(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 63



(a) Rav Hamnuna *did* issue rulings in Charta de'Argaz in the lifetime of Rav Chisda, who was a Talmid-Chaver, but not in the lifetime of Rav Huna, who was his Rebbe.

(b) A Talmid-Chaver is someone who may be his colleague's equal, but who learnt one or two things from him.

(c) It is because Ravina (the younger) was a Talmid-Chaver of Rav Ashi, that he examined a Chalif in Bavel during the lifetime of Rav Ashi.

(d) A Talmid-Chacham who Shechts is permitted to examine his own Chalif.

(a) Ravina's host thought that, since Ravina had bought a portion of the Shechted animal, that it was as if he had stakes in the animal, and that that would enable him to examine his Chalif as if he had Shechted the animal himself.

(b) But Ravina explained to him - that that would have been the case, had he received the meat free of charge, but now that he had to pay for it, his host was no different than any other butcher, who must show his Chalif to the Rav, and not to anyone else.

(c) an Egla Tilsa (according to Rashi here) means - an animal that has grown to a third of its full growth.

(d) It cannot mean a third-grown calf - because then how would we explain the Gemara in Sanhedrin (65b), where we are told of how Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Oshaya, using the Sefer Yetzirah, would create an Egla Tilsa (and how can one possibly create a third-born calf (see also Rashi in Sanhedrin)?

(a) Rebbi Elazar from Hagrunya was punished (for quoting Rava's concession for a Shochet who is a Talmid-Chacham to examine his own Shechitah - to permit Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika to Shecht without showing the Chalif to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov) - either because, since they had already mentioned the fact that they had to show the Chalif to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, they should have done so, and not looked for Heterim (even valid ones) to get out of it. In fact, what they did was the very antithesis of the Kavod ha'Rav which Chazal had in mind when they instituted the Halachah (of showing the knife to the Rav) in the first place; or because Rav bar Ya'akov was different, since he was both very old and very wise, in which case, even a Talmid- Chacham was obligated to show him his Chalif.

(b) A Talmid is permitted to issue a ruling even in the presence of his Rebbe - if it is to prevent someone from sinning, and the Rav, for whatever reason, is doing nothing about it. 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Chilul Hashem, Ein Cholkin Kavod la'Rav'.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Ein Chochmah, ve'Ein Tevunah, ve'Ein Eitzah Leneged Hashem" the very principle of which we just spoke - 'Kol Makom she'Yesh Chilul Hashem, Ein Cholkin Kavod la'Rav'.

(a) Nadav and Avihu died - because they issued a ruling in front of Moshe Rabeinu. (Note: this is only one of at least six reasons given by Chazal as to why they died).

(b) No! A Talmid is permitted to issue rulings at a distance of three Parsah from his Rebbe.

(c) Yehudah ben Guriyah issued rulings in the presence of Rebbi Eliezer his Rebbe. Rebbi Eliezer predicted that he would not survive the year (and indeed he died before the year was out). Rebbi Yochanan supplied various details about him, including the fact that he lived three Parsah from his Rebbe, in order to stress the fact that he really did live, and not just in parable form.

(d) A Talmid who issues rulings in front of his Rebbe is Chayav Misah - but not if his Rebbe is not present (though that too, is forbidden).

5) we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasnu B'nei Aharon ha'Kohen Eish al ha'Mizbei'ach" - that despite the fact that fire descends from Heaven to consume the sacrifices, it is nevertheless a Mitzvah for the Kohanim to light their own fire on the Mizbei'ach.


(a) We learn from Elihu ben Berachel, who considering himself unfit to issue rulings, said "Al Ken *Zachalti* va'Ira" in conjunction with the Pasuk in Ha'azinu "Im Chamas Zochlei Afar" (which together form a Gezeirah Shavah) - that a person who rules in the presence of his Rebbe, deserves to be bitten by a snake.

(b) Someone who does this is also called a sinner.

(c) David ha'Melech would refrain from issuing rulings - as long as his Rebbe, Ira ha'Ya'iri was alive, but after his death, he did indeed issue rulings.

(a) The cause of the famine that occurred in the days of David ha'Melech - was the fact that David ha'Melech gave all of his Matnos Kehunah to his Rebbe Ira ha'Ya'iri, something that one should not do.

(b) Although Moshe said about Yehoshua "ve'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen Ya'amod", Yehoshua never actually needed him - This was a punishment that Elazar received, for teaching the Parshah of Gi'ul Kelim (the Kashering non-Kasher vessels) after the war with Midyan (in Parshas Matos) - in the presence of Moshe.

(c) According to Rebbi Levi Yehoshua bin Nun have no sons - because he said to Moshe In Parshas Be'Ha'aloscha "Adoni Moshe, Kela'em" (an incredible paradox, since he was telling Moshe to destroy - or to imprison -Eldad and Meidad, for having the audacity to prophecy (which is akin to issuing rulings - Rashi).




(a) Yehoshua prevented Yisrael from performing the Mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivyah for one night - by not returning the Aron (which they had taken out to the battlefront) back to the camp that night, and, we have learnt that, whenever the Aron and the Shechinah are not in their place, Tashmish ha'Mitah is forbidden. Note: The Gemara is unclear; it first presents this sin as 'Bitul Piryah ve'Rivyah', and then as 'Bitul Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim'.)

(b) Yehoshua was also guilty of Bitul Talmud-Torah de'Rabim that night.

(c) The Angel confronted him with a drawn sword - because of the latter sin. We know this because the Pasuk writes "*Ata* Basi", the sin of *now* (as opposed to that of Bitul Tamid shel Beis ha'Arbayim, which took place on the previous day). Alternatively, because Torah is referred to as 'Ata' (as opposed to the that of Bitul Piryah ve'Rivyah) - see Agados Maharsha.

(d) From here we learn that the Mitzvah of Torah-study is greater than that of bringing the Korban Tamid.

(a) Rav Beruna Amar Rav quoted the Pasuk "Neshei Ami Tigreshun mi'Beis Ta'anugeha" - with regard to someone who sleeps in the same room where a man and his wife sleep, because he causes them deep embarrassment.

(b) Rav Yosef pointed out that this would not be a Chidush, unless it came to teach us that it is forbidden to do so even when the woman is a Nidah.

(c) The Gemara over-rules Rava's objection (that if she was a Nidah then it ought to be a Mitzvah to do so) on the grounds that - even if the woman was a Nidah, it would nevertheless be embarrassing for the couple if someone slept in the same room as they did, to the extent that it would deter them from enjoying an intimate relationship after she becames Tehorah.

(a) When Lachman bar Ristak the gentile refused to rent his Reshus to the Jews who lived in his Mavoy - Abaye advised them to be Mevatel their Reshus to one of the residents, thereby circumventing the need to rent Lachman's Reshus, since a gentile does not forbid a single Jew with whom he shares a Chatzer or a Mavoy.

(b) The residents of the Mavoy however, queried Abaye's ruling - on the grounds that being Mevatel Reshus ought not to help in this case, since the Halachah of a single Jew not having to rent the gentile's Reshus is due to the fact that it is unusual for a single Jew to live alone with a gentile, an argument which would not hold water here, since factually, there were a number of Jews sharing the Mavoy with the gentile.

(c) Abaye replied - that it was nevertheless permitted, because the very fact that all the residents were Mevatel their Reshus to one person was unusual, in which case, Chazal's decree did not apply.

(d) That Eruv was only partially effective - inasmuch as at the end of the day, the residents who had been Mevatel their Reshus to the individual remained forbidden to carry from their own courtyards to the Mavoy; it was effective however, to permit them to carry any vessels that had been Koneh Shevisah in the Mavoy itself, as well as vessels to and from the house of the individual to whom they had all been Mevatel their Reshus; and even to permit the individual to carry from their houses to the Chatzer.

(a) By doing what Abaye suggested, argued Rava, they would negate the concept of Eruv from that Mavoy (i.e. people would subsequently think that whenever a non-Jew lives in a Chatzer, that Chatzer does not require an Eruv).

(b) Rava's argument that Eruv would not help, because people would say that an Eruv helps even when a gentile shares the courtyard is no argument, countered Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - because one could always make an announcement that carrying in the courtyard is due to the fact that it is a Reshus ha'Yachid, and not because of the Eruv.

(c) Rava refuted that answer - on the grounds that what effect will an announcement have on future generations, who will see them carrying, but will not have heard the announcement.

(d) So Rava advised them to send one of them to befriend the gentile, and on a personal level, get him to lend him some of his space in the Chatzer. Having achieved that, that Jew would then be considered like Lachman's hired worker, who would then be permitted to place his Eruv together with the other Jewish residents of the Mavoy (like Rav Yehudah quoted Shmuel as saying).

Next daf


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