hapetach. Do you remember how to fix more than twenty high? An amaltara (decorative beam). Remember those amaltarot? You put those bird's nests, or those stacks of bricks or wood that look unusual, so they catch the eye, and then it's okay.
Now we know how to fix a width of ten, and we know how to fix a height of twenty. So the Gemara says: ashkachan tzurat hapetach demahanya berochbo, amaltara demahanya begovho (a decorative beam helps with its height). Now the Gemara is going to say, ipcha mai—what about the reverse? Can an amaltara fix the width, and can a tzurat hapetach fix the height? Reverse the remedies.
So the Gemara says, ta shema detanya (come and hear, as it was taught): “mavoi shehu gavoha me'esrim amah yema'et ve'im yesh lo tzurat hapetach eino tzarich lema'et.” It sounds like that's the only option. You have a mavoi that's more than twenty amah; the only option the baraita gave you is yema'et—you've got to lower it. “Ve'im yesh lo tzurat hapetach eino tzarich lema'et.” If the mavoi has a tzurat hapetach, eino tzarich lema'et. That means a tzurat hapetach sounds like it fixes height. It says it explicitly. Amaltara berochbo mai? What about the second question, an amaltara fixing the width?
The Gemara says, ta shema detanya: “mavoi shehu gavoha me'esrim amah yema'et.” If it's more than twenty high, you've got to lower it. “Verachav me'eser,” and if it's wider than ten, also yema'et. “Ve'im yesh lo tzurat hapetach,” and if it has a tzurat hapetach, “eino tzarich lema'et.” You do not have to minimize it. “Ve'im yesh lo amaltara eino tzarich lema'et.” Now, when it says “ve'im yesh lo amaltara,” what is it referring to? Which case? We gave you two cases here: height and width. Mai lav aseifa—isn't that referring to the latter clause, the case of width? Then we see that an amaltara can fix the width.
The Gemara says, “lo, areisha”—no, the first clause. The amaltara was going to go with the first case. What's the first case? Height. So then we have no proof that an amaltara can fix the width, although we do have proof that a tzurat hapetach can fix height.
Now the Gemara says, matni lah Rabbi Yehudah le-Chiyya bar Rav kamei de-Rav. Rabbi Yehudah taught Chiyya bar Rav in front of Rav the following girsa (version) in the Mishnah, and based on his girsa in the Mishnah, the din (law) will change. His wording was like this: our Mishnah is talking about “verachav me'eser amot,” right? If it was more than ten amah, we said yema'et. But if it has a tzurat hapetach, you're okay. His lashon (wording) was “eino tzarich lema'et,” which is what our Mishnah says: “ve'im yesh lo tzurat hapetach eino tzarich lema'et.”
Amar leih, Rav tells Rabbi Yehudah, “Atneih tzarich lema'et.” Rav says, “No, I don't care if you have a tzurat hapetach; you still have to be mema'et (reduce it).” Rav had a different girsa in our Mishnah. Our Mishnah told you that the tzurat hapetach serves as a mi'ut (reduction). Rav says, “No, I don't care, even if you have a tzurat hapetach, tzarich lema'et.” So it turns out we have a machloket: does tzurat hapetach even work when the rochav is more than ten amah? Our Mishnah says yes, but Rav had a girsa that says no. That's right, according to Rav. Exactly. A tzurat hapetach doesn't help you for nothing.
Rav Yosef says, “Oh, midevrei rabbeinu”—since a tzurat hapetach doesn't help you with the width to minimize it, we can learn a halachah (Jewish law) from this. What's that halachah? Nilmad: a new halachah, chatzer (courtyard) sherubah petachim vechalonot. An amazing case. See the picture? It's a chatzer, not a mavoi—a chatzer, with four walls—but the four walls of the chatzer are made up of doors and windows. So basically, you have a frame, but there's more parutz than omed. Everything's open; the windows are open, the doors are open. It's just a configuration of windows and doors. There you go. How does it look?
So the Gemara says about that case: “chatzer sherubah petachim vechalonot, einah niteret betzurat hapetach.” That means it's not going to be mutar (permitted) to put a tzurat hapetach by the windows, or by the doors, even if each one of them is not ten amah wide. Still, we're not going to allow it. Why? Mai ta'ama? Listen to the logic he gave: “ho'il veyoter me'eser oser bemavoi” (since more than ten prohibits in an alleyway). We know that more than ten is oser (prohibits) in a mavoi. “Parutz merubah al ha'omed”—more open space than solid area—“oser bechatzer.” In a chatzer, we know the rule is that if you have more parutz on one side than omed, it posel (disqualifies) the chatzer from carrying.
So I'll say it like this: just as a mavoi that's more than ten and oser cannot be permitted with a tzurat hapetach, so too, a chatzer where parutz merubah al ha'omed and it's oser cannot be permitted with a tzurat hapetach. It's like a kal vachomer (a fortiori inference). I know that the magic number for a mavoi is ten, and I know that the magic number for a chatzer is having more parutz than omed. The chatzer is not fixable; you cannot carry. So I'll tell you: just as a tzurat hapetach doesn't fix a mavoi that's no good, a tzurat hapetach won't fix a chatzer that's no good. Meaning, the same Rav who says a tzurat hapetach doesn't help fix a problematic mavoi will hold that a tzurat hapetach won't help fix a problematic chatzer.
So the Gemara says, “No, no, no! Rav Yosef doesn't hold that. What are you talking about?” Well, that's what Rav Yosef said. So the Gemara says, “No, who said?” Mah le-yoter me'eser de'oser bemavoi sheken lo... hitarti vo etzel pasei bira'ot (well partitions) le-Rabbi Meir. You remember pasei bira'ot: that's the well in the middle with the four brackets on the sides. Rabbi Meir's shitah is that the distance you can have between the bira'ot, between the brackets, is ten amah. If you have more than ten amah, you don't get the leniency of pasei bira'ot. We saw an opinion yesterday of thirteen and a third, but Rabbi Meir's opinion is that the maximum distance between the brackets is ten.
The Gemara is saying: mah le-mavoi? The reason why we're strict about a mavoi is what? We found that we're strict about this magic number of ten by pasei bira'ot too. According to Rabbi Meir, you also cannot have more than ten between the brackets. Now, reading inside: mah le-yoter me'eser de'asur bemavoi—do you know why it's asur (forbidden) in a mavoi? Sheken lo hitarti vo: I never permit even by pasei bira'ot, which is a lenient halachah. With pasei bira'ot, you're putting four brackets wherever you can, and still the chumrah (stringency) of ten amah applies according to Rabbi Meir.
However, would you say the same thing about parutz merubah al ha'omed? By parutz, where you have more parutz than omed in a chatzer, it's asur in a chatzer, which is a light law, sheken hitarta etzel pasei bira'ot ledivrei hakol. When it comes to pasei bira'ot, parutz merubah al ha'omed is okay according to everybody. There's always a parutz merubah al ha'omed, because you have brackets and more pirtzah than you have closed. So maybe parutz merubah is more lenient. Since you see a leniency with parutz merubah, maybe you can fix it with a tzurat hapetach.
Just because you're telling me you can't fix ten amot of a mavoi with a tzurat hapetach, that's because you see that ten amot is a chumrah; even by pasei bira'ot, according to Rabbi Meir, we don't allow more than ten. But with parutz merubah, we do allow it. So maybe you can fix it with a tzurat hapetach. You see it's a lenient matter. All the time you wanted to say: a mavoi that's more than ten is no good, and a tzurat hapetach doesn't work; a chatzer with parutz merubah is no good, so a tzurat hapetach shouldn't work. No! Maybe ten doesn't work because you don't see ten treated leniently even by pasei bira'ot; you cannot have more than ten. That's why a tzurat hapetach doesn't work. But parutz merubah, which we see we allow in another halachah, by pasei bira'ot, maybe you can fix it with a tzurat hapetach. You see, it's a lenient matter.
So the Gemara says, teiku—it's undecided. You have no proof, then. If you have no proof, maybe even though Rav himself holds that a mavoi that's more than ten cannot be fixed, maybe a chatzer that's parutz can be fixed with a tzurat hapetach. That is undecided.
Lihvei mesayei lih—let's bring a proof to Rav Yosef that he's right, that you can't fix it with a tzurat hapetach. “Defanot halalu sheruban petachim vechalonot mutar uvilvad sheyehe omed merubah al haparutz.” So it says in the baraita, “defanot halalu”—what does that mean? Walls like this, made up of windows and doors in the chatzer. What does it say here? “Sheruban petachim vechalonot”—the majority of the wall is made up of windows and doors. What does it say? “Mutar,” you can carry in such a chatzer, “uvilvad sheyehe omed merubah al haparutz,” provided there's more omed than parutz.
How could it be? If you have a majority of windows and doors, how could you have merubah omed min haparutz? It's impossible! So the Gemara says, “sheruban salka da'atach?” Would you have thought most of them? How can you say the wall is mostly windows and doors? You'll never have omed merubah min haparutz! Ela eima (rather, say), “sheribah vahen”—not that most of it is made up of them, but that he increased them; you put plenty of doors and windows in the wall. So it says, “uvilvad sheyehe omed merubah al haparutz.” That's it: merubah al haparutz. Why didn't you just tell me to put a tzurat hapetach? The fact that you told me the omed has to be merubah al haparutz shows that you cannot fix it with a tzurat hapetach. The baraita didn't give me that option.
The Gemara says, “No, who told you?” Amar Rav Kahana, “ki tanya hahi bepitcha shima.” That's talking about a petach that's mekulkul (defective). Let's go slowly. You have a tzurat hapetach. When you have windows and doors, you have tzurat hapetach. There's all of it. Still, you're telling me that it has to be omed merubah al haparutz. So you see that a tzurat hapetach doesn't help you! The answer is no: you didn't even have a tzurat hapetach. The doors we're talking about over there are all broken-type doors that didn't have two sideposts and a lintel on top. What do they call them? Pitchei shimai.
The Gemara says, mai pitchei shimai? What kind of doors are these? Shimai doors? The Gemara says, peligi bah Rav Chama ve-Rav Yosef. One says, “delet delit lehu shekfei”—they don't have shekfei, doorposts. That's number one. The sides are all messed up. You see the picture here, going in and out? They don't have normal sidebars. The second opinion is, “vechad amar delit leh tikra”—there's no top, no roof beam. So you didn't have tzurat hapetach. You have no proof from that blatt (page) over there. Maybe if you had normal doors, it would work. The reason they said you need omed merubah al haparutz is that the doors were shimai doors. Either the sides were “rigid-y,” so they don't make it a door, or the top was missing, so it doesn't make it a door.
“What's less than ten?” No, it's a chatzer. The chatzer is parutz; it's parutz merubah min ha'omed. There's more parutz than omed. All these doors over here are parutz merubah al ha'omed. So he said, “What do I care? You have tzurat hapetach! Tzurat hapetach should cover it up.” You're right, it would fix it. But the problem is you don't have tzurat hapetachs here. These tzurat hapetachs were all shimai: either the sidebars were “rigid-y,” or a top was missing. So you have no proof that tzurat hapetach isn't going to help.
The Gemara says, “ve'af Rabbi Yochanan savar lah leha deRav.” All right, now we found another rabbi who subscribes to Rav's opinion, that tzurat hapetach will not help a mavoi that's more than ten amah. Again, our Mishnah said it does. But Rav said he had a different girsa in the Mishnah: for ten amah, tzurat hapetach doesn't help. Rabbi Yochanan also subscribes to that shitah. Where do you see that Rabbi Yochanan subscribes to that shitah? De'amar Ravin bar Rav Adda, Adda bar amar Rabbi Yitzchak: “Ma'aseh be'adam echad bebik'at Beit Chortan.” There was a man from a place called Bik'at Beit Chortan.
It's an amazing story. “Shena'atz arba'ah kundisin be'arba pinot hasadeh.” What did he do? He took four kundisin—four poles—and put them in the four corners of his field. Then what did he do? “Umatah zemorah aleihem.” He took a zemorah, a vine, and made something like an eruv (boundary enclosure): he put the zemorah across the poles. So now you have tzurat hapetach. “Uva ma'aseh zeh lifnei chachamim vehetiru lo le'inyan kilayim.” The man had a product growing there. He had wheat, let's say. He put a pole here, a pole here, a pole here, and a pole there, and put the zemorot, the twigs or the vine, across. Then he came to ask the rabbis, “Rabbi, can I plant another product right next to this item over here?” They told him, “Yes. Since you have a tzurat hapetach, that's considered a separate zone; tzurat hapetach separates it over there.”
The Gemara says, “ve'amar Reish Lakish”—Reish Lakish said, “kederech shehetiru lo le'inyan kilayim, kach hetiru lo le'inyan Shabbat.” Just as they permitted it for kilayim, they also permitted it for Shabbat. Even though it's parutz merubah al ha'omed, since it's a tzurat hapetach, you have a separate domain; you could carry in that area. That's what Reish Lakish said. What did Rabbi Yochanan say? Rabbi Yochanan said, “lekilayim hetiru lo, le'inyan Shabbat lo hetiru lo.” Ah! So you see clearly that Rabbi Yochanan didn't go along with this tzurat hapetach business.
Now, we don't know exactly how far apart these poles were, but clearly Rabbi Yochanan said whatever that was—first, let's get the facts of the story. Reish Lakish says they permitted it for everything. This tzurat hapetach helps for kilayim and for Shabbat. Rabbi Yochanan says, “No, no, calm down. They permitted it for kilayim, but they did not permit it for Shabbat.” Now let's get the facts of the story. Bameh askinan? What are we talking about? Ilema min hatzad (from the side)—there are different ways of making an eruv, one valid and one not valid. Chazak uvaruch.
What's the valid way, and what's the invalid way? The valid way to make the eruv—or the tzurat hapetach, I should say—is to put the zemorah, the vine, on top. If you put it on the side, it's not good. So the Gemara says, maybe they put the vine on the side, and that's why Rabbi Yochanan didn't allow them to use it for Shabbat? The Gemara says, “ilema min hatzad, veha'amar Rav Chisda tzurat hapetach she'asahah min hatzad lo asah velo khelum.” That's nothing. If you do it on the side, nobody would permit such a tzurat hapetach for anything. So it cannot be talking about doing it the wrong way. It doesn't work. It's on the side, not on top of the pole. “Yeah, that is the picture.” “On the side, they put it in the middle.” Oh, let's go slowly and see what he says: “Veha'amar Rav Chisda tzurat hapetach she'asahah min hatzad lo asah velo khelum, ela al gabban.” First of all, you did it right. We're talking about where you put it on top, like a normal tzurat hapetach.
Okay, now let's discuss measurements. “Uvemai ileima be'eser”—if they were ten amah, each pirtzah was ten amah—“uveha leit lei leRabbi Yochanan beShabbat lo?” What's the problem? If it's ten amah, of course it's valid. Ten amah is valid for Shabbat. When it gets to more than ten amah, then you have the issue. But if it's ten amah between the poles, then presumably Rabbi Yochanan isn't going to be stringent and say that you can't do it on Shabbat. Everybody modeh (agrees) that up to ten, it's considered a petach. If it's considered a petach, it won't be mevatel the mechitzah (partition).
So the Gemara says, “ela danafish me'eser.” Here we go: we finally narrowed down the case. It must have been more than ten, and still Rabbi Yochanan said, “For Shabbat, I'm not allowing it.” So what do you see from here? With a petach that's more than ten, he does not allow the heiter (permission) of tzurat hapetach. That's the proof for Rabbi Yochanan, just like Rav.
The Gemara says, “No! Le'olam eser”—really, it was ten. “Umin hatzad,” and we're talking about where they put the eruv, where they put the tzurat hapetach on the side. “Uched'Rav Chisda kameipalgi.” The machloket is about Rav Chisda, because Rav Chisda is the rabbi who said it's no good, but there's a rabbi who says it is good. So that's the machloket. It's an eruv min hatzad. Rabbi Yochanan was lenient for kilayim, taking the lenient opinion, but he was machmir (stringent) regarding Shabbat.
So really, it was ten. If it was ten, what's the question? Why wasn't Rabbi Yochanan lenient for Shabbat, then? Tzurat hapetach? Oh no, because you put it too low, you put it min hatzad. “Oh, min hatzad?” Min hatzad is a machloket. One rabbi says yes, one rabbi says no. So Rabbi Yochanan, for kilayim, I'll be lenient and adopt the lenient opinion, but for Shabbat he wanted to be strict, so he took the strict opinion. We have no proof of what Rabbi Yochanan holds about more than ten with a tzurat hapetach.
The Gemara says, “Wait, I don't have a question like that, but I have another problem. Uleramei deRabbi Yochanan adeRabbi Yochanan uleramei deReish Lakish adeReish Lakish.” We're going to bring contradictions in each of their opinions. Rabbi Yochanan contradicts himself, and Reish Lakish contradicts himself. Why? “De'amar Reish Lakish mishum de-Rabbi Yehudah berabbi Chanina: pe'ah...” What is pe'ah? We have a picture of a pe'ah? It's a tzurat hapetach made from a branch or a vine that's woven. You have two posts, take a vine and weave it, and make a tzurat hapetach across.
“Muteret le'inyan kilayim”—that'll permit it with regard to kilayim. That means if this type of pe'ah separates the field, you can plant right next to it because it's considered a separate domain. “Aval lo leShabbat”—but not for Shabbat. Who's talking? That's Reish Lakish. What do you mean, not for Shabbat? In the first statement, Reish Lakish permitted it even for Shabbat!
“VeRabbi Yochanan amar ki mechitzot leShabbat delo kach mechitzah lekilayim delo.” Rabbi Yochanan says that just as it doesn't work for Shabbat, it doesn't work for kilayim. What do you mean? You just told me in the last statement that it does work for kilayim. So now we found contradictions within their own statements. The Gemara says, “Bishlama deReish Lakish adeReish Lakish lo kashya.” I can answer Reish Lakish, no problem. “Ha dideih veha derabbeih”—that which Reish Lakish said above, that the tzurat hapetach is okay for Shabbat, was his own statement. Here he's quoting his rabbi, because it says, “amar Reish Lakish mishum Rabbi Yehudah berabbi Chanina.” So here it's not his own opinion; he's quoting his rabbi's opinion. Therefore, there's no stirah (contradiction).
“Ela deRabbi Yochanan adeRabbi Yochanan kashya.” But Rabbi Yochanan made both statements. What's the question again? Get the question clear: in one place you told me the tzurat hapetach is good for kilayim, but not for Shabbat, and in the second statement you said the tzurat hapetach is not even good for kilayim. How do you square it all?
So the Gemara says: if you want to say that in the case of the four poles—the first case, the four-poles case—they put it al gabban, on top, I'll say the reason he permitted it there is that you put the vine on top. That's why he was lenient for kilayim. Here, min hatzad, I'll say the case is where they put it on the side, and that's why he was stringent. I can say the machloket is about where they put it. It's not a contradiction; there were two different cases. In one, they put it on top the right way, and he permitted it for kilayim, but he didn't want to permit it for Shabbat because it was more than ten amah and he didn't want to get involved in that. For kilayim, he permitted it. The other case was where they did it min hatzad. There he didn't want to be lenient, not for Shabbat and not for kilayim. So we have an answer.
However, if you say both cases were min hatzad, mai ika lemeimar? What are you going to say? If both cases were min hatzad, why in one case did Rabbi Yochanan permit kilayim and in one case did he not permit kilayim? We have a stirah! So the Gemara says, “Le'olam idi va'idi min hatzad, hatam be'eser, hacha yoter me'eser.” That which Rabbi Yochanan said above, that he's lenient for kilayim, was all min hatzad. Here's the visual: here's the kundisin, the top of the pole, and you put the string over here, min hatzad, not on top. They put it over here. That's really a controversy about whether it's good or not. The first statement, where Rabbi Yochanan was lenient and said it was okay for kilayim, was talking about the space between the poles being ten. Since the space was ten, I'll be lenient and take an opinion that allows min hatzad for kilayim, at least.
However, the second case was talking about more than ten. More than ten and min hatzad? I'm not being lenient, not for Shabbat and not for kilayim. That's the way we'll answer Rabbi Yochanan. Which means, when the tzurat hapetach is placed on the yetedot—don't talk, let's talk more—but if it was placed on top, maybe Rabbi Yochanan would be lenient even for Shabbat when it's more than ten. That would be against the shitah of Rav. Do you understand what I just said? That's the punchline. We're only resolving the cases where it was in the middle; that's why he's being cautious about Shabbat, and so on. If you put it on top, even if it was more than ten, maybe Rabbi Yochanan would be lenient and say a tzurat hapetach can fix it, which is against Rav's shitah.
“No, no, both cases were talking about min hatzad. In the case of ten, he was already lenient for kilayim. He just wasn't lenient for Shabbat. And in the case of more than ten, he wasn't lenient for anything. That's only because you did it min hatzad. So you could argue that on top is good; on top is aliba de-chulei alma. On top is fine. Maybe—we don't know. It's not a proof, it's not a proof; it's just saying you have no proof the other way.” “You have no proof the other way, exactly.” Yitachen, yitachen.
“Umina teimra deshani lan bein eser leyoter me'eser?” And now we have a support? How do you know, by kilayim, that there's a difference between ten and more than ten? How do you know? You're making a chiluk (distinction), because you're saying Rabbi Yochanan was lenient for kilayim if it was ten, but strict for kilayim if it was more than ten. Where do you see a chiluk between ten and more than ten for kilayim?
“De'amar leih Rabbi Yochanan le-Reish Lakish, lo kach hayah ma'aseh?” Rabbi Yochanan tells Reish Lakish, “Don't you remember the story?” An amazing story. “Shehalach Rebbi Yehoshua etzel Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri lilmod Torah.” Rebbi Yehoshua went to study Torah with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri. Even though Rebbi Yehoshua was an expert in the laws of kilayim, he went to ask Rabbi Yochanan some questions. “Umetza'o shehu yoshev bein ha'ilanot.” He saw Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri sitting in the field next to the trees. “Umatach zmorah me'ilan le'ilan.” What did Rebbi Yehoshua do? He put a pole over here, a pole over here, and put a reed, a vine, across.
“Va'amar lo,” and he turns to Rebbi Yochanan and says, “Rebbi, i gefanim kan, mahu lizroa kan?” He asked him a pointed question: “If I planted grapes over here, can I plant outside the tzurat hapetach? Can I plant something else?” Amar lo: “Be'eser mutar, beyoter me'eser asur.” Ah, so he clearly told him! He said it depends how big the petach is. If it's more than ten, it's not a tzurat hapetach; it's a pirtzah for kilayim, no good. But if it's within ten, you're okay. So you see this chiluk between ten and more.
Now, bamei askinan? Let's get the case first. If it's al gaban, if he put the vine on top of the poles, are you going to tell me that more than ten is asur? “Vehatanya, hayu sham kanim hadokranim”—there were pointed poles that you place in the ground in order to put up a tzurat hapetach—“ve'asah lahen pi emtza'i milema'lah,” and he put a reed on top to make a tzurat hapetach, “afilu beyoter me'eser mutar.” Ah, so you see that for kilayim, if you put it on top, even more than ten is permitted. But over here he said more than ten is a problem. Ella, it must be that he did it min hatzad. Ella lav min hatzad, vekamar leh: “Be'eser mutar, yoter me'eser asur.” Shema minah—learn from it. So you have proof positive! That's exactly what we were looking for.
Gufa (the matter itself). Amar Rav Chisda: “Tzurat hapetach she'asahah min hatzad, lo asah velo khelum.” Okay, now we enter tzurat hapetach. This is always a very important law, because whenever you're going to make eruvin, you always have to be careful where you put the string. The string has to go on top. If the string is a little lower, you're putting yourself in a machloket about whether it's a tzurat hapetach shelo asaha lema'lah. What does Rav Chisda say? Rav Chisda—sorry, “Amar Rav Chisda: tzurat hapetach she'asahah min hatzad, lo asah velo khelum.” Rav Chisda's shitah is that you did nothing. You did it min hatzad, and it's worthless—for Shabbat, for kilayim, for everything.
Amar Rav Chisda: “Tzurat hapetach she'amru tzerichah shetehei beri'ah.” Now we're going to give you some rules. Number one, it has to be beri'ah—sturdy, strong. How strong does the tzurat hapetach have to be? “Kedei leha'amid bah delet”—enough to support a door. Ve'afilu delet shel kashim—even if it's a door made out of reeds, you know, straw or something like that. That means the poles have to be sturdy enough to hold a makeshift door. You don't have to put a door there, but it is a tzurat hapetach. A petach usually has a door, so they have to be strong enough at least to hold a door, even if it's made out of straw.
Amar Reish Lakish mishum Rebbi Yannai: “Tzurat hapetach tzerichah heker tzir.” Oh, what's a heker tzir? It needs something. A tzir (hinge pivot) is like a—“Exactly! What do you mean, what are we talking about?” Mai heker tzir? Amar Rav Avya: “Avkata.” Avkata—what is avkata? A pinhole? Oh, a pivot hole! Okay, that makes more sense. Even though you don't need to put the door there, it has to have the hole that the door would be able to swing back and forth in. That's another item you need to make a tzurat hapetach.
“Ashkechinhu Rav Acha bereih de-Rav Avya letalmidei de-Rav Ashi.” Rav Acha son of Rav Avya found the students of Rav Ashi. Amar lehu: “Amar mar midei betzurat hapetach?” They said, “Did the rabbi have any chiddushim (new teachings) on tzurat hapetach? Did he have anything to say?” Amru leh: “Lo amar velo khelum.” No, he didn't say anything, no chiddushim.
Tana, we have a baraita: “Tzurat hapetach she'amru, kaneh (reed) mikan ve-kaneh mikan ve-kaneh al gabeihen.” Easy: one kaneh, one kaneh, and one kaneh on top. So now the Gemara has a big question: “Tzerichin liga o ein tzerichin liga?”—must they touch, or need they not touch? Rav Nachman amar ein tzerichin liga, ve-Rav Sheshet amar tzerichin liga.
Here are the two poles, the two kanim, and then you have the kaneh on top. That's a perfect tzurat hapetach. Hold on, probably this is a better way to show it to you. It's like this. The question is whether the beam on top, if it's not touching but suspended somewhere up here, has to touch the vine or reed on the sides. Does it have to touch, or can it be separate? That's a machloket. One rabbi says, “Rav Nachman amar: ein tzerichin liga,” but probably it has to be within—ah, lavud (connected within three handbreadths). Good, that's lavud, because the walls go up. The other rabbi says, “No, it's got to touch.” What's his logic? If it were within three tefachim, it would be lavud. So he's saying it's more than three tefachim. The question is whether we say gud (extend the partition) on these poles—do you say that it goes up or not? So it's a machloket. Does it work or not?
Now the Gemara tells an amazing story based on the halachah we just read. “Azal Rav Nachman va'avad uvda be-Reish Galuta (Exilarch) kishmeiteih.” Rav Nachman not only said the halachah, that they don't have to touch; he went and acted on it. He built an eruv for the Reish Galuta in Bavel (Babylonia), and built it with two poles. He put the beam on top, and it wasn't touching, following his shitah. It was again more than ten amah wide. So he held that you could fix it with a tzurat hapetach, even when it was more than ten—not like Rav. So he made a tzurat hapetach, followed his shitah, and put the beam above; it didn't have to touch, and there was no problem.
What happened? Amar leih Rav Sheshet leshamaeih. Rav Sheshet, who argued about it, went to his servant. Who was his servant? Rav Gada. That was his name, Rav Gada. He told him, “Zil shlof shedinhu.” Go and break it. Go take it off. What is he doing over there? “This guy is coming to our town and putting up this type of thing. We're against this halachah. Go destroy it. I don't want them to carry. It's asur (forbidden) for them to carry. You have to stop them from making an isur (prohibition). Go break the eruv,” he told him.
Azal shalaf shedinhu. The rabbi told him to go break the eruv, so he'll go break the eruv. Rav Gada went and busted the whole thing. What happened? “Ashkechuhu devei Reish Galuta chavshuhu.” When the people of the Reish Galuta saw him vandalizing the eruv, they put him in jail. What kind of cowboy business is this? They thought he did it on his own.
Rav Sheshet went to the prison. “Kam abava”—he stood by the door, by the prison cell. Amar leih: “Gada, puk ta.” Gada, come out of jail! Nafak ve'ata. Once the Reish Galuta found out that he was doing it based on what Rav Sheshet told him, they said, “Oh, he was following his rabbi. Okay, let him go.” They thought he was doing it on his own, some extremist coming to knock down eruvin. What's he doing? He's not a rabbi. When Rav Sheshet came out, he said, “Come out, it's okay, you did good. Chazak uvaruch.” So the Reish Galuta said, “It's okay, he was following his rabbi.”
Okay, last point. We've seen this point many times already in Shas, and we're going to talk about it now. A doorframe and mezuzah (doorpost scroll): what's obligated in mezuzah? Ten by four. A regular square doorway: ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide. Remember, tzurat hapetach means ten by four; chayav bimezuzah (obligated in mezuzah). Beautiful. The question is, what about a door that has an arch? At the top you don't have four. Maybe in the middle you'll have four, but as you go up, it gets narrower. So how are we going to analyze that regarding the laws of mezuzah?
The Gemara begins, “Ashkecheih Rav Sheshet le-Rabbah bar Shemuel, amar leih: tani mar midi be'tzurat hapetach?” Do you have any chiddushim when it comes to a doorpost, tzurat hapetach? Any chiddushim you heard on this subject? Amar leih: “In,” yes, I have a chiddush. Tanina: someone taught as follows: “Kipah”—what is kipah? A dome, or an arch, an archway; that's the better word. “Rabbi Meir mechayev bimezuzah vechachamim potrin.” It's a machloket between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim about whether you need a mezuzah on such an archway or not. At the top of the archway, you do not have four tefachim across. The arch is narrow. So one rabbi says you need a mezuzah, and one rabbi says no mezuzah.
What's the machloket? “Veshavin she'im yesh beragleha asarah, shehi chayavet.” Everybody agrees that if, from the floor up, you have ten tefachim high and four wide before it starts to narrow, everybody agrees that it's chayav bimezuzah. As long as you can find a ten-by-four somewhere in that item, everybody agrees, no problem. So then what's the machloket? For example, here's the picture. It goes up ten and you have four tefachim—no problem. Everybody says it's chayav bimezuzah. So where's the machloket?
Amar Abaye: “Hakol modim im gevohah asarah ve'ein beragleha sheloshah.” If, let's say, it's ten, but the four tefachim is less than three from the ground, then we say that doesn't count, because less than three from the ground is considered lavud. So that four tefachim doesn't register. That means that when the four-tefachim width starts above three, it's too late. If you have the four tefachim within three and then it starts to narrow, it's no good, because three tefachim is considered on the ground. So that width of four tefachim has to go at least above three tefachim in order to make it ten by four.
Furthermore, “i nami yesh beragleha sheloshah”—no, the four tefachim goes up at least three tefachim; however, “ve'ein gevohah asarah”—it's not ten high. “Lo khelum.” Everybody agrees you don't need a mezuzah. So where's the machloket, then? “Ki peligi beyesh beragleha sheloshah ugevohah asarah ve'ein rochbah arba'ah veyesh bah lachok lehashlimah arba'ah. Rabbi Meir savar chokekin lehashlim, verabanan savri ein chokekin lehashlim.” Beautiful.
The case is like this. The case is going to be here, this case. You've got ten tefachim. It's ten tefachim high, and you have four tefachim above three. So what is the machloket? What do you chisel out? Let's get the case. “Ki peligi beyesh beragleha sheloshah”—beautiful—“ugevohah asarah ve'ein rochbah arba'ah.” You don't have four tefachim within the ten. In these other cases, they had nothing; they had problems. Here it goes up ten, but the four tefachim doesn't extend throughout the whole ten, unless there's enough on the sides to chisel out. So the machloket is over whether you say chiseling can complete it. If you say you can chisel, then even though you didn't chisel, I make believe that I chiseled the arch over here and added space, and therefore it makes it four. The other rabbi says, “No, you can't chisel,” so it is what it is. Since you don't have the four continuing up to ten, it's no good; that means it's not chayav bimezuzah. Is that clear? Beautiful.
Now the Gemara says, Amar leih. Rav Sheshet tells—so Rav Sheshet asked the rabbi, “Do you have any chiddushim on tzurat hapetach?” The rabbi says, “Yeah, I have a beauty. I have this machloket of chokekin lehashlim over here.” So now Rav Sheshet says, “Oh no, the baraita is going to hurt me.” Remember, Rav Sheshet was the rabbi who said the pole has to touch. Here you see it doesn't. Here you see the roof of the doorway has an arch. Basically, what are you saying? You chisel it, and we consider it as if it's all squared off, even though it isn't actually touching, even though the top of the door isn't touching the top. It's separated by the arch; we chisel.
Rav Sheshet says, “Oh no, that baraita—please don't repeat it, because if you repeat that baraita, they're going to— I was the guy that told Rav Anan to knock down the eruv of the Reish Galuta because it wasn't touching the pole.” So he told him, “Amar leih: im mashkachat lehu, if you find the Reish Galuta, lo teima lehu lebei Reish Galuta velo midei”—don't tell them anything about this baraita—“meha matnita dekipah,” because they'll use this baraita against me. What does that mean? “What does one of the Artscroll say?” “No, he agreed.” So he doesn't want to get in trouble. He doesn't want to be embarrassed. “So he was modeh? He retracted?” “Yeah, he retracted.” “Where do you see that he retracted?” “I don't know that he retracted. Where do you see he retracted? It says in the Artscroll.”
“Yeah, what does it say? I want to hear that note.” “Rav Sheshet chozer bo umodeh she- shehatzedek hayah im Rav Nachman betzurat hapetach she-he'emid beveit Reish Galuta, achen hitir et ha-” Ah, so he doesn't want to get in trouble, doesn't want to get beaten up. “Be'od shehakanim shebatzdadim lo higi'u lakaneh ha'elyon kedin mechitzah.” Beautiful. Makes sense, because you can't argue with a baraita. “Ach mechamet habushah hu mevakesh.” Yeah, he retracted, but, “I don't want to get beaten up if they find out this baraita exists.”