ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 75
(a) If, by two courtyards, one leading off the Mavoy (or the Reshus
ha'Rabim) and the other, leading off *it* ...
1. ... the inner courtyard only made an Eruv - then the inner residents
are permitted to carry from their house to the Chatzer and vice-versa, but
not the outer ones.
(b) If each of the two courtyards made an individual Eruv - Rebbi Akiva
still forbids the outer courtyard to carry, because even those who are
permitted to carry in their own domain will forbid those with whom they
failed to make an Eruv to carry in theirs.
2. ... the outer courtyard only made an Eruv - then not even the outer
residents are permitted to carry, because the inner residents, who are
forbidden to carry in their own courtyard, pass through it.
(c) If they made a joint Eruv placing the Eruv in one of the two
Chatzeros, and one person forgot to participate, the only case where the
residents of that Chatzer permitted to carry even from their respective
houses to the Chatzer - is where they placed the Eruv in the *inner*
Chatzer, although it is one of the *outer* residents who forgot to
(a) The author of the Mishnah (which says that if one person lives in each
Chatzer, no Eruv is needed) - is the Rabbanan, who say that someone who is
permitted to carry in his own area does not forbid those in another area
to carry, by the mere fact that he walks through.
(b) If two people lived in the outer courtyard even if only one lived in
the inner one, they would require an Eruv - a decree because of the
reverse case, when two lived on the inside and only on the outside, where
carrying would certainly be prohibited without an Eruv.
(a) If the author of our Mishnah (which says 'Irvah Chitzonah *ve'Lo
Penimis*, Sheteihen Asuros') is Rebbi Akiva - then we will have to say
(albeit reluctantly), that when he goes on to forbid the same case, even
when the inner residents *did* make an Eruv, he is applying the principle
'Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'.
(b) The Gemara establishes the continuation of the Mishnah ('Irvah Zu
le'Atzmah, ve'Zu le'Atzmah, Zu Muteres Bifnei Atzmah, ve'Zu Muteres Bifnei
Atzmah') when the inner residents made a small Dakah, effectively blocking
out the residents of the outer courtyard, in which case even Rebbi Akiva
will agree that they are permitted to carry.
(c) The Rabbanan hold 'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Oseres'.
(a) Rebbi Yanai is finally proved wrong from ...
1. ... the end of our Mishnah, which reads 've'Im Hayu shel Yechidim,
Einan Tzerichin Le'arev', from which we can infer 'Ha shel Rabim,
Tzerichin Le'arev' - teaching us that 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Einah
Oseres' but 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'. This can only go like
the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva (because according to Rebbi Akiva, even 'Regel
ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Oseres'), yet it holds 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah,
Oseres' - disproving the contention of Rebbi Yanai.
(b) This only means however, that the *Tana Kama of Rebbi Akiva* does not
hold of Rebbi Yanai's contention - but not that there is *no* Tana who
agrees with it. As a matter of fact, the Chachamim in the Mishnah, who say
'Ein Derisas ha'Regel Osrasah', holds of Rebbi Yanai's contention, that
even 'Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah, Muteres'.
2. ... the piece of Mishnah 'Shachach Echad min ha'Penimiyos ve'Lo Eirav
... Sheteihem Asuros' - from which we can again infer 'Ta'ama de'Shachach,
Ha Lo Shachach, Sheteihen Mutaros', to make the same double Limud as we
made in the first disproof.
(a) 'Nasnu Eruvan *be'Makom Echad* ... Sheteihen Asuros' - means that if
they both placed their Eruv in the outer courtyard, they are forbidden to
carry, irrespective of who forgot to participate in the Eruv. The reason
that the Tana refers to the outer courtyard as 'Makom Echad' - is because
it is the place that is shared by the residents of both courtyards.
(b) In this case, the inner residents are forbidden to carry even when it
is one of the *outer* residents who forgot to participate in the Eruv -
because, due to the fact that the Eruv is in the *outer* courtyard, the
inner residents are not able to withdraw from there (like they do in the
equivalent case, when the Eruv was placed in the *inner* courtyard).
(a) Rebbi Akiva forbids even the residents of the *inner* courtyard to
carry, even when the Eruv was placed *there*, and even if it was one of
the *outer* residents who forgot to participate - because he counters the
Rabbanan (who permit it on the grounds that they can close the gate and
shut out the other residents. According to him, the outer residents can
say that the Eruv (which they placed in the inner courtyard) draws them
(b) Rebbi Akiva agrees that, if the outer residents are Mevatel their
Reshus to the inner ones, the inner residents will be allowed to carry
(Consequently, according to Rebbi Akiva, the principle of 'Litekuni
Shitaftich, *ve'Lo La'avasasi'* does not apply in this case, since the
Bitul Reshus of the outer residents negates the argument of 'La'avasasi').
(c) The Rabbanan however, hold 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer'.
(d) According to ...
1. ... Shmuel,
argues the Gemara, Rebbi Akiva permits Bitul from one Chatzer to another here - only because, as a result of the Hergel
Eruv, the outer residents forbid the inner ones to carry, and 'Mitoch she'Osrin, Mevatlin'; whereas in his case (of two
Chatzeros one beside the other, with a door in between), where the one does not forbid the other to carry, Rebbi Akiva
will agree that Bitul Reshus will not help.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, the Rabbanan forbid Bitul in this case, because the
inner residents will say to the outer ones 'Before you make Bitul you are forbidding us to carry. Therefore we do not
care for your Bitul'! and they promptly close the door. Whereas in the case of the two courtyards side by side, where
this not apply, Bitul from one Chatzer to the other will help.
(a) When Rav Yosef quotes Rebbi (to qualify our Mishnah 've'Im Hayu shel
Yechidim, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev') as saying 'Hayu Sheloshah, Asurin' -
he means even if the *two* are in the *outer* courtyard, where they do not
(on principle) forbid the inner residents from carrying, they may
neverthelessnot carry, because Chazal decreed *this* case because of the
reverse, when the two are in the *inner* courtyard, when they will forbid
the outer residents intrinsically.
(b) Rav Bibi protested that it was not Rebbi who made the above statement
(qualifying our Mishnah), but Rav Ada bar Ahavah, and that *he* ought to
know - since it was he who told it to him in the first place.
(c) Rav Yosef explained how his mistake was due to the wording of Rav
Bibi's statement '*Rabim* be'Chitzonah', which Rav Yosef (after he
recovered from the illness that caused him to forget his learning)
misconstrued for *Rebbi*, whom he consequently assumed to be the author of
(d) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with the decree (in a). According to him, it
is only if the two are in the *inner* courtyard that they are forbidden to
carry, but not if they are in the *outer* one.
(a) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even if one *Jew* lived in the inner
courtyard, the two Jews in the outer courtyard would be forbidden to
carry, so why would Rebbi Elazar need to tell us that one *gentile*
(b) Rebbi Elazar must be speaking when there are *two* Jews living in the
outer courtyard and not just *one* - because we hold like Rebbi Eliezer
ben Ya'akov, who permits one Jew to carry, if he even shares a courtyard
with the gentile; how much more so if they live in two separate
(c) If it was one Jew living in the inner courtyard, argues Rebbi Elazar,
it would be permitted, since those who know that it is only one Jew who
lives there (and one Jew in the inner courtyard does not forbid) know; and
those who do not know, will think that they made an Eruv. Whereas by a
non-Jew, those who do not know that he is the only resident in the inner
Chatzer will not think that there are a number of Jews living there. They
will not however, assume that they probably rented his Reshus to the Jew,
because, had he done so, this is something that people tend to know about.
They will therefore think that one is permitted to live with gentiles
without an Eruv. Consequently, we give the single Jew the Din of a Rabim,
and forbid him to carry unless he hires his Reshus.
(a) Shmuel holds that if there are ten houses one within the other, it is
only the innermost one needs to give bread for the Eruv - because we
consider all the other houses to be Batei-Sha'ar (gate-houses) to the
(b) When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Afilu Chitzon' - he does not mean that all
ten houses need to participate in the Eruv. What he means is that the
ninth house, the one that is the Chitzon to the innermost one, must also
participate. That is because he holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only
one house is *not* called a Beis Sha'ar.
(c) Shmuel holds that a Beis-Sha'ar belonging to only one house *is*
called a Beis Sha'ar.
(a) If there are three houses leading into each other, and each of the
outer houses leads into its respective Chatzer, which has a house on its
far side, the Eruv must be placed in the* middle* house.
(b) It is only the houses on the far side of the Chatzer (which are not
joined to the three middle ones) - that need to participate in the Eruv.
The middle house does not need to participate, because the house which
contains the Eruv never needs to participate; and nor do the two houses
adjacent to them, because each of them has become a Beis-Sha'ar to the
middle one (where the Eruv is).