THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
ERUVIN 46 - was generously dedicated by an anonymous donor in Los Angeles.
1) PROVING THAT ERUV CHATZEROS IS MORE LENIENT THAN ERUV TECHUMIN
QUESTION: The Gemara says that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient
than the laws of Eruvei Techumin, and therefore we might have thought that
the principle that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion with regard to
Eruvin applies only to Eruvei Chatzeros but not to Eruvei Techumin. The
Gemara proves that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient from the
Mishnah (81b) that says that one may make an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else
without his knowledge, but one may not make an Eruv Techumin for someone
else without his knowledge.
2) "NOT TO FORGET THE CONCEPT OF ERUV"
How does this show that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient? That
same Mishnah states that the reason why one may not make an Eruv Techumin
for someone else is because it is a detriment ("Chov") to him, since the
Eruv causes him to lose his two thousand Amos in the opposite direction. One
may make an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else only because it is a benefit
("Zechus") for him, since he is gaining the ability to carry from his home
into the Chatzer. This reason has nothing to do with one being more lenient
than the other! How, then, does the Gemara prove from here that Eruv
Chatzeros is more lenient than Eruv Techumin?
ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH v'Ein) answers that in truth both Eruvei Chatzeros and
Eruvei Techumin are a slight detriment for the person. When making an Eruv
Techumin for someone else, even if it is *known for sure* that he wants to
travel in the direction where you make his Eruv, nevertheless he is losing
the Techum on the other side. This is considered only a *slight* detriment
to him, nevertheless the Eruv cannot be made for him because of the slight
detriment. When making an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else, one takes from
him a loaf of bread to put in the communal collective (sometimes giving him
the loaf first, and then taking it from him for the collective). Even though
he is gaining the Eruv Chatzeros, it is again a *slight* detriment to the
person the Eruv is made for because he is losing his bread. Since both types
of Eruv have slight detriments, yet one may make an Eruv Chatzeros for
someone else without his knowledge but not an Eruv Techumin, it is evident
that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient.
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that there is a difference between "Shiyurei Eruv"
(using as an Eruv Chatzeros food that was already set aside for the Eruv in
previous weeks) and "Techilas Eruv" (food newly set aside as an Eruv
Chatzores); we are more lenient in the case of the latter.
3) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "HALACHAH," "MATIN," AND "NIR'IN"
The Gemara cites proof for this premise from the Mishnah (80b) which states
that when using an old Eruv, one may use the leftover food even if it is
less than the amount of food that is normally required for an Eruv. The
Mishnah continues with a cryptic statement, "we only make an Eruv so that
the concept of Eruv should not be forgotten from the children." What does
the end of that Mishnah mean, and how is it connected to the statements
prior to it?
(a) RASHI (80b, DH Ela she'Lo) explains that even though a Shituf Mavo'os
joins together all of the people in all of the Chatzeros opening into the
Mavoy, nevertheless the people in each Chatzer around the Mavoy must still
make an Eruvei Chatzeros to join the Chatzeros together. Why is that Eruv
Chatzeros necessary, if it is already permitted to carry from one Chatzer to
another, and to the Mavoy, because of the Shituf Mavo'os? The Mishnah
explains that the Eruv Chatzeros is not really necessary in order to permit
carrying there, since the Shituf Mavo'os already combines all of the
Reshuyos. Rather, the purpose of making the Eruv Chatzeros is in order for
people not to forget the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros -- that is, lest people
forget to make an Eruv Chatzeros when there is *no* Shituf Mavo'os. As a
safeguard, the Rabanan decreed that one must make an Eruv Chatzeros even
though there is no need for it.
Since in most cases an Eruv Chatzeros is not really necessary (because the
Shituf Mavo'os is operative), the Rabanan were therefore lenient with regard
to "Shiyurei Eruv."
(b) RASHI here (DH v'Lo Amru) gives a different explanation, which TOSFOS
(DH she'Lo) endorses. The Mishnah does not mean that *Eruvei Chatzeros* are
made "so that they should not be forgetten,", but that *Shitufei Mavo'os*
are made for that reason.
In order to permit carrying into a Chatzer and into a Mavoy, an Eruv
Chatzeros, combining the various Chatzeros around a Mavoy, should be all
that is necessary. Why, then, did the Rabanan make the extra enactment of
Shituf Mavo'os? The extra enactment of Shituf Mavo'os was made in order to
act as a reminder for the concept of Eruvei *Techumin*. The Rabanan wanted
something that would remind us of the concept of Eruvei Techumin, and
therefore they decreed that a Shituf Mavo'os, consisting of two meals worth
of any type of food (at most), be made. (Apparently, Shituf Mavo'os, more
than Eruv Chatzeros, is reminiscent of Eruvei Techumin because it can be
done with *any food* like an Eruv Techumin, whereas Eruvei Chatzeros may
only be made with bread.)
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Zereika said that the Halachah follows Rebbi
Akiva when he argues with one of his colleagues, Rebbi Yosi even when he
argues with a number of Rabanan, and Rebbi when he argues with one of his
colleagues. Rav Asi said that these rules are the "Halachah," Rebbi Chiya
bar Aba said "Matin," and Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina said "Nir'in." What
is the difference between these three applications of the rule? (We find a
similar argument in Berachos 33b.)
(a) According to RASHI, "Halachah" means that this rule or opinion is taught
in the public lecture. "Matin" means that although it is not taught
publicly, the rabbi should instruct individuals according to this opinion
when they ask what they should do. "Nir'in" means that one should not even
instruct individuals what to do, but nevertheless if does make such a
ruling, we do not stop him from enacting it (and we do not revoke whatever
was done in accordance with his ruling).
(b) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Asi) explains that all three expressions mean that this
opinion is taught publicly; the difference between them lies in what happens
if one accidentally rules otherwise.
"Halachah" means not only is this opinion taught publicly, but if one did
*not* act in accordance with this opinion, then b'Di'eved we revoke the
ruling (for instance, if it involves the performance of a Mitzvah, one must
go back and do the Mitzvah again). "Matin" means that this opinion is taught
publicly, but if someone ruled otherwise we do *not* revoke his ruling.
However, if the ruling has not has not yet been acted upon we do not let
them act upon it. "Nir'in" means that although it is taught publicly, if
someone rules otherwise we allow him to act upon his ruling.