|
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
QUESTION: The Mishnah (78b) states that two balconies joined by a plank wider than four Tefachim may choose to make one Eruv together or to make two separate Eruvin. Rava says that two balconies that are not directly opposite each other and that are separated by more than three Tefachim cannot be joined to make a single Eruv, and each balcony must make its own separate Eruv. Placing a plank between them does not help. RASHI explains that when Rava mentions two balconies that are "not directly opposite each other," he means that one juts out farther into Reshus ha'Rabim than the other. Rashi understands that the two balconies are on the same side of Reshus ha'Rabim, but one juts out more than the other. (a) According to Rashi's explanation, why can the residents of the balconies not make a single Eruv together by simply placing a plank between the two balconies at the point where they are adjacent to each other (that is, at the beginning, and not the end, of the balconies)? (b) Moreover, why does Rashi not explain that when Rava mentions two balconies that are "not directly opposite each other," he means that they are on opposite, facing sides of Reshus ha'Rabim? (This is indeed how the RITVA and other Rishonim explain the Sugya.) (REBBI AKIVA EIGER, RASHASH)
ANSWERS:
(b) To answer the second question, we must first ask another question. TOSFOS (78b, DH v'Chen) asks that if there is a plank between the two balconies, then even when they are not directly opposite each other they should be considered connected by the plank! Why do they need to be directly opposite each other in order for the plank to connect them? The RITVA and other Rishonim explain that a person usually will not walk the plank between the balconies, since there is nothing below him except a gaping drop, and thus he is frightened to walk there. If the plank is at an angle (and thus offers less support) due to the fact that the balconies are not directly opposite each other, a person will not walk there at all. Perhaps Rashi also understands that two balconies cannot be joined because the plank between them would have to be placed at an angle. That is why he explains that the two balconies that are "not directly opposite each other" are on the same side of Reshus ha'Rabim, but one juts out farther than the other and they have no common width. A plank connecting them must be placed at an angle. Had the Gemara meant that the balconies are on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, the Gemara would have specified that they do not extend far enough such that their sides are contiguous at a certain point, for in such a case they would be able to be joined with a plank. (See Graphic.)
2) A HAYSTACK BETWEEN TWO CITIES
The MINCHAS CHINUCH (#24) wonders whether according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that the law of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, the law of Techumei Kelim (i.e., that an object may not be moved out of the Techum of its owner even by another person) is also mid'Oraisa. (a) The Minchas Chinuch points out that we may prove from the Gemara here that there is indeed a Techum d'Oraisa for objects. If the Techum for objects is not mid'Oraisa, then why does the Gemara say that we might have thought that Rebbi Akiva would prohibit using the hay lest one take hay out of its Techum? There would be no Isur d'Oraisa to take the hay out of its Techum, and thus no reason to make such a Gezeirah! It must be that the Techum of objects is indeed mid'Oraisa. (b) It could be, however, that the Gemara here is not a proof that Techumei Kelim is mid'Oraisa. The Gemara says only that the hay is between two Techumim (i.e., between the Techumim of the residents of two cities). It does not say that the hay is at the end of its own Techum (that is, perhaps the hay's own Techum extends beyond this point towards the second city). However, if the hay is not at the end of its own Techum, then why may one not take hay from the other side of the haystack? The RITVA explains that the Gemara is concerned that the person feeding his animal will walk to the other side of the haystack to take hay, and by doing so he will be walking out of his own Techum. This is what Rashi means when he says that "one might take from a Techum that is not his." The Gemara is not discussing the Techum of objects at all. (c) Although there is no definite proof from the Gemara here, the YAD BINYAMIN points out that the RAMBAN (17b) indeed states, as the Minchas Chinuch asserts, that the Techum of Kelim is mid'Oraisa. (See also BI'UR HALACHAH OC 340, DH l'Man d'Amar.)
3) A MINOR BEING "MEZAKEH" TO THE MEMBERS OF A MAVOY
If a minor cannot make a Shituf Mavo'os because he does not have the ability to make an acquisition to others, why does the Mishnah say that a Jewish maidservant (Shifchah) may be Mezakeh the Shituf to others? A maidservant is, by definition, always a minor (because once she has signs of maturity, she goes free)! ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH u'Mezakeh) explains that with regard to Shituf Mavo'os, which is only a d'Rabanan requirement, there is a unique leniency that allows even minors to be Mezakeh to others. When the Mishnah says that one's child who is a minor cannot be Mezakeh, it means that one's own child, who is dependent on his father's support, cannot be Mezakeh the Eruv. Such a minor is like an "extension" of his father and one cannot be Mezakeh his father's object to others just as one cannot be Mezakeh his own object to others (but he must have someone else be Mezakeh it to them on his behalf). The child of someone else, however, can be Mezakeh the food to others.
|
