ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 73
ERUVIN 73 (Tamuz 22) - has been dedicated anonymously by a
generous donor in LA in memory of her mother
(a) According to Shmuel the Makom Dirah required by Rebbi Yehudah (to
create a need for an Eruv) - is the place where he *sleeps* (overnight).
(b) According to Rav, shepherds and guards create their own independent
Eruv (two thousand Amah limit) when they *sleep* out in the fields,
despite the fact that they *eat* in the town - because we know for a fact
that they would prefer to eat in the fields if they could. They only eat
in town because neither is there food available in the fields, nor is
there any way of getting it to them there.
(c) Rav Yosef had quoted Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's refutal of the proof from
our Mishnah that 'Makom Linah Gorem' - 'bi'Mekablei P'ras Shanu', which
proves that he must have known of Rav's Din (that 'Makom Pita Gorem').
(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, by
slaves. According to him five slaves who have their own sleeping- quarters
in their master's Chatzer but who receive food from him, do not require an
Eruv (like women according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah - because of the
Pasuk in Daniel "ve'Daniel bi'Sera Malka" (wherever he was, the Pasuk is
teaching us, was considered to be the gate of the King - his master).
(b) Talmidim do not require an Eruv - they can rely on the table of their
Rebbe (like Rav said about Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Chiya about Rebbi).
(a) The Gemara contends that one considers brothers as if they would have
combined - because the Tana says that when there are no other residents,
they do not require an Eruv?
(b) Our Mishnah requires each brother to give again in order to combine
with the other members of the Chatzer - only because there are other
residents in the Chatzer, in which case we say that, since their father is
obligated to participate, the brothers are also obligated to participate.
(c) This emerges clearly from the Mishnah itself, which concludes 'Aval
Hayah ... O she*'Ein Imahen Diyurin be'Chatzer*, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev',
implying that were there are other residents, and an Eruv is required,
they must all participate.
(a) Talmidim who eat at the nearest inn, but sleep in their lodgings at
the Yeshivah - measure their Techum Shabbos from where they learn, because
we know for a fact that they would prefer to eat there too if they could;
they only eat at the nearest inn because no food is available to them at
the Yeshivah. (See above 1b).
(b) Someone who places his Eruv in one location, but who sleeps at home,
measures his Techum Shabbos from where he placed his Eruv - because again
we know for a fact that, had he had the choice, he would have slept there
where his Eruv is.
(a) We have already learnt above that - a father and son who live
together, or a Rav and his Talmid, constitute Yechidim when there is
nobody else living in the same Chatzer (and do not therefore, require an
(b) That being the case - their Mavoy should perhaps not be permitted by
means of a Lechi or a Koreh (since they cannot be considered 'Chatzeros' -
only a Chatzer).
(c) Rashi adds the Sha'aleh with regard to an inner courtyard (which did
not participate in the Eruv, andc) which forbids the residents of the
outer courtyard to carry, provided there are at least two residents in the
inner courtyard (because of Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah ... ').
Consequently, the Sha'aleh will be whether, since the father and son are
considered Yechidim, will they also be Yechidim with regard to that Din as
(d) The Gemara concludes that - despite the fact that the father and the
son are called Yechidim, absolving them from the need to make an Eruv,
they are nevertheless considered two people (and two Chatzeros) as far as
Chatzeros le'Mavoy is concerned.
(a) The author of our Mishnah, which rules that an Eruv Chatzeros does not
make up for a lack of a Shituf Mavu'os (and that both are necessary) is
Rebbi Meir (as we saw above on Daf 71b).
(b) 've'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn' - goes like Rebbi
Meir too, because it speaks when they *also* made a Shituf Mavu'os.
(a) Shachach Echad mi'B'nei Mavoy, ve'Lo Nishtatfu, Mutarin ba'Chatzeros,
va'Asurin be'Mavoy' - must be speaking when there was no Bitul Reshus;
otherwise, why would the B'nei Mavoy be forbidden - and we have learnt
that according to Rebbi Meir, Bitul Reshus helps by a Mavoy.
(b) If the previous case speaks without Bitul Reshus and is the opinion of
Rebbi Meir, then so too does the middle case of 'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei
Chatzer, ve'Lo Erav, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn', speak without Bitul, in which
case the author must be the Rabbanan. Now how can that be, asks the
Gemara, that the author of the Reisha and the Seifa should be Rebbi Meir,
and the Metzi'asa, the Rabbanan?
(c) In fact, answers the Gemara, the entire Mishnah goes like Rebbi Meir,
even the middle case. And Rebbi Meir concedes there that the Shituf
doubles as Eruv Chatzeros. Why is that? Because Rebbi Meir's reason for
requiring Eruv Chatzeros as well Shituf Mavu'os, is in order that the
institution of Eruv should not be forgotten, a reason that does not apply
in this case, since most people *did* in fact, make an Eruv. In such a
case, even Rebbi Meis agrees that the Shituf will double for the Eruv as
(a) Rav, and perhaps Rav Kahana, omit the phrase 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu' (from
the Mishnah 'Chamesh Chatzeros *Pesuchos Zu la'Zu*, u'Pesuchos le'Mavoy
... ve'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn') - because he requires
the Shituf to be taken into the Mavoy directly through the entrance from
the Chatzer to the Mavoy and not via other Chatzeros. Consequently, if
there would be exits from one Chatzer to the other, we would need to
suspect that they might come to carry the Shituf from one Chatzer to
another, thereby invalidating it.
(b) In the case of 'Ba'al ha'Bayis she'Hayah Shutaf li'Shecheinav la'Zeh
be'Yayin, ve'la'Zeh be'Yayin, Ein Tzerichin le'Arev' - they just seem to
have carried the barrel (which was jointly owned) from one of the
courtyards into the Mavoy, and not from each Chatzer independently, as
required by Rav.
(c) The Gemara replies that there too, we will have to say that they
actually took the barrel from each Chatzer separately into the Mavoy.
(a) An Eruv placed in one of the Chatzeros ...
1. ... will not qualify as an Eruv Chatzeros.
(b) Rav said that if a group of people were eating when Shabbos came in,
the bread on the table in the house qualifies as an Eruv Chatzeros,
whereas that on a table in the Chatzer qualifies as Shituf Mavu'os -
despite the fact that no-one took it out from the Chatzer to the mavoy.
2. ... will qualify as a Shituf Mavu'os.
(c) Rav's real reason for erasing 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu' from our Mishnah -
is because he holds that a Mavoy only becomes permitted with a Lechi and a
Koreh if at least *two* courtyards (each with at least two houses opening
into it), and, in his opinion, if the courtyards open into each other,
they all have the Din of *one* courtyard.