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 WALL BETWEEN A CHATZER AND RESHUS HA'RABIM THAT FELL DOWN
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that if a wall falls down between a Chatzer
and Reshus ha'Rabim, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the area where the wall
used to stand becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim. According to the Chachamim,
that area becomes a Karmelis. In the Gemara's second explanation, the
Gemara says that the argument is whether or not the area that broke down
becomes "Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim" (the sides of Reshus ha'Rabim). Rashi
explains that it is evident that there used to be a wall standing on that
area, but now the people of Reshus ha'Rabim use it and claim it as theirs.
2) TWO WALLS OF A CHATZER FELL DOWN
We know that "the prohibition of Gezel applies on Shabbos," so that a
person is not considered to be a user of a Reshus on Shabbos if he is
using it illegitimately (88a). If so, how can the people of Reshus
ha'Rabim make this area forbidden to the owner if they do not have the
right to use it?
(a) The RITVA explains that the Gemara is referring to a case where the
owner of the Chatzer originally allowed the people of Reshus ha'Rabim to
use the area where he later built a wall. Therefore, that area falls into
the category mentioned in Bava Basra (100a) of a path used by Reshus
ha'Rabim at one point legally, which may not be taken away from them.
(b) The CHAZON ISH (107:10) points out that TOSFOS does not seem to take
this approach. Tosfos seems to hold that even if it is not an area to
which the public originally had a legal claim, it still belongs now to
Reshus ha'Rabim. He suggests that any Reshus which is secondary and
subordinate to Reshus ha'Rabim becomes part of Reshus ha'Rabim. (Even if
it is used by Reshus ha'Rabim illegally, it can become Reshus ha'Rabim if
it is associated with Reshus ha'Rabim geographically.)
QUESTION: The Mishnah says that if the walls on two sides of a Chatzer are
breached, it is forbidden to carry in that Chatzer on future Shabbosim.
The Gemara asks what difference does it make if it was one or two sides?
If the breach is wider than ten Amos, then even if only one side was
breached, it is forbidden, the Gemara asks.
What is the Gemara asking? We know that a private domain with three walls
is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa. If it only has two walls,
then it is not a Reshus ha'Yachid. Here, the Mishnah is talking about a
Chatzer with four walls. If only one was breached, even totally, there are
still three walls and the area is still a Reshus ha'Yachid! That is why
the Mishnah must say that two walls were breached; the Chatzer now only
has two walls and is not a Reshus ha'Yachid! Why, then, does the Gemara
ask why the Mishnah had to say that two walls were breached?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Mai Shena) answers that this Gemara is going according to
Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that even if a Chatzer has two Mechitzos, it is
still a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa. If so, there was no reason for the
Mishnah to specifically say that two sides were breached. (The Gemara is
asking according to Rebbi Yehudah, because he is mentioned in the
(b) A normal Chatzer usually has only three Mechitzos to begin with.
Instead of the fourth Mechitzah, the fourth side is open and usually has a
Pas. As soon as one Mechitzah falls down, it is no longer a Reshus
ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa, because it only has two walls. Therefore, the Gemara
asks what is the difference if one or two Mechitzos fall down? If the
breached area is greater than the standing area (Parutz Merubah), then
even if one Mechitzah falls it is not a Reshus ha'Yachid. It must be that
the breached area is *not* greater than the standing area, and if so, what
difference does it make if one or two sides fell down?
3) THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN RAV AND SHMUEL CONCERNING "PI TIKRAH YORED
QUESTION: Rav and Shmuel argue concerning the principle of "Pi Tikrah
Yored v'Sosem." Rav maintains that the edge of the roof beam is viewed as
descending and closing off the area, and Shmuel maintains that it does not
close off the area. The Gemara records two opinions concerning the exact
case where Rav and Shmuel argue. One opinion says that they argue only if
the open area is larger than ten Amos wide; if it is ten or less, everyone
agrees that Pi Tikrah is Yored v'Sosem. The other opinion says that they
argue when the open area is ten Amos wide or less, but when it is more
than ten Amos wide, then both Rav and Shmuel agree that Pi Tikrah is *not*
RASHI suggests that the reason everyone agrees, according to the first
opinion in the Gemara, that Pi Tikrah is Yored v'Sosem when the open area
is less than ten Amos wide, is because even without Pi Tikrah, there is a
Pesach, an entranceway. That is, Rashi understands the case as one of a
Tikrah (beam) supported by two poles at the ends, so that they form a
Pesach and Pi Tikrah is not necessary to close off the area.
The Rishonim ask on Rashi's explanation that according to the second
opinion in the Gemara, even when the area is less than ten Amos, Rav and
Shmuel argue, and Shmuel says that Pi Tikrah does not work. But if there
is a Pesach, as Rashi says that there is, why does Shmuel say that it is
not good? Pi Tikrah is not necessary where there is a Pesach!
Second, how can Rashi say that there is a Pesach here? If there are only
two poles at each end, it is Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed -- the open area is
greater than the standing area, and it should not be considered a Pesach.
Also, the rule of "Asi Avira d'Hai Gisa u'd'Hai Gisa u'Mevatli Mechitzah"
(the larger airspace on each side of the standing parts are Mevatel those
parts) should prevent this from being called a Pesach. The only time that
such a structure is considered a Pesach, despite the problems of Parutz
Merubah and Asi Avira, is regarding Pasei Regalim (17b), where a special
leniency was instituted (see Insights, there).
(a) Granted, it is not a fully acceptable Pesach because it is Parutz
Merubah Al ha'Omed. However, mid'Oraisa, the fact that the open area is
greater than the standing area will *not* disqualify a Mechitzah (see
Insights to 17b). This is what Rashi means here -- if the Pi Tikrah is
necessary to enclose only ten Amos, then mid'Oraisa there is a Pesach and
Pi Tikrah is only needed because the breach is too large mid'Rabanan.
According to the first opinion in the Gemara, Shmuel agrees the Pi Tikrah
works when -- mid'Oraisa -- there are Mechitzos. When there are no
Mechitzos mid'Oraisa (such as when the open area is wider than ten Amos),
then Pi Tikrah does not work according to Shmuel. According to Shmuel in
the second opinion in the Gemara, Pi Tikrah does not work even when the
Mechitzah is invalid only mid'Rabanan, because of Parutz Merubah. (M.
(b) TOSFOS (DH b'Shtei Ruchos and DH b'Eser) argues with Rashi, and
explains that there are no poles at the sides of the beam, and therefore
there is no Pesach here at all, even if the breach is less than ten Amos.
Consequently, it is Parutz b'Milu'o l'Makom ha'Asur Lo. If so, what is the
difference between the opening being more than ten Amos and less than ten
Amos? The difference is that Pi Tikrah cannot make the space underneath
the beam into a Mechitzah, but it *can* make it into a doorway, a Pesach.
When the area is less than ten, then Pi Tikrah makes the area into a
The RITVA adds that Rashi, too, does not actually mean that there is a
Pesach with sideposts on each side below the beam, because then the
principle of Pi Tikrah is certainly not necessary. Rashi means to explain,
similar to Tosfos, that Pi Tikrah makes it considered as though there are
sideposts, and thus there is a Pesach.