ERUVIN 7 - Dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, l'Iluy Nishmas his mother, Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer (Mrs. Gisela Turkel) who passed away on 25 Av 5760. Mrs. Turkel accepted Hashem's Gezeiros with love; may she be a Melitzas Yosher for her offspring and for all of Klal Yisrael.


A BENT MAVUY (Yerushalmi Perek 1 Halachah 1 Daf 3b)

מבוי עקום ומפולש רבי יוחנן אמר נותן לחי וקורה מיכן ועושה צורת פתח מיכן


A Mavuy that is bent and Mefulash - R. Yochanan says, he puts a Lechi or Korah here (on one end), and Tzuras ha'Pesach here (at the other end, for it is like Mefulash).

ריש לקיש אמר נותן לחי או קורה ומתיר


Reish Lakish says, he puts a Lechi or Korah and permits it. (The bend is like a wall, therefore it is not like Mefulash. Each Mavuy is Me'arev by itself.)

[דף ד עמוד א] על דעתיה דריש לקיש בקשו לעשות להן תקנה אלו משתמשין (עד מקום הכותל ואלו משתמשין עד מקום הכותל) [צ"ל דרך עקמומיות ואלו משתמשות דרך עקמומיות - מיכל המים, הג"ר מאיר שמחה]


According to Reish Lakish, if they wanted to make a solution [to be Me'arev together] - these use via the place of the bend, and these use via the place of the bend.

ולא נמצאו שתי רשויות משתמשות ברשות (אחת) [צ"ל האסורה להן - מיכל המים]


Objection: Does it not turn out that both of them use a Reshus forbidden to them?! (Since they transfer through the bend, it cannot be considered a wall. Therefore it is like a Mavuy Mefulash, and a Lechi or Korah does not suffice for it!)

אלא אלו משתמשות (דרך עקמומיות ואלו משתמשות דרך עקמומיות) [צ"ל עד מקום הכותל ואלו משתמשין עד מקום הכותל - הג"ר מאיר שמחה]


Rather, these use until the place of the [bend, which is like a] wall, and these use until the place of the [bend, which is like a] wall.

ולא נמצאו שתי רשויות משתמשות ברשות (האסורה להן) [צ"ל אחת - מיכל המים]


Now, it is not found that both Reshuyos use one [common] Reshus. (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

רב ושמואל רב כר"י ושמואל כר"ל


Rav and Shmuel [argued about this] - Rav holds like R. Yochanan, and Shmuel holds like Reish Lakish.

ר"י וריש לקיש הוון שריין בשקקה דר' יצחק ריש לקיש טילטל כדעתיה ר"י לא אסר ולא טילטל


R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish lodged in the street of R. Yitzchak. (There was a bent Mavuy, and each half was Me'arev by itself.). Reish Lakish carried in it, like his opinion. R. Yochanan did not forbid them, but he did not carry;

א"ר יוחנן הניחו לבני מבוי [צ"ל מוטב - קרבן העדה] שיהו שוגגין ואל יהו מזידין


R. Yochanan: Leave the people of the Mavuy (I will not tell them that it is forbidden, for they would not heed me). It is better that they be Shogeg than Mezid!

מה (טילטל לא טילטל) [צ"ל עירב או לא עירב - ספר ניר, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל]


Question: Was [R. Yochanan] Me'arev [with them], or not? (In any case it is difficult!)

אין תימר (טילטל) [צ"ל עירב - ספר ניר, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל] מחלפה שיטה ר' יוחנן


If you will say that he was Me'arev, R. Yochanan contradicts himself! (He holds that it does not help. If he was Me'arev, he condones relying on it!)

אין תימר לא (טילטל ) [צ"ל עירב - ספר ניר, שערי תורת ארץ ישראל] יואסר לבני המבוי


If you will say that he was not Me'arev, he should cause Bnei Mavuy to be forbidden! (Why did Reish Lakish carry?)

ר' יוחנן ביטל רשותו


Answer #1: (He was not Me'arev.) R. Yochanan was Mevatel his Reshus [so he did not forbid them].

א"ר אחא כף ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן וטלטל


Answer #2 (R. Acha): Reish Lakish [verbally] coerced R. Yochanan [to retract], and he carried.

א"ר מתניה ויאות


Affirmation (R. Matanyah): This is proper! (Had he not retracted, his Bitul would not help, since he held that one may not be Me'arev. The Mishnah (below, 6:1) says that one who does not agree to the law of Eruv, he forbids.)

[דף ד עמוד ב] מה טעמא דרבי מאיר עשו אותו כשוגג אצל מזיד


What is the reason for R. Meir [the Stam first Tana of Mishnah 6:2, who holds that can a Tzeduki be Mevatel Reshus, even though he does not agree to Dinei Eruv? It is because even if he will be Motzi Kelim afterwards b'Mezid,] they considered him like Shogeg [for he was Mevatel his Reshus] in place of Mezid.

מה טעמא דרבנן מכיון שחשודין הן לטלטל כמזידין הן


What is the reason for Rabanan (i.e. R. Yehudah, who argues in Mishnah 6:2)? Since [Tzedukim] are suspected to carry, [even if he will be Motzi afterwards b'Shogeg,] they are considered like Mezid [so we do not rely on their Bitul].

אמרין ליה אין כיני יעשה שונאין של רבי יוחנן כצדוקי אצל בני המבוי ויואסר לבני המבוי


Affirmation (R. Matanyah's colleagues): You are correct. [Had he not retracted,] the haters of (this is a euphemism, to avoid saying such a matter about R. Yochanan himself) R. Yochanan would be like a Tzeduki with respect to Bnei Mavuy, and he would forbid the Bnei Mavuy.

אמר רבי יוסי בי רבי בון צדוקי חשוד לטלטלן וכא מה אית לך


Rebuttal (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): A Tzeduki is suspected to carry. Here, what concern is there? (Surely R. Yochanan will not carry after he was Mevatel! Therefore, his Bitul helps.)

מה נפק מביניהון


Question: What [else do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish] argue about?

היה עשוי כמין (כי) [נראה שצ"ל כ'] ר' יוחנן אמר נותן לחי וקורה מיכן ועושה צורת פתח מיכן


Answer: If [a Mavuy] was like a Chaf (three connected Mavo'os, like three sides of a rectangle), R. Yochanan says that he puts a Lechi or Korah here (at one end) and Tzuras ha'Pesach here (at the other end, and all are permitted);


Note: The Bavli says that "k'Min Chai" is the Greek Chai (X - shape), and this is clear from the Tosefta Terumos 4:9 and Yerushalmi Terumos 3:3. However, here R. Yochanan connotes that it has only two ends. Therefore, it seems that the text should say the latter "Chaf" with an apostrophe. Scribes mistakenly copied the apostrophe like a Yud.

ריש לקיש אמר אפילו כמה קורות אינן מתירין אותו


Reish Lakish says, even several Koros do not permit it. (MEICHAL HA'MAYIM - since the middle Mavuy must pass through one of the others, there is no way to consider that there is a wall on both sides of it.)

רב ירמיה בשם רבי בון מבוי שנפרץ מכנגדו ארבעה מן הצד יותר מעשר


(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Bun): If a Mavuy was breached opposite the opening four Tefachim, or on the side more than 10 Amos [one may not carry in it];

חברייא בשם רב לא שנייא בין שכנגדו בין מן הצד ארבעה


Talmidim say in the name of Rav, the same applies whether [the breach is] opposite the opening or on the side. The Shi'ur is four Tefachim.

הוון בעיי מימר מאן דמר מן הצד יותר מעשר הא עשר מותר בשיש שם רוחב ארבעה מאן דמר בין מכנגדו בין מן הצד ארבעה בשאין שם רוחב ארבעה


Assumption: [Talmidim] wanted to say that [they do not argue]. The one who says on the side, more than 10 [one may not carry], but if it is [exactly] 10, it is permitted, that is when there is a width of four of the wall stands between the breach and the opening. The one who said four, whether it is opposite the opening or on the side, that is when there is no width of four.

ולא כן סברנן מימר רב כרבי יוחנן


Objection: Did we not say [above] that Rav holds like R. Yochanan [who requires Tzuras ha'Pesach for a bent Mavuy. I.e. he considers it is as if it is Mefulash, even though the bend is four from the opening! Surely he says so even when it is not 10 wide, for Rav holds that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for more than 10! - PNEI MOSHE]

(וא"ר) [צ"ל א"ר - פני מאיר] יוסי בי רבי בון כדי לעשות כל [דף ה עמוד א] הרשות כאחת.


Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): [There, Tzuras ha'Pesach] is needed in order to make the entire Reshus like one [for there is much traffic between the two parts of the bent Mavuy. This does not apply to a breach in the side wall more than four from the opening.]