(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Eruvin 91

ERUVIN 91 - has been dedicated to the memory of Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. by his wife and daughters on his first Yarzeit (7 Av).
Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah,
he will long be remembered.



(a) Rav Yehudah does indeed hold that, according to Rebbi Meir, one is permitted to carry vessels from one person's roof to another's without an Eruv.

(b) And the same applies to carrying from one person's courtyard or enclosure to another's.

(c) Rebbi Meir concedes however - that one requires a joint Eruv if Reuven wishes to carry from his house to Shimon's courtyard via his own.

(d) Rebbi Meir only argues with the Rabbanan with regard to carrying from one Reshus to the *same* Reshus of another person (since their usage is the same), but not to a *different* one (since the usage of one differs from the usage of the other). Consequently, he will agree that carrying from a courtyard to an enclosure is forbidden.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir, who forbids the transfer from any high place to a low one or vice-versa - even in the same person's domain - because of a pile in the street). But that has nothing to do with carrying from one person's Reshus to another, which, like two houses belonging to two people, requires an Eruv - even according to the Chachamim.

(b) What they do permit is 1. the above cases when they belong to the same person; 2. from one public courtyard to another; 3. from a roof to a public courtyard.

(c) The usage of a roof is not as common as that of a house. That is why the Chachamim did not compare it completely to a house, and permitted carrying from it to a public Chatzer.

(d) According to Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Shimon gives all three Reshuyos the Din of one Reshus. Consequently, one may carry from a roof to a courtyard to an enclosure.

(a) The Beraisa in support of Rav's opinion in the Rabbanan reads: 'Kol Echad ve'Echad Reshus Le'atzmo, ve'Ein Metaltelin Bo Ela Arba'.

(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, proved Rav Yehudah's interpretation of Rebbi Shimon, by giving testimony that, when they used to learn Torah by Rebbi Shimon in Tako'a, they used to carry the oil and the towel (for a bath) via the roofs, courtyards and enclosures.

(c) The Rabbanan rejected Rebbi Yehudah's proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon, from his testimony that they once carried a Sefer-Torah from a courtyard to an enclosure via a roof and a second Chatzer - on the grounds that *that* took place in the time of danger, and does prove that it is permitted at other times.

(a) Rav restricts the ruling like Rebbi Shimon to a case where the neighboring courtyards did not make independent Eruvin. If they made an Eruv, he maintains, it will be forbidden to carry from one courtyard to another (even those vessels which rested in the courtyard) - because one may come to carry the vessels that rested in the house and are now lying in the courtyard (which even Rebbi Shimon forbids).

(b) Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan are not concerned about this - because Rebbi Shimon himself, in a similar case, did not issue such a decree: In the Mishnah in 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu', Rebbi Shimon forbids the outer courtyards which made an Eruv with the middle one, and permits the middle courtyard (in a case when they open into each other and also into the street), without decreeing the former because of the latter.

(c) Rav, who establishes Rebbi Shimon when no Eruv was made, explain the Beraisa, which forbids vessels that were moved from the house to the courtyard to be moved from to another courtyard - by various types of head-gear that he had carried to the courtyard by *wearing* them.




(a) Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan explain the Beraisa, which considers a roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset one Reshus (to carry from one to another) when they did not make an Eruv, but not when they did - like the Rabbanan, who even disagree with Rebbi Shimon regarding the three courtyards (refer to 4b), so they will certainly disagree with him here and decree by vessels that rested in the courtyard because of those that rested in the house, in a case when an Eruv was made.

(b) If the author of the Beraisa had been Rebbi Shimon, then it ought to have included a Karfaf and a Mavoy, together with a roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset (since they all have the same Din) - from the fact that the Beraisa omits them, it is clear that the author is the Rabbanan, who consider only the cases listed as one Reshus, but not a Karfaf or Mavoy.

(a) The Beraisa implies that Rebbi Shimon permits carrying the vessels of the Chatzer in the Mavoy specifically when they forgot to make an Eruv referred to by the Tana Kama, from which we can infer that - if they would have made an Eruv, Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is forbidden to carry (like Rav).

(b) The Gemara initially answers that 'Lo Ervu' means that the courtyards did not make a combined Eruv (but not that they did not make independent ones). The Gemara's conclusion is that 'Lo Ervu' refers to Shituf and not to Eruv.

(c) Rebbi Shimon's words '*Kol Z'man she'Hein Shel Rabim* ve'Shachechu ... Gag ve'Chatzer ... Reshus Achas Hen' - is not the *reason* of the Heter, as we originally thought, but comes to teach us that Rebbi Shimon's leniency extends even to a case where there are many people, some of whom are very likely to forget and carry the vessels that were transferred from the house to the courtyard.

(d) 'According to me', says Rebbi Shimon to the Rabbanan, 'it makes no difference whether they made an Eruv or not. But as far as you are concerned, won't you at least admit that, where they did *not* make an Eruv, they will be permitted to carry vessels that did not come from the house'.

(a) The Rabbanan's reply to Rebbi Shimon's suggestion - is that (although they do agree with him by a roof, a Chatzer, a porch and a Mirpeset) by a Karfaf and a Mavoy they do not differentiate between whether they made an Eruv or not; either way, carrying is forbidden, because they are considered a different Reshus.

(b) It is not clear that the text in the Rabbanan ought to read 'u'*ve*'Mavoy Asur', which implies that carrying more than four Amos in a Mavoy that did not make a Shituf is forbidden (like Rebbi Zeira in Shabbos); - maybe the correct version ought to be 'u'*le*Mavoy Asur', meaning that carrying from the courtyard to the Mavoy is forbidden, but vessels which rested in the Mavoy may be carried even more than four Amos.

(c) The Rabbanan need to mention this twice - because otherwise, we would have thought that they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon by Ervu, but not by Lo Ervu (as we explained above); the Beraisa needs to inform us therefore, that they argue in both cases.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,