REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 72
(a) If five groups settle down in a large salon, each with its own exit to
the courtyard, Beis Shamai requires each group to participate in the Eruv
of the Chatzer independently.
Will this apply, even if there are no
Mechitzos separating them?
(b) When there *are* Mechitzos, an Eruv is required.
What are the other
two ramifications of this Halachah?
(c) Beis Hillel considers them as one family. In which case (in the
Mishnah itself) do Beis Hillel agree that each group requires its own
(a) According to the first Lashon of Rav Nachman, Beis Hillel will concede
that, when a proper Mechitzah divides the groups, each group needs its own
Eruv. They argue by a Mesipas.
Answers to questions
What constitutes a proper Mechitzah, and
what is a 'Mesipas'?
(b) What does Rav Nachman say in the second Lashon?
(c) Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi disagree with both Leshonos of
Rav Nachman. One of them establishes the Machlokes by full-size Mechitzos
that reach the ceiling.
What will be the Din if they don't?
(d) What does the other Lashon hold?
(a) A Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar, who says that Beis Shamai and
Beis Hillel argue by Mechitzos that do *not* reach the ceiling, but when
they *do*, they agree that the groups each require their own Eruv. This is
clearly a proof for one of the opinions cited at the end of Amud Aleph and
a Kashya on the other, of the opinions brought . It is also a Kashya on
the first Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they argue specifically by a
Rav Nachman quoting Rav, rules like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar.
Is it possible for the second Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they
*also* argue by a Mesipas), to conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah
(b) In that case, since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree in *both*
cases, why does the Tana present their Machlokes by a Mechitzah, and not
by a Mesipas?
(c) So why do they not argue by a Mesipas to teach us the extent of Beis
conclusive proof does the Gemara bring for this ruling from the wording of
(a) The Beraisa confines Beis Shamai's Din to when the five groups take
their Eruv to one of the other houses of the Chatzer, but not to when the
other residents of the courtyard bring their Eruvin to *them*. How does
this Beraisa explain the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and
(b) Who will then be the author of the Beraisa which permits *one* of the
participants in the Eruv of his Chatzer to place an Eruv in another
Chatzer on behalf of his co-residents?
(c) And what is the basis of their Machlokes, according to the second
Lashon of the Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the Eruv is
brought to *them*, but that, when it is *they* who place their Eruv in
another house in the Chatzer, even Beis Hillel will agree that each group
must place its own Eruv?
(a) Brothers who eat by their father but who sleep elsewhere in the
Chatzer must make their own Eruv.
What is the Din with regard to Bitul
Reshus? Is it necessary? Will it help?
(b) Does this mean that, with regard to Eruv, we go after the place where
a person sleeps, as opposed to where he eats?
(c) In which two cases do the brothers not require an individual Eruv, and
why is that?
(a) If someone owns the following in his friend's courtyard, is his friend
obligated to make an Eruv in order to carry from his house to the Chatzer
and vice-versa - according to the Tana Kama:
Answers to questions
(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say about this?
- ... a 'gate-house', a porch or a balcony?
- ... a straw-store, a cattle-barn or a store-house?