ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 41
ERUVIN 41 - was generously dedicated by an anonymous donor in
(a) When Tish'ah be'Av falls on Shabbos - there are no restrictions. Even
a meal like that of Shlomoh ha'Melech in his time is permitted for Se'udas
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah's testimony, when Tish'ah be'Av fell on
Friday - Rebbi Akiva ate a partially roasted egg without salt in the
afternoon, in order not to enter into Shabbos in a state of hunger.
(c) On Shabbos that falls on Erev Tish'ah be'Av, one must stop eating a
short time before nightfall (despite the fact that that constitutes
fasting on Shabbos). So if one is permitted to leave Shabbos in a state of
hunger, then why should one not be permitted to enter it in a state of
(d) The Rabbanan however, differentiate between leaving* Shabbos in a
state of hunger (when at the end of the day one *has* just eaten, and is
not really hungry; and *entering* Shabbos in a state of hunger, when one
has been fasting all day.
(a) Raban Gamliel forbade fixing a Ta'anis *on* Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah or
(b) If, however, a series of fasts was fixed to begin *before* any of
these days fell due, only one of them fell in the middle of the series -
then one continues fasting throughout the series, even on the day when
fasting was initially prohibited (e.g. if Rosh Chodesh falls in the middle
of the series, then one fasts on Rosh Chodesh, too).
(c) Rebbi Meir adds in Raban Gamliel's name - that if that did happen,
then it is not necessary to complete the fast i.e. to fast until
nightfall, but may break the fast early.
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua tried to negate Raban Gamliel's ruling, to initiate a
new ruling that obligated fasting through until nightfall. Rebbi Yochanan
ben Nuri objected to that however, on the grounds that the Minhag that had
been in practice during the days of Raban Gamliel, must continue.
(a) How could Ula rule like Rebbi Yossi, who was of the same opinion as
Rebbi Yehoshua (with regard to fasting through to nightfall on a fast-day
which falls on Rosh Chodesh etc.) - seeing as this clashes with the
Beraisa, in which Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri thwarted Rebbi Yehoshua's
efforts to change the ruling of Raban Gamliel, who permitted eating before
(b) It is true that, in the generation of Rebbi Yehoshua they continued to
rule like Raban Gamliel, nevertheless, in Rebbi Yossi's generation, they
changed the Halachah, to rule like Rebbi Yehoshua (though it is not clear
what right they had to change the decision of an earlier Beis-Din).
(a) When Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok testified that he was from the
descendants of San'av ben Binyamin, he was in fact dexlaring that his
family had a mandate to bring wood for the Korbanos every year on the
tenth of Av.
(b) He went on to relate how it once happened that Tish'ah be'Av fell on a
Shabbos, and that accordingly, since Tish'ah be'Av was Nidcheh (postponed
to the tenth - the day when their wood-Korban fell due, and which was a
Yom-Tov for them, like it was for anyone who brought a private offering),
and how they did not complete the fast. But that was only because Tish'ah
be'Av was postponed. Otherwise, we can infer, one is obligated to complete
the fast - even on a day that is a Yom-Tov.
(c) But Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok was a contemporary of Raban Gamliel -
in whose days, we just proved, it was not customary for anybody to
complete the fast, if it co-incided with a Yom-Tov. So why would it have
been forbidden to break the fast, had Tish'ah be'Av not been postponed?
(d) The difference between fasting on the day before a Yom-Tov de'Rabanan
and fasting on Erev Shabbos is - that in the former case, it is also
permitted to fast for a few hours during the day even when it does *not*
co-inside on a fast-day. Consequently, when it *does*, one is obligated to
complete the fast; whereas on Shabbos, even fasting for a short while (in
the form of a fast) is prohibited. Consequently, it is not necessary to
complete the fast, should it co-inside with it.
(a) Rav Yosef commented that he had not heard of Ula's ruling like Rebbi
Yossi (i.e. that Mis'aneh u'Mashlim).
Hadran Alach 'ba'Kol Me'arvin'!
(b) Abaye, thinking that when Rav Yosef (quoting a Beraisa) added 'Zu
Divrei Rebbi Meir ... Aval Chachamim Omrim, Mis'aneh u'Mashlim', he was
referring to all the cases mentioned by Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa, even to
that of Erev Shabbos, in whch case - he must have been aware of Ula's
ruling like Rebbi Yossi, since he referred to Rebbi Yossi as *the
(c) This is no proof however - since Rav Yosef's addition may well have
been restricted to Chanukah and Purim, but not to Erev Shabbos and Rosh
Chodesh (where even Rebbi Yossi will agree - according to Rav Yosef's
contention - that one does complete the fast).
(d) The reason that Rav Huna did not quote Rav when Rabah initially asked
him the Sha'aleh - was because he had not yet heard Rav's ruling in the
(e) The Gemara's final ruling quoting Rav Huna, is 'Halachah Mis'anin
Perek Mi she'Hotzi'uhu
(a) Someone who has been forcibly removed from his Techum on Shabbos - is
permitted to walk four Amos in all directions.
(b) If they return him to his previous position - he reverts to his
previous Din, which usually means that he may traverse the entire town
plus two thousand Amos in all directions.
(c) If they deposit him in another town or inside a large enclosure, Raban
Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah permit him to walk the entire area -
because an area of any size that is surrounded by walls, has the Din of
four Amos (regarding Techumin).
(d) According to Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva - he is only permitted to
walk four Amos from the spot where he was deposited.
(a) A ship that left the Techum on Shabbos - is comparable to b eing
deposited in a town with walls or in an enclosure (since it transports the
occupant against his will, as well as having walls). Consequently, it will
be subject to the same Machlokes Tana'im, which explains why, when the
ship in which they were traveling, left port on Shabbos to sail down the
river, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah walked the entire ship,
whereas Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva refused to move outside their four
(b) When they asked Raban Gamliel about disembarking from the ship which
they believed had entered the new Techum only after Shabbos had come in -
he replied that, in fact, he had measured the distance when Shabbos
arrived, and that they were already inside the Techum at that moment.
(a) The non-Jews, an evil spirit and acute poverty - cause a person to do
what he does not wish to, as well as to transgress the commands of his
Creator. It is important to know this, because this will prompt us to
Daven that we should not be subjected to any of them.
(b) Someone who has suffered acute poverty, stomach pains and having
creditors after his blood - will be spared seeing the inside of Gehinom,
because he has already seen it in this world.
1. ... The Tana Kama of the Beraisa does not include a bad wife - because
it is a Mitzvah to divorce her (in which case, he is asking for trouble by
(d) It is important that we know this, so that, should any of them occur,
the knowledge that it will alleviate our suffering in the World to Come,
will help us to accept our suffering with love.
2. ... The second Tana nevertheless *does* see fit to include her -
because sometimes he cannot afford the heavy Kesubah, or because of the
children that he had from her.
(a) Someone suffering from stomach pains, a woman who has given birth and
someone suffering from Hadrokan (dropsy) - are likely to die unexpectedly
(even whilst in the middle of a conversation. Note: This does not
necessarily apply nowadays - as is the case with many Gemaros to do with
(b) We need to know this - in order to prepare their shrouds even though
they give the impression of being perfectly healthy.
(a) We know that someone who is taken forcibly out of his Techum and
returns on his own accord, is only permitted to walk four Amos - from the
fact that our Mishnah only permits someone who is taken out of his Techum
*and returned* to revert to his original two thousand Amos, implying that
if he returned under his own steam, he has no more than four Amos.
(b) Shmuel comes to teach us - that someone who left his Techum on his own
accord, and is forcibly returned, only has *four* Amos, and not *two
(c) Shmuel's Din is not inherent in our Mishnah, where the Reisha speaks
about 'mi'she'Hotzi'u', and the Seifa about 'Hichziruhu' - because, even
though it seems as if the Seifa is a continuation of the Reisha (i.e. that
only someone who was returned forcibly after being removed forcibly, is
permitted to walk his original two thousand Amos, but not someone who left
his Techum willingly), it is also possible to explain the Seifa as a new
case (i.e. either someone who was removed forcibly or someone who was
forcibly returned - even after having left it wilfully.
(a) 'Human dignity is a great thing, and it overrides all de'Rabbanans'.
Consequently, someone who was taken forcibly outside the Techum - is
permitted to go beyond four Amos in order to relieve himself.
(b) If he is smart - he will take the opportunity and re-enter his Techum,
when he will be permitted to walk his original two thousand Amos.
(c) Rav Papa says that fruit that was deliberately carried outside the
Techum and returned - retains its original Techum. Why? Because fruit is
always transported against its will, which gives it the Din of an Anus?