Chidushim on Daf Yomi – Eruvin

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Chidushim on Daf Yomi – Eruvin

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
  • #1891879
    Reb Eliezer

    Repeating what is applicable from Maseches Shabbos.

    Tosfas Shabbos (96,2) ד’ה הוצאה indicates it for carying out and there ד’ה הכנסה indicates it for carying in. Both cases is considered a מלאכה גרועה a weak melacha, as Tosfas 2,1 asks what is the differents carying from a private area to another private area where it is allowed to carry bibliically with karmeles (4 amos wide and less than 10 tefochim high) in between. See SA O’CH 345 There is an argument a public domain 16 wide 600,000 people walking through does that include cars? Reb Moshe holds they walk with their cars but others hold that a car is a a private domain for itself. See in great detail Yabia Omer O’CH (9,33) about making a airuv of tzuras hapesach. A public domain where houses are on each side might limt the movement Traffic lights also limit movement. Intersecting roads also are questionable.

    The Aruch Hashulchan in O’CH 345 explains that in the olden time there was a main road where all other roads would meet. The houses were in an alley closed on one side and meeting this main road on the other side (movo). The main road had doors on each side but open at nigh 16 amos wide. This is derived from the mishkan were all the tents would converge to the Moshe Rabbenu’s tent where all 600,000 people gather and the wagons to the mishkan took up 16 amos.
    Most agree that 600,000 is required. Rav Moshe in Igros Moshe O’CH (4,87) says that a city having 12 mil by 12 mil where this amount of people gather makes it a public domain considering it a platyeh godaloh. The Aruch Hashulchan says that each street is judged for itself.

    The RMA O’CH 346,3 says that currently all of our streets are considered karmelis, only rabbinical. This is the the view of most poskim and therefore we can make an airuv with a tzuras hapesach without actual doors. Most poskim’s view is that cars don’t can included in the count. We have houses on each side of the road with street lights which limit the public movement. There are other roads circumventing the main road, so the main road is not as important as it used to be.

    Reb Eliezer

    Tosfas on 13,1 questions the accuracy of PI the ratiio between the circumderence and the diameter of a circle.
    The Rambam on the mishnah 13,2 which uses the integral value of 3 based on the yam shel shlomo whose diameter was ten amos and ciircumference 30 says that since the value is not known exactly, so any value would not be correct, therefore 3 is taken as a rounded integral value. We use 22/7 or 3 1/7 to approximate it as the Ralbag there in Melachim 7,23. The GRA uses the pasuk to approximate its value by using the written וקוה and the read וקו taking the value of the written excluding the connective vov which is 111 and multuplying by the integral value of 3 for an adjustment which is 333 and dividing by the read value 106, 333/106 = 3.141509 which is correct to 3 decimal places as the value is 3.1415926. Maybe, we can improve on this value by using the conective vov and adjusting the value a little. 117 x 3 = 351 add to tbis the number of letters in the word 4 making it 355 and add a kolel of 1 to the denominator of 112 so we get 355/113 which is 3.1415929 known by the chinese a long time ago as a good approximation correct to 4 decimal places of 3.1416. The denominator has no letters added as they are not all the letters written and numerator has no kolel as it is not read.


    I have looked up the traffic counts. The busiest highway in the US is the George Washington Bridge, with approximately 300,000 vehicles traveling its 14 lanes each day pre-pandemic. (The absolute maximum capacity is roughly 42,000 per traffic lane assuming no backups, no toll booths, and no stop lights.) The majority of those vehicles are single passenger commuters who get counted twice. Six of those 14 lanes are covered and would be considered indoors.


    Yerushalmi Shekalim 10 talks about how government worked – and still works!

    At some point cohanim gedolim would rebuild new expensive ramp for the para adumah and not use the one from the previous guy. Think Tappan Zee => Cuomo bridge

    There were funds left over at beit hamikdash at the end of the year that they struggled to spend on something kodesh – golden plating, utensils. Nowadays, they often buy comfortable chairs with “end of year” funds.

    Reb Eliezer

    Why is Shekolim added to the Daf Yomi from the Yerushalmi? Maybe it gives us hope for the building of the Beis Hamikdash by unifying all of us. The Kaftor Voferach tells the story where Rav Chaim from Paris at turn of 5000 millenium wanted to sacrifice a Korban Pesach without a Beis Hamikdash. The Chasan Sofer explains that he was unable to sacrifice a tamid as it needs unity through the collection of shekolim from everyone.


    >> Chasan Sofer explains that he was unable to sacrifice a tamid as it needs unity

    Unity is a good goal. It seems simple – Gemora says that when all Talmidei Chachamim daven on one street in Yerushalaim, Moaschiach will come .. simple? not so, said R Steinsaltz, we are not reading Gemora right – only when Moschiach comes, all Talmidei Chachamim will daven on the same street .. anyone knows exact reference, maybe I am not getting the whole joke without understanding the context

    Reb Eliezer

    Steinzaltz changed the tzuras hadaf and removed hagohus, so we avoid him and Rebbi Meir looked at names which is translated to Netziv Melach. The Churban came because of sinas chinom, so Meshiach comes when we have unity. I think he is wrong. There is a cute story where Meshiach comes and goes to a shul wearing a hat with the brim turned upwards, so he is told, we wear the brim over here downwards. He goes to anorher shul having it downwards, he is told to wear it upwards. When he goes to another shul, they tell him, what do you need a hat altogether. He says, I am going back, you can’t even agree on a hat.


    >> changed the tzuras hadaf …you can’t even agree on a hat.

    So, at the end you seem to agree with Rav Steinsalz on the issue of ahdut! I think he was very focused on addressing new group of learners that the rest was in the way. His 2012 explanation (that he eventually reversed) seems to say that:
    In the original editions of the Steinsaltz Talmud, you changed the traditional look – the tzuras hadaf – of the pages, for which you were heavily criticized. For the new edition of the Hebrew and English Steinsaltz Talmud, however, you restored the old look. Why did you originally change it and why did you restore it?

    Look, in the beginning, it just couldn’t be done. All the additional material couldn’t be put on the old pages. I tried twenty-odd formats, and found out that if I used the traditional page, it would be at least two and a half times as big, which wouldn’t be usable. So the question is: What do you do – duplicate the page as ArtScroll did or cut it?

    What I originally did in my Hebrew Gemaras was cut it. About 150 years ago in Poland, an edition with exactly the same kind of half pages was published. They made notes about why this was needed and [said] there was nothing holy about the other format. The traditional page is after all just a page. Even sifrei Torah can be written in different ways; surely Gemaras can be done differently too.


    RebE, same interview related to the issue of questions:

    Basically I want, not just that you will look at the Gemara, but that you will get involved in it. You cannot learn Gemara completely passively. You have to be a participant.

    There are two parts to what Hillel HaZaken said about kol haTorah kulah. One part is always quoted – “What you don’t want done to you, don’t do to others.” But the other part – “And all the rest go and learn” – is no less important.

    I hope to have people who will learn and say, “We want to know more, we have more questions.”

    Reb Eliezer

    Why could Steinzaltz not put his commentary in the original on another page or on the bottom thereby making his commentary more important than anything else? What we have is the Vilna format.

    Reb Eliezer

    Steinzaltz emphasized his own commentary over everything else by not placing it on the bottom of the page or another page. The Dubner Magid interprets Hilel’s statement by a parable. A young man took his uncle as a financial advisor. He was constantly told that he is losing money. Eventualy he had enough and went for an advice to another person. He told him, you should know your uncle is a ganev and you must separate yourself from him. The yetzer hara makes himself look like his friend. Know, whoever has hatred towards you, don’t make him your friend.


    RebE, Rav Steinsaltz was not trying to improve readability for an experienced yeshiva student, his original audience was less-observant Israelis for whom Aramaic was the barrier, as well as way of thinking. As he mentions above, he tried different formats and did the one that worked. I frankly did not use this edition much myself, but from seeing how the Rav was able to engage people, both Jews and non-Jews, who would never open Vilna Shas, I can project how his Shas enabled people to learn.

    This was an individual taking on a huge and important task – and succeeding, so “avoiding him” due to other considerations is like avoiding Rambam because he wrote in Arabic and did not refer to sources or avoiding Rashi because of the annoying script (that, of course, he did not know himself). We just translated Rambam and added references.

    Note that you are not defending “Vilna” page tradition, but rather Soncino and non-Jewish Bomberg who created the look. A lot of good and bad decisions about what and how to have on a page was done by publishers, who were not always Talmidei Chachamim.

    And Koren Noe edition seem to combine Steinsalitz and traditional pagination, so debate is good …


    Yoma 22-23 – two incidents, first one kohen knifing another to death, then one breaking a leg. In first case, the father notices that the son is not yet dead and thus the knife is still tahor …. that it got to that people cared about bein adam l’makom and were not sensitive to lives …

    the system was changed from competition to lottery after the second, leg, incident. After the first grave incident, committed out of anger, people understood the averah and possibly did teshuva. The second one, an “accident”, would not lead to teshuva, so the Talmidei Hachamim closed the games.

    there are other halakhot where inability to connect the dots makes an avera more serious (for example, insulting people). Shows that we need leaders to step in specifically when people cannot connect their behavior with the damage they are doing …


    Reb Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote haskamos for Steinsaltz.
    The objection of other gedolim had to do with Steinsaltz’s hashkafos, which are/were very problematic.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.