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 80 - sponsored by the Jesselson Foundation
1) 'LIFTING UP THE FOOD' OF A "SHITUF"
OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that in order to make a Shituf in a Mavoy, one
is Mezakeh the contents of a barrel to all the residents of the Mavoy. If
the food in the barrel belongs to them (that is, everyone owns a share in
it), then he must inform them that he is making a Shituf with it. He must
raise it up off the ground one Tefach.
Why, and when, is it necessary to lift the barrel one Tefach?
(a) RASHI (79b, DH Tzarich) says that the lifting of the barrel is being
Mezakeh (an act of acquisition) for the residents of the Mavoy. The way to
be Mezakeh is through Hagbahah, lifting. Rashi cites proof to this from
the Tosefta. It is therefore necessary to lift the barrel only when the
other members of the Mavoy do not yet own a portion of its contents.
(b) The GE'ONIM and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Eruvin 1:17) explain that one must
pick up the barrel because the food being used for the Shituf must be
placed in a location in the Chatzer that is raised and noticeable. Even if
the contents of the barrel already belong to the residents of the Mavoy,
the person making the Shituf must still place it in a raised area in order
to make the Shituf consipicuous. They infer this from the order of the
Beraisa, which states that the barrel must be picked up *after* mentioning
the case where the contents of the barrel already belong to members of the
2) FORCING A PERSON TO JOIN A "SHITUF"
QUESTION: Shmuel states that we may force a person to join a Shituf
against his will (such as by having his wife join the Shituf on his
behalf) if his obstinacy is preventing the Shituf from being made. The
Gemara attempts to prove this from a Beraisa that says that we may force a
person to agree to have a Lechi or Korah erected at the entrance of a
3) ADDING TO THE FOOD OF AN ERUV
The Mishnah states that if the food comprising the Eruv diminished, then
one may add to the food without informing the residents of the Chatzer. In
the end of the Mishnah, Rebbi Yosi says that the remains of the food of an
Eruv ("Shiyurei Eruv") have no minimum requirement.
The Gemara responds that the two cases are not comparable, because "in
that case, there are no Mechitzos." What does that mean, and what does it
have to do with forcing a person to join the Shituf or to erect a
Lechi/Korah against his will?
(a) RASHI explains that without a Lechi or Korah, the Mavoy is vulnerable
and exposed ("Megulah;" the Ritva's text of Rashi reads "Megunah" or
unmannerly). Therefore, one can be forced to join in erecting a Lechi or
Korah, in order to provide physical protection (or aesthetic enrichment,
according to the Ritva's Girsa) to the Mavoy. When it comes to Shituf,
though, the Mavoy has valid Mechitzos around it, so there is no pressing
need to force him to join the Shituf.
The Rishonim question this explanation, asking how a Lechi or Korah can
make a Mavoyany less Megulah or Megunah?
(b) TOSFOS (DH Sha'ani) suggests that a Lechi or Korah enables carrying
*inside* the Mavoy. Making a Shituf Mavo'os allows carrying *from the
houses* and Chatzeros to the Mavoy. Without a Shituf, the residents are
still able to carry in the Mavoy itself, and therefore the need to make a
Shituf is not as pressing as the need to erect a Lechi or Korah.
(c) RABEINU TAM's text of the Gemara reads that Lechi and Korah are
different because they *are* Mechitzos. That is, the Lechi and Korah are
by definition Mechitzos, so they work against the person's will -- whether
he wants them there or not, they serve as Mechitzos. Shituf, though,
requires the person's consent to give his portion of the Mavoy to the
collective ownership of the Shituf (see Eruvin 49a, with regard to Eruv),
and therefore there it will not help if it is done against his will.
If any amount of food remaining from an Eruv will suffice, then why did
the first part of the Mishnah talk about *adding* to what is left, when it
(a) The MAHARSHAL inserts into the words of Rashi that "Rebbi Yosi argues
with the Tana Kama." The Tana Kama maintains that the remains of an Eruv
require a Shi'ur, and Rebbi Yosi argues that they do not require a Shi'ur.
Although the early manuscripts and printings of Rashi did not have these
words, the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) and BARTENURA do say clearly that
Rebbi Yosi argues with the Tana Kama. (However, if Rebbi Yosi is arguing,
the text of the Mishnah should have been "Rebbi Yosi Omer." "Amar Rebbi
Yosi" implies that he is adding something new and not arguing with the
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 368:1,4) says that whether or not the
remainder of the Eruv needs a Shi'ur depends on whether the food of the
Eruv became diminished before Shabbos or after Shabbos (like (b) above).
With regard to (d) above, the BI'UR HALACHAH asserts that even if there
was *no* Shituf, b'Di'eved one may rely on the opinion that any amount
that remains from the original Eruv is sufficient.
(b) RABEINU YEHONASAN M'LUNIL explains that the first part of the Mishnah
refers to when the food decreased *before* Shabbos, in which case it must
have a Shi'ur at the time that Shabbos enters. Rebbi Yosi is referring to
when the food decreased on Shabbos, in which case it is sufficient if
*any* of the food remains.
(This explanation of Rabeinu Yehonasan is noted by the BACH (#8) on the
Rif, and in his commentary on TUR OC 368.)
(c) Alternatively, the Tana Kama does not mean that one has to add food to
the Eruv. Rather, it means that if one *wanted* to add to the Eruv, he may
do so without informing the others. Why would a person want to add to the
Eruv? One would want to add to the Eruv in order to ensure that if the
*rest* of the original Eruv gets lost, the Eruv will still be valid due to
the part that he added. (CHIDUSHEI MAHARALBACH & BACH OC 368)
(d) Rebbi Yosi says that the remains of the food of an Eruv are still
considered a valid Eruv even if only a small bit is left because there is
already a Shituf Mavo'os, and the Eruv is made only in order that the
concept of Eruvin not be forgotten from the children. If so, the first
part of the Mishnah might be discussing a case when there was no Shituf,
in which case the food of the Eruv *would* need a Shi'ur. (MAHARALBACH,