ERUVIN 77 (7 Cheshvan) - Dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of ha'Gaon Rav Meir Shapiro (niftar 5694/1933), founder of the renowned Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin, representative of the Jewish community in the Polish parliament, and creator of the DAFYOMI STUDY CYCLE (see www.dafyomi.co.il/dafyomi.htm for more) - may he entreat before Hash-m's holy throne for the complete redemption of Klal Yisrael, speedily in our days!. Dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. Shmuel Kovacs of Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel; may the great Gaon be a Melitz Yosher for the Kovacs children to grow up with love of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim and succeed in all that they do.

1)

TOSFOS DH v'R. Yochanan Amar Elu Mailin v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åøáé éåçðï àîø àìå îòìéï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is even from the house.)

ôéøåù îï äáéú

(a)

Explanation: They may take from the house [up onto the wall];

ãîï äçöø àôéìå áøçá ã' ùøé ãëø''ù îå÷é ìä øáé éåçðï ì÷îï áøéù ëì ââåú (ãó öá.)

1.

From the Chatzer, it is permitted even if it [the wall] is four wide, for R. Yochanan establishes [our Mishnah] like R. Shimon below (92a).

2)

TOSFOS DH Olin Iyn Mailin Lo

úåñôåú ã"ä òåìéï àéï îòìéï ìà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Havah Amina.)

úéîä ãîàé ÷ñ''ã åëé ìà éãò ãøáé éåçðï àééøé áàéï ìå àøáòä

(a)

Question: What was the Havah Amina? Did he not know that R. Yochanan discusses when there are not four [Tefachim]?

åé''ì ãñ''ã ãèòîà ãøáé éåçðï îùåí ãàéï øâéìåú ìäùúîù ùí åìà àñøé àäããé åäåà äãéï áøåçá ã' ëéåï ùäåà âáåä é' åàéï ðç ìäùúîù ùí

(b)

Answer: One might have thought that R. Yochanan's reason is because it is not common to use there, and they do not forbid each other, and the same applies when it is four wide, since it is 10 tall and it is not convenient to use there;

åìäëé ìà ôøéê àìà ìø' éåçðï àáì ìøá ãèòîà îùåí ãáèì äåà ìà ùééê àìà áàéï áå ã' òì ã'

1.

Therefore, he asks only according to R. Yochanan, but according to Rav, that the reason is because it is Batel, this is applicable only when it is not four by four.

3)

TOSFOS DH Hacha b'Mai Askinan bi'Reshuyos d'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä äëà áîàé òñ÷éðï áøùåéåú ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that Rav argues only in a case like here.)

ðøàä ãå÷à ëé äëà ùäëì øä''é àìà ùìà òéøáå

(a)

Assertion: This is only in a case like here, that everything is Reshus ha'Yachid, just they were not Me'arev;

àáì î÷åí ùàéï áå ã' òì ã' ùáéï øä''é ìëøîìéú àéï ðøàä ùéçìå÷ øá àìà îåúø ìáðé øä''é åìáðé ëøîìéú ìëúó òìéå

1.

However, a place that does not have four by four that is between Karmelis and Reshus ha'Yachid, it does not seem that Rav would argue. Rather, it is permitted for people of Reshus ha'Yachid and people of Karmelis to adjust loads on it.

å÷öú îåëç ëï áô''÷ (ãó è.) ãîå÷é øáà äà ãàîø øá úåê äôúç àò''ô ùàéï áå ã' òì ã' öøéê ìçé àçø ìäúéøå äôúåç ìëøîìéú îùåí ãîöà îéï àú îéðå åìøä''ø ùøé

(b)

Support: It is somewhat proven like this above (9a). Rava establishes this that Rav said "in the opening [of the Mavuy], even though there is not four by four, needs another Lechi to permit it", when it is open to Karmelis, for the type [of Reshus] met with its own kind;

åìà ÷àîø îùåí ãòùå çéæå÷ àìà åãàé àó ìøá áéï ëøîìéú ìøä''é ìà òùå çéæå÷

1.

It does not say that it is because [Chachamim] strengthened [their decree]! Rather, surely according to Rav, they did not strengthen between Karmelis and Reshus ha'Yachid.

åîéäå îöéðå ìîéîø ãäúí ìà ð÷è èòîà ãçéæå÷ îùåí ãàéú ìéä èòîà àçøéðà

(c)

Rejection (of support): However, we could say that there, [Rava] did not mention the reason of strengthening because he has another reason.

4)

TOSFOS DH bi'Reshuyos d'Rabanan

úåñôåú ã"ä áøùåéåú ãøáðï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that below Amora'im argue about R. Yochanan's opinion.)

áôø÷ ëéöã îùúúôéï îé÷ì øá ãéîé èôé îùîéä ãøáé éåçðï áøùåéåú ãøáðï åùøé àôéìå ìäçìéó ëùéù áéï øùåú äéçéã ìëøîìéú î÷åí ùàéï áå ã' òì ã'

(a)

Observation: Below (87b), Rav Dimi is more lenient in the name of R. Yochanan about Reshuyos d'Rabanan, and permits even to transfer when there is between Reshus ha'Yachid and Karmelis a place less than four by four;

åäà ãàîø ø' éåçðï äëà àìå îòìéï îëàï åàåëìéï îñé÷ ãæòéøé àîøä

1.

This that R. Yochanan said here that these bring up from here and eat (which connotes that they may not transfer), we conclude that Ze'iri said it. (He argues with Rav Dimi about R. Yochanan's opinion.)

5)

TOSFOS DH Kosel she'Bein Beis Chatzeros Gavoha Asarah v'Tzido Echad Shavah la'Aretz

úåñôåú ã"ä ëåúì ùáéï á' çöéøåú âáåä òùøä åöãå àçã ùåä ìàøõ

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that it is not truly even.)

ìàå ùåä îîù ÷àîø ãàí ëï ìàå äééðå ëåúì àìà äëì äéà ÷ø÷òéú çöø

(a)

Observation: It is not truly even, for if so it is not a wall. Rather, it is all the ground of the Chatzer!

àìà ëì ùàéï âáåä é' ùåä ìàøõ ÷øé ìéä ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ

(b)

Answer: Rather, whatever is not 10 tall, [Rav Nachman] calls this "even with the ground." Rashi explained so.

åà''ú ìøá çñãà ãàîø áôø÷ ëì ââåú (ì÷îï ãó öâ:) âéãåã ä' åîçéöä ä' àéï îöèøôéï îàé ÷àîø ðåúðéï àåúå ìæä ùùåä ìàøõ

(c)

Question: According to Rav Chisda, who says below (93b) that Gidud (e.g. a vertical ascent between two lands, one of which is elevated more than the other) of five [Tefachim] and a wall of five do not join, why do we say that we give (permit use of the top of the wall) to the [top Chatzer], for which it is even with the ground?

äà àéï îèìèìéï áòìéåðä àìà áã'

1.

One may carry in the top [Chatzer] only within four Amos! (Since it is not considered a wall, it is totally breached to the lower Chatzer.)

åé''ì ãîëì î÷åí ðô÷à îéðä ãúåê ã' îéäà ùøé ìèìèì îï äëåúì ìòìéåðä

(d)

Answer: In any case, this is relevant to within four. One may transfer from the wall to the top [Chatzer].

6)

TOSFOS DH ha'Tomen Lefes v'Tzonen v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä äèåîï ìôú åöðåï ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they did not take root.)

áùìà äùøéùå àééøé ãëùäùøéùå ìà äéå ðéèìéï áùáú

(a)

Explanation: We discuss when they did not take root, for if they took root, one could not take them on Shabbos.

åà''ú áùìîà âáé ëìàéí åùáéòéú àöèøéê ìàùîåòé' ãìà âæøéðï ëùîúëååï ìäèîéï àèå ãéìîà àúé ìéèò

(b)

Question: Granted, regarding Kil'ayim and Shevi'is, it needs to teach that we do not decree when he intended to store them due to lest he come to plant;

àáì îòùø îä ùééê ëàï àôé' äùøéù ëéåï ãìéëà úåñôú

1.

However, what is relevant [to teach about] Ma'aser here, even if it took root, since there is no Tosefes (additional growth)?

åàé ð÷èéðï ìòðéï ãùøé ìòùø òìéå îï äúìåù àå îîðå òì äúìåù åìà çééùéðï ãéìîà àúé ìôøåùé îï äúìåù òì äîçåáø åîï äîçåáø òì äúìåù

2.

Suggestion: He mentioned Ma'aser that it is permitted to tithe on it from detached [Peros], or from it on detached;

à''ë äåä ìéä ìîð÷è úøåîä ãâáé îçåáø åúìåù øâéì ìäæëéø úøåîä áëì î÷åí àéï úåøîéï îï äúìåù òì äîçåáø ôéøåú òøåâä æå úìåùéï éäéå úøåîä òì ôéøåú îçåáøéï

3.

Rejection: If so, he should have mentioned Terumah, for regarding attached and detached, [the Gemara] usually mentions Terumah everywhere - "we are not Torem from detached on attached." "The detached Peros of this patch should be Terumah on these attached Peros."

åàåø''é ãøâéìåú äåà ùîúåñôéï îçîú ìéçìåçéú ä÷ø÷ò ëòéï ùàðå øåàéï ùåîéï åáöìéí ùîúåñôéï àôéìå ëùîåðçéí áçìåï

(c)

Answer (Ri): It is common that they increase due to moisture of the ground, like we see that garlic and onions increase even when they are placed in the window;

åòì àåúä úåñôú ÷àîø ãàéï öøéê ìòùø äåàéì åäéå îúå÷ðéí î÷åãí ìëï

1.

Regarding that increase, it teaches that he need not tithe, since they were fixed (tithed) beforehand. (It mentions Ma'aser, because Ma'aser must be exactly a tenth. Mid'Oraisa, any amount of Terumah suffices, and even mid'Rabanan there is no problem if he thinks that the increase is Tevel and gives extra due to it.)

åãå÷à ð÷è äèåîï àáì àí ìùí ðèéòä òåùä çåùù îùåí ëåìí:

2.

He mentioned specifically storing, but if he does (puts them in the ground) for the sake of planting, he is concerned for all of them (Kil'ayim, Ma'aser and Shevi'is. Mishnah Berurah 311:27 says that several Rishonim say so [also] about Shabbos.)

77b----------------------------------------77b

7)

TOSFOS DH Miktzas Alin Megulin

úåñôåú ã"ä î÷öú òìéï îâåìéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos resolves this with the Sugyos about Tiltul Min ha'Tzad.)

îùåí ùáú ð÷è ìä ëê ôé' á÷åðèøñ

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Mishnah] mentions [that some leaves are exposed] due to Shabbos.

åôøéê ëéåï ãëì äòá îëåñä åàéï îâåìä àìà î÷öú òìéï ãåîä ìñôì ùéù ìå àåâðéí

1.

[The Gemara] asks because the entire thick part is covered, and only some leaves are exposed, similar to a basin that has brim.

åà''ú åäà îùîò áøéù ëì äëìéí (ùáú ãó ÷ëâ.) ãìøáðï ãø''à áï úãàé ãàéú ìäå èìèåì îï äöã ùîéä èìèåì ôåâìà îìîèä ìîòìä àñåø ùäòá äåà ìîèä

(b)

Question: It connotes in Shabbos (123a) that according to Rabanan of R. Eliezer ben Tadai, who hold that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving, an upside down radish is forbidden, for the wide side is below. (When he removes it, he moves earth);

î''ù îöðåï ùî÷öú òìéï îâåìéï ãùøé åìà çùéá àôé' èìèåì îï äöã àò''ô ùäòá úçú äòìéï ëåìå îëåñä

1.

Why is this unlike a radish, that some of its leaves are exposed? It is permitted, and it is not considered even Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, even though the thick part below the leaves is totally covered!

åé''ì ãî''î ÷ì ìäâáéäå åìðòøå îï äòôø éåúø îëùäåà îåðç îìîèä ìîòìä

(c)

Answer: In any case it is easier to lift it and shake off the earth [when the thick part is above] than when it is upside down.

åà''ú ãîùîò äëà ãðéòåø ìà çùéá èìèåì îï äöã îãùøéðï î÷ðúä îâåìä àôéìå ìøáðï

(d)

Question: It connotes here that shaking off is not considered Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, since we permit when some of its leaves are exposed, even according to Rabanan;

åëîä îùðéåú ãùøå ìðòø ëãúðï ôø÷ áîä èåîðéï (ùí îè.) ðåèì (äâää áâìéåï) àú äëñåé åäï ðåôìåú åîòåú ùòì âáé äëø îðòø àú äëø åäï ðåôìåú åàáï ùòì ôé äçáéú îèä òì öéãä åäéà ðåôìú

1.

And several Mishnayos permit shaking off, like the Mishnah (Shabbos 49a) "he takes the cover, and (the wool shearings) fall." If coins are on a pillow, he shakes the pillow, and they fall (142b). A rock on a barrel, he tilts it on its side, and it falls (142b);

åà''ë àîàé àñø øá áôø÷ ëéøä (ùí ãó îâ:) âáé îú äîåèì áçîä ìäåôëå îîéèä ìîéèä îùåí ãèìèåì îï äöã ùîéä èìèåì

2.

If so, why does Rav forbid (Shabbos 43b) regarding a Mes in the sun to flip it from bed to bed, because Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving?

àò''â ãáîðéç àñøéðï áôø÷ ðåèì (ùí ãó ÷îá:) îèòí áñéñ ìãáø äàñåø

3.

Suggestion: If he placed [the Muktzah on the Heter intentionally], we forbid in Shabbos (142b) due to a Bosis for Isur.

îú áùáú äåé ëîå ùëç åëì ãáø ùãòúå ìéèìå áùáú åìà ìäðéçå áå ëì äùáú àëé' îðéç çùéá ëùåëç

4.

Rejection: One who died on Shabbos is like one who forgot, and anything he planned to take on Shabbos, and not leave it there the entire Shabbos, even if he placed it, it is considered as if he forgot!

ëé ääåà ãðåèì (ëï ðøàä ìäâéä, ëìòéì) àú äëñåé åäï ðåôìåú àò''ô ùáîúëåéï ëéñä áãáø ùàéðå ðéèì

i.

This is like the case of "he takes the cover, and they fall", even though he intentionally covered with something that may not be taken.

åàåîø ø''é ãùàðé èìèåì ãîú ùòé÷ø èìèåì ìöåøê äîú òöîå ùäåà àéñåø

(e)

Answer (Ri): Moving a Mes is different, for he moves primarily for the Mes itself, which is forbidden [to move it];

åìà ãîé ìëì äðé ùòåùä äèìèåì ìöåøê äéúø åìà ìöåøê àéñåø ëîå ìôú åöðåï ùàéï öøéê ìèìèåì òôø åëï âáé âéæé öîø åîòåú åàáï à''ö ìèìèåìí

1.

It is unlike all these other cases, in which he moves for the sake of Heter, and not for the sake of Isur, like the turnip and radish, in which he does not need to move earth, and similarly regarding wool shearings, coins and a rock. He does not need to move them.

ìäëé ìà îééúé áôø÷ ëéøä (ùí ãó îâ:) âáé ôìåâúà ãøá åùîåàì àìà ääéà ãø' éäåãä áï ì÷éù ããîéà ìéä åìà îééúé òìä ôìåâúà ãø''à áï úãàé åøáðï

2.

Therefore, in Shabbos (43b) regarding the argument of Rav and Shmuel (about how to move a Mes on Shabbos), it brings only the case of R. Yehudah ben Lakish (saving a Mes from a fire through Tiltul Min ha'Tzad), and it does not bring the argument of R. Eliezer ben Tadai and Rabanan.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ãìà úé÷ùé ääéà ãøá ààîøé áé øá áôø÷ úåìéï (ùí ãó ÷îà.) ãîùîò ãñáøé ãìà ùîéä èìèåì ëé æä àéðå ðøàä ìåîø ãôìéâé

(f)

Support: Now it is fine that it is not difficult Rav's teaching against Bei Rav (Rav Huna, whom we assume to hold like Rav), in Shabbos (141a), for it connotes that he holds that is not considered moving. It is unreasonable to say that they argue!

åàåø''é àò''â ã÷é''ì áòìîà ãèìèåì îï äöã ìà ùîéä èìèåì ãáøéù ëì äëìéí (ùí ãó ÷áâ.) ôñé÷ øá ðçîï ëø''à áï úãàé

(g)

Observation (Ri): Even though normally we hold that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is not considered moving, for in Shabbos (123a), Rav Nachman rules like R. Eliezer ben Tadai...

áääåà ãîú äìëä ëøá ãàñø ã÷é''ì äìëä ëøá áàéñåøé åîãîñé÷ òìä ãëåìé òìîà èìèåì îï äöã ùîéä èìèåì ôéøåù ø' éäåãä áï ì÷éù åøáðï

1.

Even so, in the case of a Mes, the Halachah follows Rav, who forbids, for we follow Rav [against Shmuel] regarding Isurim, and since we concluded about it that all agree that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving, i.e. R. Yehudah ben Lakish and Rabanan [agree].

åäåä îöé ìîéîø ìà ùîéä èìèåì åìàå÷îé ôìåâúééäå áèìèåì âîåø åàéï ìäàøéê ëàï

2.

[The Gemara] could have said that [Tiltul Min ha'Tzad] is not considered moving, and established the argument about absolute Tiltul. It is not proper to elaborate here.

8)

TOSFOS DH Iy Hachi Afilu Tzuri Nami

úåñôåú ã"ä àé äëé àôé' öåøé ðîé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why some ladders may not be moved.)

îùîò äëà ãëì ñåìîåú ðéèìéï áùáú áéï îöøé åáéï öåøé

(a)

Inference: Here it connotes that all ladders maybe taken on Shabbos, whether Mitzri or Tzuri.

åúéîä ãáô''÷ ãáéöä (ãó è:) îùîò ãñåìí ùì òìééä àñåø ìèìèì åìà ùøé äúí àìà ñåìí ùì ùåáê îùåí ãùåáëå îåëéç òìéå

(b)

Question #1: In Beitzah (9b), it connotes that one may not move a ladder of the Aliyah. We allow there only a dovecote ladder, for the dovecote proves about it (that he intends to get birds, and not for forbidden Melachah)!

åàôé' äèåé ñåìí ùì òìééä àñø äúí ììéùðà áúøà ãáðé ø' çééà

1.

Even tilting an Aliyah ladder is forbidden there, according to the latter version of Bnei R. Chiya!

åòåã ãø' çééà âåôéä ãàñø äúí îùîò áùîòúéï ãùøé ãñ''ì ñåìîåú ùì ááì öøéëéï ÷áò

(c)

Question #2: R. Chiya himself, who forbids there, in our Sugya (78a) it connotes that he permits, for he holds that ladders of Bavel must be fixed [in order to diminish a wall]!

åãåç÷ ìäòîéã áñåìí ùì ùåáê

(d)

Poor Answer #1: It is difficult to establish [that here] he discusses a dovecote ladder.

åàéï ðøàä ðîé ìäòîéã äê ãùîòúéï ëøá çðï áø àîé ãîôøù äúí ãáøä''ø ôìéâé àáì áøä''é îåúø

1.

Suggestion: We can establish our Sugya like R. Chanan bar Ami, who explains there that they argue about in Reshus ha'Rabim, but in Reshus ha'Yachid it is permitted!

ãìéú äìëúà äëé àìà ëøá ÷é''ì ãàîø ëì î÷åí ùàñøå çëîéí îôðé îøàéú äòéï àôé' áçãøé çãøéí àñåø åëï ôñ÷ áîâéìú ñúøéí

2.

Rejection: That is not the Halachah. Rather, we hold like Rav, who said that whenever Chachamim forbade due to Maris ha'Ayin (suspicion), even in an inner room (where no one else will see him) is forbidden. Also a hidden scroll rules like this.

åàåø''ú ãäëà áñåìîåú ùì áéú ùãøê ìèìèì îæåéú ìæåéú

(e)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we discuss house ladders. It is normal to move them from corner to corner;

åìà ãîé ìñåìîåú ùì òìééä ùäí âãåìéí åçæå ìäèéç áäï ââå åëï ñåìîåú ùì ùåáê

1.

They are unlike Aliyah ladders, which are big, and they are proper to plaster the roof, and so are dovecote ladders.

åä''ø àáøäí îôøù ãäúí áé''è ùîåìéê äñåìí áøä''ø åøåàéï àåúå åàåîøéí (äâää áîäãåøú òåæ åäãø) ìäèéç ââå äåà öøéê åëéåï ãàñåø áøä''ø àñåø áçãøé çãøéí

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Avraham): There, on Yom Tov, he takes the ladder in Reshus ha'Rabim, and they see him, and they say that he needs to plaster his roof. Since it is forbidden in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden [even] in an inner room;

àáì áùáú ãàéï øâéìåú ìäåìéëå áøä''ø ìà âæåø áçöø

1.

However, on Shabbos, it is not common to bring it to Reshus ha'Rabim. [Chachamim] did not decree in a Chatzer. (On Yom Tov it is common to take a ladder to take birds, to slaughter them.)

åìôé ôéøåù æä àñåø ìèìèì ñåìîåú ùìðå áé''è

(g)

Consequence: According to this, one may not move our [movable] ladders on Yom Tov.

9)

TOSFOS DH Im Yesh b'Itztava ha'Tachtonah Arba'ah Mema'et

úåñôåú ã"ä àí éù áàéöèáà äúçúåðä àøáòä îîòè

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we require that it is four Tefachim wide.)

ôé' á÷åðè' àåøê àøáòä åáä ðúîòè âåáäå ùì ëåúì îòùøä

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Its length is four, and in this [length] the height of the wall was diminished from 10 [Tefachim].

åîùîò ãìà áòé ã' òì ã'

(b)

Inference: It need not be four by four.

åëï ôéøù ñåìí ùùìéáåúéå ôåøçåú ëòéï ñåìîåú ùìðå

(c)

Explanation #1 (cont.): He similarly explained "a ladder that its rungs are Porchos" is like our ladders (air separates the rungs);

àåøê äçåå÷éí éëåì ìäéåú àøáòä àáì àéï øçáéí àøáòä ùòåùéï ëîéï î÷ìåú ã÷éí

1.

The length of the rungs can be four, but they are not four wide, for they make them like thin poles.

åúéîä ãáñîåê áòéðï ùéâéò ñåìí òã øàù äëåúì ãáòé ñåìí é''ã àé æ' åîùäå

(d)

Question: Below (78a), we require that the ladder reaches to [or within three of] the top of the wall! We require a ladder 14 [Tefachim] or seven and Mashehu!

åàéï ìåîø ãäúí áãìéú áéä ã'

1.

Suggestion: That is when it is not four [wide].

ãñúí ñåìí áøçá ã' àééøé àìà äéëà ã÷àîø ëì ùäåà ëîå âáé æéæ ãîùåí æéæ ìà áòé øåçá ã'

2.

Rejection: A Stam ladder is four wide, except where it says [that it suffices] "any amount", like regarding a ledge. Due to the ledge, we do not require four wide.

åëï îùîò ã÷àîø ì÷îï [ãó òç.] ñåìí îëàï åñåìí îëàï å÷ùéï áàîöò îäå ç÷÷ ìäùìéí áëåúì áëîä îùîò ãáòé øçá àøáòä

3.

Support: It connotes like this below (78a). If there is a ladder on each side and straw in the middle, what is the law? If he carved out [a cavity] to complete [the required width of steps to the top], how much [height is required]? This implies that it must be four wide. (Once we find that there is a required width, surely it is four Tefachim.)

åãåç÷ ìåîø ãäà ãáòéðï ùéâéò ìøàù äëåúì åìà ñâé áîä ùîéòèå àééøé ëùéù áéï æä ìæä â' åùìéáä äúçúåðä ðîé âáåä îï äàøõ ùìùä ãäåé îéòåè áàåéø åìà ùîéä îéòåè

i.

It is difficult to say that this that we require that it reach the top of the wall, and it is not enough to diminish, discusses when there is between one and the other three, and also the bottom tier is three high above the ground, which is a reduction in the air, which is not a reduction.

åîôøù ø''é ãäëà áòéðï àøáòä òì àøáòä ùéäà øàåé ìòîåã åìäúòëá òìéå åìòìåú òì äëåúì åìäëé ìà áòéðï àìà ùéúîòè äëåúì îòùøä

(e)

Answer #1 (Ri): Here we require four by four so it is proper to stand and delay there and alight on the wall. Therefore we require only that he diminish the wall from 10;

àáì ì÷îï áòé ùéâéò òã øàù äëåúì ìà àééøé áøçá ã' òì ã'

1.

However, below we require that it reach to the top of the wall. It does not discuss when it is four by four wide.

åñåìí ùùìéáåú ôåøçåú ìà ëòéï ñåìîåú ùìðå (äâäú äá"ç) àìà ëòéï îãøâåú ù÷åøéï âøã''ù åìà ëòéï îãøâåú ùì àáðéí ùòåùéï ëîéï ñèéå ìôðéí îñèéå àìà äîãøâåú áåìèéï æä òì âá æä ùéù çìì åàåéø áéï ùìéáä

2.

A ladder whose rungs are Porchos is not like our ladders. Rather, it is like steps called Gardish. It is unlike stone steps, that they make like platforms in front of platforms. Rather, it is steps that protrude one on the other. There is a gap and airspace between one tier and another;

åæäå ì' ôåøçåú ëîå ðîöà ëáù ôåøç òì âáé àîä éñåã åàîä ñåáá ãôø÷ ÷ãùé ÷ãùéí (æáçéí ñá:)

i.

The expression "Porchos" means [extends,] like "it turns out that the ramp [to the Mizbe'ach] was Pore'ach over the Amah of the Yesod and the Amah of the Sovev" (Zevachim 62b).

åäùìéáåú øçáåú àøáòä òì àøáòä åìäëé îîòè åàéöèøéê ìàùîòéðï áàéöèáà åáñåìí ùùìéáåúéä ôåøçåú

3.

The tiers were four by four. Therefore, they diminish. [Rav Bivi and Rav Nachman] needed to teach about a platform and a staircase of tiers covering (one another);

ãàé àùîòéðï áàéöèáà äåä àîéðà ãñåìí ùàéï äúçúåðä àøáòä åéù áòìéåðä àøáòä àôé' éù áéï æä ìæä ùìùä îîòè ãìà çùéá îéòåè áàåéø ëéåï ãîàçåøé äñåìí îçåáø äëì éçã ãäåé ëàéöèáà àçú

i.

Had they taught [only] about a platform, one might have thought that a ladder in which the bottom is not four, and the top [rungs], it diminishes, and it is not considered a reduction in the air. Since in back of the ladder everything is connected together, it is like one platform;

åàé àùîòéðï ñåìí äåä àîéðà ãàéöèáà àôé' àéï áéï æä ìæä â' äåé îéòåè áàåéø ãàéï äàéöèáà äúçúåðä îáèìú äàåéø åìà çùéáà ëñåìí ëì ùäåà ãçæé ìòìééä åîáèì äàåéø ùúçú äæéæ

ii.

Had they taught [only] about a ladder, one might have thought that a platform, even if there are not three [Tefachim] between one [tier] and another, is considered a reduction in the air, for the bottom platform is not Mevatel the air, and it is not considered a ladder Kolsheu (i.e. even less than four wide) that is proper to ascend, and is Mevatel the air under the ledge.

åø''ú îôøù ãäà ãáòé ùéâéò ñåìí òì øàù äëåúì äééðå áñåìí ùàéï ÷áåò

(f)

Answer #2 (R. Tam): We require that the ladder reaches to the top of the wall, i.e. for a ladder that is not fixed.

åàéï ðøàä ìø''é ãâáé ìåì äôúåç ìòìééä îéáòéà ìï ìòéì àé öøéê ñåìí ÷áåò àå ìàå îùîò ãáëì ãåëúà áòéðï ñåìí ÷áåò

(g)

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): Regarding a hole in the ceiling open to the Aliyah, we asked above (76b) whether or not a fixed ladder is needed. This implies that everywhere else, we require a fixed ladder!

åòåã ùàéðå ÷áåò ëéåï ãðéèì áùáú àúé' îâéò òã øàù äëåúì àéï ìå ìäåòéì ëîå çøéõ ùáéï ùúé çöéøåú

(h)

Rebuttal #2 (Ri): [A ladder] that is not fixed, since it may be taken on Shabbos, even if it reaches to the top of the wall, it should not help, like a ditch between two Chatzeros;

ãúðï ì÷îï àôé' îìà ÷ù àå úáï îòøáéï ùðéí åàéï îòøáéï àçã ìôé ùàéï ÷áåò ùí åòúéã ìéèìå:

1.

A Mishnah below (78b) teaches that even if [the ditch] is full of straw or stubble, each Chatzer is Me'arev by itself, and they may not be Me'arev together, since [the straw] is not fixed there, and later it will be taken.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF