Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,199
edits
Eruvin: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Tzurat Hapetach
No edit summary |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
# It is permitted to set up four walls of a tzurat hapetach to enclose a residential area.<ref>Pri Megadim MZ 363:1 has an unresolved question whether a tzurat hapetach is valid from the Torah or derabbanan. Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v. kshkol tries to prove that this is a dispute between the Ri and Rabbenu Chananel. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=221 Chazon Ish 70:13] holds that the tzurat hapetach is valid m'deoritta (excluding the issue of ayti rabbim).</ref> However, for an uninhabited valley it is invalid.<ref>Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v.aval is lenient on uninhabited valley if it is only 10 or less. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=221 Chazon Ish 70:11] machmir.</ref> | # It is permitted to set up four walls of a tzurat hapetach to enclose a residential area.<ref>Pri Megadim MZ 363:1 has an unresolved question whether a tzurat hapetach is valid from the Torah or derabbanan. Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v. kshkol tries to prove that this is a dispute between the Ri and Rabbenu Chananel. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=221 Chazon Ish 70:13] holds that the tzurat hapetach is valid m'deoritta (excluding the issue of ayti rabbim).</ref> However, for an uninhabited valley it is invalid.<ref>Biur Halacha 362:10 s.v.aval is lenient on uninhabited valley if it is only 10 or less. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=221 Chazon Ish 70:11] machmir.</ref> | ||
# Four walls made of tzurot hapetach aren't effective for a reshut harabbim because of the issue of ''ayti rabbim,'' conceptually "the masses come and knock down the tzurat hapetach."<Ref>Eruvin 6b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 364:2</ref> | # Four walls made of tzurot hapetach aren't effective for a reshut harabbim because of the issue of ''ayti rabbim,'' conceptually "the masses come and knock down the tzurat hapetach."<Ref>Eruvin 6b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 364:2</ref> | ||
#Wire should directly over the sideposts without anything separating between the sidepost and the wire.<Ref>Taz 363:19 holds that if there's a roof between the lechi and the kaneh on top it is an invalid tzurat hapetach. Tosefet Shabbos 363:64 disagrees and allows it. Mishna Brurah 363:112, Shulchan Aruch Harav 363:32, Chazon Ish 71:13, and Kaf Hachaim 363:189 accept Taz. Rav Dovid Feinstein (Vdibarta Bam v. 2 p. 289) holds that in extenuating circumstances at least for derabbanan purposes it is possible to follow Tosefet Shabbat unlike Taz. Chazon Ish 71:13 implies that if the roof was small and not 4 amot long it isn't a hefsek.</ref> | |||
===Doorpost behind a Wall=== | ===Doorpost behind a Wall=== | ||
#Most poskim are stringent not to allow a tzurat hapetach if one side post is inside of a four-walled area | #Most poskim are stringent not to allow a tzurat hapetach if one side post is inside of a four-walled area.<ref>The Netivot in [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41113&st=&pgnum=2 Tikkun Eruvin] writes that you can’t make a tzurat hapetach with one kaneh that is enclosed in an area surrounded by four walls. He presents two reasons. 1) A tzurat hapetach needs to be recognizable and if it is inside another area it isn’t recognizable. 2) The reshut hayachid is considered completely filled up and the kaneh is like it doesn’t count. Shaarei Teshuva 363:7 quotes this. Mishna Brurah 363:113 agrees. Avnei Nezer OC 291 accepts the Tikkun Eruvin’s point for another reason because he disagrees with both reasons of the Tikkun Eruvin. He says that it is like the kaneh that in the reshut hayachid is like it is separated from the other kaneh. [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=223 Chazon Ish 70:22] writes this idea to explain the Tikkun Eruvin.</ref> | ||
#If there is only one wall separating between the two poles that is a dispute if it is kosher.<Ref>Chazon Ish 70:22 is also machmir even if it is behind one wall. Mishnat Yaakov pp. 115-116 writes that a tzurat hapetach with one wall blocking the tzurat hapetach is kosher according to Mekor Chaim, Chatom Sofer, and Mishna Brurah, but Chazon Ish has a safek about it in 70:18.</ref> | |||
===Uneven Doorposts=== | ===Uneven Doorposts=== | ||
| Line 70: | Line 71: | ||
#A slope that is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot, such as 10 tefachim over 5 amot, is not considered a wall.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel writes that if the slope is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot it is like the ground of the reshut harabbim since people can walk over it easily. Taz 363:28 and Mishna Brurah 363:154 quote Rashi. Chazon Ish (65:70 s.v. achrei) suggests that an area that is raised up or lower 10 tefachim than the area next to it, it could be a reshut hayachid, since it is set off from the reshut harabbim even though the slope is more gradual than 10 amot within 4 amot. This is true on condition that people don't walk over the walls. For example, if there is a house with walls that are sloped more gradually than 10 amot within 4 amot, it is a reshut hayachid inside since people don't walk over the walls. His proof is Sukkah 19a. Netivot Shabbat ch. 6 fnt. 17 notes that the implication of the poskim is unlike this Chazon Ish.</ref> | #A slope that is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot, such as 10 tefachim over 5 amot, is not considered a wall.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel writes that if the slope is more gradual than 10 tefachim within 4 amot it is like the ground of the reshut harabbim since people can walk over it easily. Taz 363:28 and Mishna Brurah 363:154 quote Rashi. Chazon Ish (65:70 s.v. achrei) suggests that an area that is raised up or lower 10 tefachim than the area next to it, it could be a reshut hayachid, since it is set off from the reshut harabbim even though the slope is more gradual than 10 amot within 4 amot. This is true on condition that people don't walk over the walls. For example, if there is a house with walls that are sloped more gradually than 10 amot within 4 amot, it is a reshut hayachid inside since people don't walk over the walls. His proof is Sukkah 19a. Netivot Shabbat ch. 6 fnt. 17 notes that the implication of the poskim is unlike this Chazon Ish.</ref> | ||
#The slope is considered a wall where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot. The top of the slope is where it is considered to be the wall and not the bottom of the slope.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel and s.v. otto. Machaneh Yisrael (12:18 p. 294) writes that only the top of the slope where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot is considered a wall and not the bottom of the slope.</ref> | #The slope is considered a wall where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot. The top of the slope is where it is considered to be the wall and not the bottom of the slope.<ref>Rashi Shabbat 100a s.v. tel and s.v. otto. Machaneh Yisrael (12:18 p. 294) writes that only the top of the slope where it reaches 10 tefachim within 4 amot is considered a wall and not the bottom of the slope.</ref> | ||
#Once the slope is 10 tefachim high within 4 amot, the area that slopes above it is considered within the walls of a reshut hayachid.<ref>Maharshal (Shabbat 100a s.v. bdibur hamatchil tel) explains that Rashi holds that even the slope is also considered a reshut hayachid once the slope reaches 10 tefachim high within 4 amot of distance. Avnei Nezer OC 291:15 explains that there is gud asik on a tel hamelaket even on the slope once it is ten tefachim.</ref> Some argue that it isn't a reshut hayachid until the area flattens out on top.<ref>Chazon Ish 108:9. Tosfot Shabbat 5b s.v. kotel writes that a slanted wall which is less than 10 tefachim from the ground is considered like a reshut harabbim only if people place items on top of it. Tosfot implies that people didn't use the slanted wall, it would be considered a karmelit according to its dimensions. Ramban disagrees and argues that a slanted wall is like a straight wall and the side of it is considered airspace of the reshut harabbim. Rashba defends Tosfot by saying that the side of a wall is the airspace of a reshut harabbim, but a slanted wall is considered a new domain since there is a place upon it to place items. Chazon Ish applies this discussion to a slope of a tel hamelaket above 10 tefachim. According to Ramban, since it is like a wall, the surface is considered the airspace of the domain below. In practice it would be a makom patur since it is 10 tefachim above a reshut harabbim. Even though according to Tosfot it seems that the slope is considered a new domain and should be a reshut hayachid, Chazon Ish explains that isn't the case. Tosfot fundamentally agrees with Ramban, though he considers the sloped wall to be a new domain since no one can walk below it and can't be called airspace. However, above ten tefachim where walking below it is irrelevant Tosfot agrees with Ramban. Machaneh Yisrael (12:16:5 p. 293) rejects Chazon Ish's conclusion because it is against the Rashba and also Ritva Eruvin 90a. Machaneh Yisrael holds like Maharshal. Netivot Shabbat ch. 16 fnt. 19 quotes the dispute between Maharshal and Chazon Ish.</ref> | #Once the slope is 10 tefachim high within 4 amot, the area that slopes above it is considered within the walls of a reshut hayachid.<ref>Maharshal (Shabbat 100a s.v. bdibur hamatchil tel) explains that Rashi holds that even the slope is also considered a reshut hayachid once the slope reaches 10 tefachim high within 4 amot of distance. Avnei Nezer OC 291:15 explains that there is gud asik on a tel hamelaket even on the slope once it is ten tefachim. </ref> Some argue that it isn't a reshut hayachid until the area flattens out on top.<ref>Chazon Ish 108:9. Tosfot Shabbat 5b s.v. kotel writes that a slanted wall which is less than 10 tefachim from the ground is considered like a reshut harabbim only if people place items on top of it. Tosfot implies that people didn't use the slanted wall, it would be considered a karmelit according to its dimensions. Ramban disagrees and argues that a slanted wall is like a straight wall and the side of it is considered airspace of the reshut harabbim. Rashba defends Tosfot by saying that the side of a wall is the airspace of a reshut harabbim, but a slanted wall is considered a new domain since there is a place upon it to place items. Chazon Ish applies this discussion to a slope of a tel hamelaket above 10 tefachim. According to Ramban, since it is like a wall, the surface is considered the airspace of the domain below. In practice, it would be a makom patur since it is 10 tefachim above a reshut harabbim. Even though according to Tosfot it seems that the slope is considered a new domain and should be a reshut hayachid, Chazon Ish explains that isn't the case. Tosfot fundamentally agrees with Ramban, though he considers the sloped wall to be a new domain since no one can walk below it and can't be called airspace. However, above ten tefachim where walking below it is irrelevant Tosfot agrees with Ramban. Machaneh Yisrael (12:16:5 p. 293) rejects Chazon Ish's conclusion because it is against the Rashba and also Ritva Eruvin 90a. Machaneh Yisrael holds like Maharshal. Netivot Shabbat (ch. 16 fnt. 19) quotes the dispute between Maharshal and Chazon Ish.</ref> | ||
===If Slope Becomes Gradual in Middle=== | ===If Slope Becomes Gradual in Middle=== | ||
