(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Eruvin 41

ERUVIN 41 - was generously dedicated by an anonymous donor in Los Angeles.



(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 Shelishis.

(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 hunger?

(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 Purim.

(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 nightfall?

(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).

(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 Chachamim*.

(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 matter.

(e) The Gemara's final ruling quoting Rav Huna, is 'Halachah Mis'anin u'Mashlimin'.

Hadran Alach 'ba'Kol Me'arvin'!



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 Amos.

(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 retaining her).
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.
(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.
(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 health matters.

(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 thousand*.

(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?

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,