THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) A BREACH IN THE WALL OF A MAVOY FOUR "TEFACHIM" FROM THE ENTRANCEWAY
QUESTION: A Mavoy (with a Lechi or Korah) which has a solid wall extending
four Tefachim from the entranceway before there is a breach (up to ten Amos
wide) in the wall, one may carry in the Mavoy. But if the Mavoy's wall
extends *less* than four Tefachim before the breach, one may not. The reason
for this, explains the Gemara, is because four Tefachim is the minimum
length of a Mavoy.
2) FITTING A FOUR-TEFACH WIDE DOORWAY INTO A FOUR-TEFACH WIDE WALL
RASHI (DH Matir) explains that if people start using the breach as the
entrance to the Mavoy and stop using the regular entrance, consequently, the
regular entrance will be used only to enter an area that is less than four
Tefachim long (i.e. the part of the Mavoy before the breach). Therefore that
entrance is not considered a valid entranceway. Since the opening there is
no longer considered an entranceway, the Korah over it can no longer serve
to permit carrying in the Mavoy.
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. Rashi should have said
simply that the *Mavoy* to which the main entrance leads is invalid because
its wall does not extend four Tefachim, and therefore the Korah is not
placed on a valid *Mavoy*! It makes no difference whether Why did Rashi have
to add that the Korah is not a valid Korah because the entranceway is not a
valid *entranceway*, since people no longer use that entranceway?
(a) The RITVA answers that Rashi's explanation is based on the Gemara's
conclusion. This Mavoy once was a valid Mavoy, but was breached. The Gemara
concludes that it is more difficult to invalidate a Mavoy once it was built
properly than it is to invalidate it if it has not yet been built properly.
Therefore, since this Mavoy was a valid Mavoy, it takes more to invalidate
it than the fact that the Mavoy is no longer four Tefachim long. Rather, it
is a combination of two problems. First, the original opening is no longer
considered an *entranceway* because people are not using it. Second, the
Korah is not a valid Korah on top of a Mavoy because the *Mavoy* does not
open into an area more than four Tefachim long.
(b) Alternatively, Rashi may mean that we do not view the area in the Mavoy
before the break as an entirely separate Mavoy. If we did, the Korah would
not permit carrying in the Mavoy even if the break was *more* than four
Tefachim away from the entrance, since it is on a different Mavoy. Rather,
if the entrance above which the Mavoy is placed is not used to gain access
to an area at least 4x4 Tefachim, it is not considered an *entranceway* of a
Mavoy. The Mavoy is still considered a valid Mavoy; it is the doorway which
has lost its status. (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: The Gemara says that it is possible to have two four-Tefach wide
doors opening into the sides of a four-Tefach long Mavoy, in such a way that
they open on the corners. RASHI explains that each door opens at an angle,
covering three Tefachim of the length of the Mavoy's wall, and one Tefach of
the end of the Mavoy (see diagram in Rashi).
TOSFOS asks the obvious question. The diagonal of a right triangle whose
sides are three Tefachim and one Tefach long is less than four Tefachim
(~3.16). How, then, can doors four Tefachim long open into a Mavoy which is
only four Tefachim long?
ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi maintained that at least a Tefach must be left from
the walls of the Mavoy in order for it to be considered a valid Mavoy
(perhaps because the minimum width of a Korah is one Tefach, and thus the
walls must have an area upon which to place the Korah). Therefore, the
length of the doors have to be decreased by a small amount, and it will be
impossible for the doors to be a full 4 Tefachim.
As for the whether the doors are actually have to be a full 4 Tefachim long,
it could be that Rashi is following his opinion elsewhere. In Shabbos (85a,
see Insights there), RASHI says that seeds draw nourishment from the ground
up to 1 1/2 Tefachim away, and since one plant's nourishment must be kept
away from the nourishment of another type of plant, they must therefore be
three Tefachim away from each other. Rashi (85a, end of DH v'Ha Ika, see
Tosfos 85b end of the page) explains that a distance of the diagonal of two
Tefachim by one Tefach is a sufficient distance to separate two types of
plants. Even though this distance is not 3 Tefachim, Rashi maintains that
the Rabanan allowed the three Tefachim to be measured by measuring the
length up and across (2 + 1). Similarly, Rashi maintains that the four
Tefachim necessary for the doorway of our Sugya may be measured by adding
the length up and across (3 + 1).