ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 74
(a) Rav (who is considered a Tana) disagrees with the Beraisa quoted
abov,e that permits a Mavoy which has only one Chatzer, in which only one
man and his son live.
(b) The two Chatzeros do not need to flank the Mavoy; it will suffice for
both of them to be on the same side.
(c) A Mavoy is not be rectifiable by a Lechi or Koreh - even though it has
two Chatzeros, each of which has two houses leading into it - when the two
Chatzeros do not require an Eruv, or even if they do, when the Eruv can be
made without the Mavoy - such as in the above case, when the courtyards
open into each other.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan does not even require a house. According to him, even a
Chatzer on one side and a ruin on the other is also sufficient to permit a
Mavoy with a Lechi or a Koreh.
(b) A pathway through a vineyard however, which is not habitable, will not
(a) An Eruv Chatzeros is needed to combine two Chatzeros, according to
Rebbi Shimon - to permit carrying from a house in one Chatzer to the other
Chatzer (or vice-versa).
(b) Rav is worried that, if we rule like Rebbi Shimon even when the
Chatzeros made their own individual Eruvin, then people will take
advantage of the fact that they are now permitted to carry from their
house to the Chatzer, and carry from their Chatzer into the next one.
(c) Just as Rebbi Yochanan does not decree (like Rav does) that one may
come to carry the vessels from one's house to the Chatzer, and from the
Chatzer into the next Chatzer, so too he permits placing a Lechi or Koreh
on the basis of a Chatzer on one side and a ruin on the other - and is not
concerned that one may carry from the Chatzer to the ruin via the Mavoy
(even though this is forbidden, since the owner of the ruin did not
combine in the Eruv).
(a) Rav Elazar Bar Bei Rav queried Shmuel's ruling, permitting a Mavoy
with one Chatzer plus one house, from our Mishnah 'she*'ha'Mavoy
la'Chatzeros, ke'Chatzer le'Batim'* - which implies that a Mavoy requires
at least two Chatzeros and each Chatzer at least two houses, particularly
since Shmuel himself was the one to say that when it comes to Eruvin, we
follow the exact Lashon of the Mishnah?
(b) Shmuel put up a Lechi at the entrance of the Mavoy where Eivus bar Ihi
(a) After Shmuel's death, Rav Anan took down Shmuel's Lechi.
(b) Initially, we ascribes Rav Anan's action to the fact that he held like
Rav, who requires at least *two* Chatzeros each with *two* houses, whereas
Eivus bar Ihi lived alone in the Chatzer - this proves that Shmuel, who
put up the Lechi, did not retract - in spite of Rav Elazar Bar Bei Rav's
(c) The Gemara concludes that Shmuel put up the Lechi - because in
Shmuel's day, the Shamash used to sleep in the area of the Shul that was
attached to the Mavoy, giving it the Din of an additional Chatzer - and
Shmuel holds 'Makom Linah Garim', as we learnt above (73a). Consequently,
there were *two* Chazteros, not just one (so we have no proof that Shmuel
did not retract from his original atatement). (Note: It is not however
clear, what we will do with the fact that there seems to have been only
*one* house in each Chatzer - see Ritva.)
(a) Rav Anan took down the Lechi - because in his time, the Shamash no
longer slept there.
(b) Eivus bar Ihi held 'Makom Pita Garim' (like Rav) - so he thought that
Shmuel put up the Lechi because he held that a Mavoy requires only one
Chatzer and one house like Shmuel held initially.
(a) When Rav Yehudah quoting Rav, forbids making an Eruv in a Mavoy that
is flanked by a Jew (whom we shall call Reuven) on one side and a gentile
on the other - he is speaking about when other Jews live in houses
adjoining Reuven's. Their houses lead on to a Reshus ha'Rabim on the far
side, and their windows open from one to the other; they now wish to make
an Eruv to enable them to carry from *their* houses to the Mavoy via
(b) If Rav's Din was confined to a Mavoy (but not a Chatzer that is shared
by a Jew and a gentile) - his reason for forbidding it would be because a
Mavoy cannot be permitted by a Lechi or a Koreh unless there are at least
*two* Chatzeros, each with two houses, opening into it.
(c) Rav needs to repeat the Halachah *here* - because otherwise, we would
have said that the dwelling of a non-Jew is considered a dwelling, in
which case, there will indeed be two Chatzeros, one of Reuven, and the
other of the non-Jew; each with two houses opening into it, because there
could have been more than one non-Jew residing in that Chatzer.
(d) On the other hand, had Rav told us the Din only here, we would not
have known how many houses each Chatzer requires, therefore he needs to
present his other statement, which explicitly mentions *two* houses to
(a) According to Rav Yosef, who holds that Rav forbids making an Eruv even
in a *Chatzer* when only a gentile shares it with him - Rav's reason is
because it is forbidden to share a Chatzer alone with a gentile.
(b) Rebbi Tivla mentioned 'Akum' twice - either because he was speaking
about a Chatzer, which (unlike by a Mavoy, which is forbidden even if it
is shared by just one Jew), Rav forbids only because it is a gentile who
is sharing it with him; or he mentioned one Akum because Rav forbids it by
a Mavoy, and the other, because he also forbids it by a Chatzer.