(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 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) We have already learnt in 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' that anything can be used for Eruvei Techumin except for water and salt.
Why then, according to Rabah, does the Gemara find it necessary to repeat it here by Eruvei Chatzeros?

(b) The Beraisa states 'ba'Kol Me'arvin Eruvei Chatzeros, u'va'Kol Mishtatfin Shitufei Mavu'os, ve'Lo Amru Le'arev be'Pas Ela be'Chatzer Bilevad'. How does this Beraisa contradict Rabah's contention?

(c) The Gemara therefore concludes that 'ba'Kol Me'arvin' refers to bread. Who is the author of the Beraisa, and what is it teaching us?

(a) Why does Rebbi Yehoshua require whole loaves only?

(b) Will he permit all the residents to give pieces of bread?

(a) If Challah was removed from the dough, Rebbi Yonoson ben Shaul rules that the Eruv is nevertheless Kasher - according to Rebbi Yehoshua (although the loaf is not whole).
How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa which invalidates an Eruv from which Chalah was taken?

(b) He also permits an Eruv from which a Kedei Dimu'a was taken.
What does this mean?

(c) According to Rebbi Yehoshua, will a loaf that is broken in two be eligible for an Eruv, if it is joined together by a splinter of wood?

(a) Is a loaf of bread eligible if it is made of ...
  1. ... rice?
  2. ... millet?
(b) Bread made of lentils is eligible for an Eruv Chatzeros.
Why did the Gemara think that it iss not?

(c) On which two grounds does the Gemara refute that?

(d) Each of these explanations has support in a Pasuk in Yechezkel.
Since the loaf in the following Pasuk contained many kinds of grain, what two possible things might Hashem have meant, when he said to Yechezkel "ve'Ugas *Se'orim* Te'achlenah"?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer allows 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. The Chachamim disagree with him.

(b) Will it make any difference if the store-keeper specifically includes him in the Eruv together with the other residents?

(c) What does the Tana mean when he adds 'u'Modim be'Sha'ar Kol Adam she'Zachu Lo Ma'osav'?

(d) What is the Tana's reason for this?

Answers to questions


6) How can Rebbi Eliezer render the Eruv valid for someone who has merely given money for it? Does he not agree that payment of money is not a Kinyan?


(a) On which four days in the year is the butcher obligated to Shecht an animal, irrespective of its value, even if only one person has purchased a part of it?

(b) Consequently, says the Mishnah in Chulin, if the animal dies before the butcher manages to Shecht it, the purchaser has lost his money. What is the problem with Rav Huna who establishes the Reisha (which places the entire loss, should the animal die, on the purchaser) when he actually made a Kinyan Meshichah on the animal (i.e. making it walk)?

(c) So the Gemara establishes the Mishnah when the butcher was Mezakeh the purchaser through a third person.
What does this mean? Why would there then be a difference between those four days and any other day of the year?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah when he neither made a Kinyan Meshichah, nor was the butcher Mezakeh the animal to the purchaser.
Then how does the purchaser acquire it?

8) Why did the Rabbanan institute that money should not be Koneh?

9) Shmuel says that if, instead of giving the store-keeper *money*, he gives him *a vessel*, he will acquire a part of the Eruv. What does this mean?


(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, rules like Rebbi Yehudah throughout Eruvin. Why will that not incorporate his opinion (in Perek Kol Gagos) that a Mavoy whose' Koros' broke on Shabbos, remains permitted for that Shabos?

(b) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, wherever the Tana says (with regard to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah) 'Eimasai' or 'Bameh Devarim Amurim', his intention is to explain, not to argue.
What is now the problem Shmuel's statement?

(c) What is the Gemara's solution?

(d) Rav Chisda deduces from the Mishnah above 'Nisosfu Aleihen (Diyurin) Mosif, u'Mezakeh ve'Tzarich le'Hodi'a', that the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah.
How will Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi accommodate that Mishnah?

Answers to questions
Next daf

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