ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 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
(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).
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.
(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
(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).
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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