Eruvin 6 – עירובין ו

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

Play Audio Only    Download Audio    Download Video   Diagram 1    Diagram 2

Today’s Daf Yomi Question:

We learn that a Reshus Harabim is an area without walls, similar to the Midbar.  The Gemara in Shabbos (97b) says that the Machane of Levi was a Reshus Harabim; how can an area surrounded by tents be considered a Reshus Harabim?


5 thoughts on “Eruvin 6 – עירובין ו

      • How are you applying Parutz Meruba? Tosafos explains that we are talking about where the Reshus Harabim narrowed, yet we still don’t say Parutz Meruba. This is because the Mechitza accomplished what it was supposed to be accomplishing. By a Mavui, when we have the Shuir of Hemshech Mavui there is no issue of Parutz Meruba since it stands on its own.

        The area between any two tents shouldn’t be considered Reshus Harabim, since they are large enough to enclose the area between them.

        You can also learn, like Tosafos here, that the Machane Levia had large open areas as well. Therefore, between the tents were just an enclosed extension of the Reshus Harabim.

    • It seems from Tosafos (and the Gemara later) that even according to Rebbe Yehuda, wider than 16 Amos would be a Reshus Harabim. Otherwise we’d have to scour the continent for another parallel wall before rendering an area a Reshus Harabim. Even in the Midbar they were probably between the walls of some city in Eretz Kinaan and some other wall on the other side.

      In Tosafos’ second approach (which might only be the Hava Amina) Rebbe Yehuda would hold the same even for a 16 Amma wide avenue. Rashi on 12b (Lechi Mikan) also learns that Rebbe Yehuda is talking about a real Reshus Harabim and not just a Mavui Mefulash. However, there must be something to differentiate a walled street from any random two walls. Perhaps the difference is when they are built around the area and are meant to enclose it, or when they were put there for the outside.

      This would answer Rebbe Akiva Eiger’s Kasha on that Rashi. Rashi says that the Chachamim agree about a Mavui Mefulash that it is a Reshus Hayachid Mede’oraysa, but the Gemara in Shabbos says that they argue and hold that two Mechitzos don’t make a Reshus Hayachid at all. But, according to the above — that there’s a difference if the walls are there for the enclosed area or not — the Gemara later is talking about Mavui Mefulash, which is surely built for the inside.

      This also explains what Rashi brings several times that a Karfef that is not closed for the sake of Dira is a Karmelis, and is not even a Reshus Hayachid Lechiyuv, and it doesn’t divide a Reshus Harabim. This goes against the Gemara in Shabbos 7 that clearly states that Mide’oraysa it is a Reshus Hayachid. So, again, perhaps Rashi is differentiating when the walls were put there to enclose from when they are there for outside purposes.

      There must be such a differentiation since it must stop being called a Mechitza at some point. If you erect a wall around the Equator nobody will say that half the world is a Reshus Hayachid.

      Therefore, the tents have nothing to do with the Reshus Harabim they are near.

Leave a Reply

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