ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 81
ERUVIN 81 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Rabah answers that the Mishnah sees fit to repeat here the Din (quoted
as the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer) that anything can be used for Eruvei
Chatzeros except for water and salt - in order to preclude the opinion of
Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that only a loaf of bread is eligible.
(b) In tht case, the author of the Beraisa: 'ba'Kol Me'arvin Eruvei
Chatzeros, u'va'Kol Mishtatfin Shitufei Mavu'os, ve'Lo Amru Le'arev be'Pas
Ela be'Chatzer Bilevad' which requires bread, according to Rabah, can only
be Rebbi Yehoshua; yet at the same time, he permits 'anything' ('Bakol')?
What Rebbi Yehoshua must therefore mean, is that all kinds of bread are
permitted? In that case, argues Abaye, the 'Bakol' of Rebbi Eliezer in our
Mishnah can also mean all kinds of bread (and it is for Shituf Mavu'os
exclusively, that anything but water and salt is eligible). In fact, he
disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua only as regard using a *whole* loaf, which
Rebbi Yeshua requires, and *he* does not.
(c) Having said that, the author of the Beraisa can also be Rebbi Eliezer,
who permits any kind of *bread* for Eruv Chatzeros, but *any food* for
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua requires whole loaves only - because otherwise, those
residents who provide whole loaves will say to those who provide pieces,
'We gave whole loaves; why did you give pieces'? So it is better, he
claims, that everyone gives whole loaves, in order to avoid disharmony.
(b) Nor does he permit all the residents to give pieces of bread - because
eventually, some people will revert to giving whole loaves, and we will be
landed with the same situation as we began with.
(a) When Rebbi Yonoson ben Shaul permits a loaf from which Challah has
been taken, he is referring to the Shiur Challah (i.e. one forty-eighth)
of a baker, who bakes the bread to sell ; whereas the Beraisa, which
invalidates it, is referring to the Shiur Challah (i.e. one twenty-fourth)
of an individual, who bakes it to eat.
(b) He also permits an Eruv from which a Kedei Dimu'a was taken - this
refers to a dough which is made from Chulin into which more than a
hundredth of Terumah fell. If, after baking the dough, the hundreth is
removed, Rebbi Yonoson ben Shaul maintains that Rebbi Yehoshua will permit
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that a loaf that is joined together using a
splinter of wood, is eligible for Eruvei Chatzeros - provided the joint is
1. A rice-loaf is eligible for Eruvei Chatzeros ...
(b) They threw a loaf made of lentils to a dog - who declined to eat it.
Fom there they contended that a lentil-loaf is invalid for Eruvei
2. a millet-loaf is not.
(c) The Gemara rejects that proof - either because the bread concerned,
contained other kinds of grain too - e.g. millet and spelt; or because
that particular loaf had been roasted in excrement, either of which render
it most distasteful even for canine consumption.
(d) When Hashem said to Yechezkel "ve'Ugas *Se'orim* Te'achlenah" - he did
not mean a barley-cake (as would appear at first sight). What he was
telling him was - to take a cake and to eat it 'le'Shiurin' (i.e. in small
measured quantities, hungrily and not to satisfaction). Alternatively,
Hashem meant that Yechezkel should prepare the cake in the way that they
would prepare barley-cakes (not nicely formed, since it was generally
considered animal-food), not in the form of well-shaped and nicely-rounded
(a) The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Eliezer (who permits a resident of a
Mavoy to give a Ma'ah to a store-keeper or to a baker to acquire for him
his portion in the Shituf Mavu'os) - because they hold that money does not
(b) Nor will it make any difference if the store-keeper specifically
includes him in the Eruv together with the other residents - since the
store-keeper is not giving *him* a free gift (although this may well be
the case with reagrd to the other residents), but his money's-worth, and
the fact remains that money does not acquire.
(c) 'u'Modim be'Sha'ar Kol Adam she'Zachu Lo Ma'osav' - means that by by a
Sheli'ach who is *not* a store-keeper, under exactly the same
circumstances, he *will* acquire a portion in the Eruv.
(d) This is because someone who is not a store-keeper, and who is not
accustomed to selling loaves, really means to be Mezakeh him in the Eruv -
not just for his money, but to do him a favor. Consequently, we consider
it as if he would have said to the Sheli'ach 'Please be Me'arev on my
behalf' (without mentioning the money) - a Lashon that would have been
effective even by a store-keeper.
6) Rebbi Eliezer renders the Eruv valid for someone who has merely given
money for it - because since, min ha'Torah, money *is* Koneh, Chazal
reinstated the Din Torah for the sake of Tikun Shabbos. This is similar to
the Mishnah in Chulin, where, four times a year, the Tana obligates a
Shochet (butcher) to Shecht for even *one* purchaser who bought no more
than a Dinar's worth.
(a) The four days in the year when one obligates the butcher to Shecht the
animal -irrespective of its value - even if only *one* person purchased a
small part of it, are Erev Pesach, Erev Shavu'os, Erev Rosh ha'Shanah and
Erev Shemini Atzeres.
The Rabbanan instituted that money should not be Koneh - because it
sometimes happens that the seller [who is left to look after the object
until the purchaser collects it], will callously allow the sold object to
burn or to become destroyed, since it is no longer his, and it is the
purchaser who stands to lose. So they decreed that the Kinyan of Ma'os
(payment of money) should not be effective until the purchaser makes a
Meshichah (which usually coincides with his taking it away).
(b) If, as Rav Huna claims, he actually made a separate Kinyan on the
animal - why should the Din be confined to these four days? Why should it
not extend to all the days of the year?
(c) On those four days, explains the Gemara, it is a Zechus for the
purchaser, since everybody eats meat then (despite the fact that it now
obligates him to pay); whereas during the rest of the year, it cannot be
considered purely a Zechus, since against the advantage of acquiring meat,
he becomes obligated to pay, and one cannot obligate someone without his
(d) Rebbi Yochanan holds that on these four days, Chazal reinstated the
original Torah-law - that money is Koneh (and it is only mi'de'Rabbanan
that 'Meshichah' - moving the object - is required).
When Shmuel says that if, instead of giving the store-keeper *money*, he
gives him *a vessel* - he means that he made a Kinyan Sudar (also known as
Chalipin). Since this is a valid Kinyan, he will acquire a part of the
(a) When Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, rules like Rebbi Yehudah throughout
Eruvin - he meant literally, with regard to the Dinim of Eruvin, but not
to the Dinim of 'Mechitzos'. Consequently, his ruling will not incorporate
the Machlokes concerning a Mavoy whose' Koros' broke on Shabbos, which,
according to Rebbi Yehudah, remains permitted for that Shabos.
(b)By ruling like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who adds to the opinion of
the Tana Kama 'Bameh Devarim Amurim', he insinuates that the Tana Kama
argue. Now, according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the Lashon 'Bameh
Devarim Amurim' signifies that Rebbi Yehudah is not disputing the words of
the Tana Kama, but only qualifying them?
(c) The Gemara retorts 'Gavra a'Gavra Karamis'? How can one ask a Kashya
from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi on to Shmuel, who has the right to disagree
with him? According to Shmuel, 'Bameh Devarim Amurim' does not necessarily
mean that Rebbi Yehudah comes to qualify and not to argue.
(d) In our Mishnah, explains the Gemara (according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi), the Tana Kama agrees with Rebbi Yehudah, that Eruv Chatzeros does
not need the participants' consent; the Mishnah above, 'Nisosfu Aleihen
(Diyurin) Mosif, u'Mezakeh ve'Tzarich le'Hodi'a' - is speaking when the
Chatzer lies between two Mavu'os. There, the consent of the residents is
required, because how do we know which Mavoy they want to join?