Eruvin 4 – עירובין ד

Click here to view text of Daf (can be minimized alongside player)

Play Audio Only    Download Audio    Download Video   Diagram 1    Diagram 2    Diagram  3

Today’s Daf Yomi Question:

If there is a Chatzitza present on most of the hair, the Tevillah is passul.  Rashi describes the hair being knotted one by one.  Why is this considered a Chatitza on most of the hair if only a minute portion of each hair contains the knot (which prevents water from entering the interior of that knot)?

We learn that Shiurim were learned from Sinai.  We also learn about the seeming uncertainty as to the exact size of an Amma.  How can there be a safek about something which was taught through a Halacha lemoshe misinai (see Ramba”m’s Introduction to Mishnah)?

2 thoughts on “Eruvin 4 – עירובין ד

  1. According to Rashi this is the Halacha Lemoshe Misinai, that a Chatzitza on most hairs is a Chatzitza while a Chatzitza on a minority of hairs is not. This shouldn’t be so surprising since Tosafos explains that Rashi holds that anywhere else on the body even a Mi’ut is Chotzetz.

    ALso, it is possible that Rashi meant that the whole strand is knotted. Writes that each one is knotted as opposed to all of them together, but he didn’t mean to negate what we understood, that most of the hair is blocked. Rashi’s other examples were having mud or dirt, which is something that will indeed block most of the hair.

  2. We see from the Pasuk about the Mizbei’ach that there are two types of Amos, it is not a confusion. The Shiurim by Klaim, Eiruvin and Succah are not listed as Halacha Lemoshe Misina. These are Shiurei Chachamim (Menachos 103 – Mishna).

    Rashi explained that we are talking about Shiurim like Kezais, Kebe’ah, Revi’is and the other listed Shiurim. That didn’t include the Shiur of Mechitza, either. That was a seperate Halacha. These Mitzvos where given to the Chachamim to quantify what is considered far enough and Chashuv.

    The above is to explain how there can be a Machlokes in the topic of Shiurim. As to Reb Nachman’s statement, it is not based on a Safek. In Nida 58b the Gemara says that ‘all Shiurim from the Chachamim are Lehachmir, besides for the Gris of a Kessem.’ Reb Nachman is translating to us the intention of the Mishnayos, that they are always meant to be Machmir. It is not that Reb Nachman was unsure of the Shiurim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>