ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 31
ERUVIN 31-35 - have been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y.,
in loving memory of her late husband, Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger,
whose Yahrzeit is the 10th of Sivan.
(a) Both the Kohen and the Terumah need to be Tahor - because if the
Terumah was Temei'ah, it would be forbidden to the Kohen, even if he was
Tamei, and since we are dealing with Terumah Tehorah, the Kohen must be
Tahor too; otherwise, he would be forbidden to eat it.
(b) The Terumah did not become Tamei (according to Rebbi Yehudah) - because
we are speaking about a loaf which had not become 'Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah'
or that had been kneaded with fruit-juice (and not water), which is not
(c) He must have carried the loaf on a straight wooden vessel, which does
not receive Tum'ah, and which therefore cannot transmit Tum'ah to the Kohen.
(a) Chazal decreed the Din of Ohel on straight wooden vessels that are a
Tefach wide or on round ones which have a circumference of three Tefachim.
To avoid this Tum'ah de'Rabbanan - the Gemara establishes the Beraisa when
he carries the bread on the thin edge (which is less than one Tefach) of the
wooden vessel, which does not transmit Tum'ah at all.
Rav Yosef, who holds that one may only make an Eruv for a D'var Mitzvah (and
also agrees with Rava - that 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu') - explains the
Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah with regard to whether the
owner of the Eruv is interested in benefiting from his Eruv after it is no
longer needed. Rebbi Yehudah holds that a person is not really interested in
the food, apart from the aspect of Eruv, which is why it is permitted to
place the Eruv on a grave; whereas, according to the Rabbanan, he *is*
interested in subsequently eating the Eruv, which is why they prohibit it.
(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yehudah, to prohibit making an Eruv
with Tahor Terumah for a Tahor Kohen - because they maintain that one cannot
acquire a house with something which is Asur be'Hana'ah - and a grave is
(c) According to Rava, who holds that 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' - it is
Rebbi Yehudah who holds that one may only make an Eruv for a D'var Mitzvah,
the Rabbanan will hold that making an Eruv is permitted even for a D'var
(d) True, according to the Rabbanan, the Isur of placing one's Eruv on a
grave applies equally to Chulin for a Yisrael as it does to Terumah for a
Kohen. However, the Tana mentions an Eruv of Terumah for a Kohen to teach us
the extent of Rebbi Yehudah's lenient view; that he even goes so far as to
(a) Making an Eruv with Demai is permitted, because of a 'Migu'- because it
is possible to make one's property Hefker, when, as a poor man, it will be
permitted to eat Demai.
(b) Beis Shamai forbids Demai to be fed to a poor man.
(a) The Chidush of the Mishnah, which also permits using Ma'aser Rishon
whose Terumah was taken, to be used for an Eruv - is that this is so, even
though *its* Terumah was taken (Terumas Ma'aser), but not Terumah Gedolah
(like Resh Lakish, who says that when a Levi claims his Ma'aser Rishon
before the Miru'ach (the flattening of the pile of corn - after winnowing)
has been performed, then the Levi is Patur from separating Terumah Gedolah
from what he received.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "mi'Kol Ma'asroseichem Tarimu es *Kol* Terumas
Hashem" - that once the Miru'ach has been performed, the Levi is obligated
to separate Terumah Gedolah even from the Ma'aser Rishon that he claimed
before the Kohen had received Terumah Gedolah.
(c) 'Idgan' refers to the five types of grain after Miru'ach, at which stage
their status changes, and they are called 'Dagan'. From then on, they are
(a) When the Mishnah permits Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that have been
redeemed to be used for en Eruv - it means that the owner paid the full
amount for their redemption, but not the extra fifth (which the owner alone
is obligated to pay). The Chidush of the Mishnah is that, even though, if
even just one Perutah is still owing from the principle, the Hekdesh or the
Ma'aser are not redeemed, that is not the case, when it is only the extra
fifth that is still owing.
1. By Tevel, the Mishnah means even Tevel mi'de'Rabbanan - such as Tevel of
crops that grew in a pot without a hole in its base.
2. By Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken - the Mishnah is
referring to a Levi who claims his Ma'aser Rishon *after* the Miru'ach has
already been performed, and the Chidush is to corroborate the Derashah cited
above in 5b.
3. By Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh that have not been redeemed - the Mishnah
means that have not been redeemed *properly*, i.e. that the Ma'aser Sheni
was redeemed with an un-minted coin, and the Hekdesh with land - both of
which are invalid.
(a) One may not send one's Eruv Techumin with a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan.
(b) When the Tana of our Mishnah forbids sending one's Eruv with someone who
does not agree with the concept of Eruv - he refers to a Kuti.
(c) When Rav Huna permits a Katan to collect the food for an Eruv - he is
referring to Eruvei Chatzeros, whereas our Mishnah, which forbids it, is
referring to Eruvei Techumin.
(a) Our Mishnah permits even using a Kuti for Eruv Techumin, provided the
Kuti gives the food to someone else - on condition that the owner sees the
Kuti giving it to the second person.
(b) We assume that the man to whom the Kuti handed the Eruv carried out his
Shelichus - because of the Chazakah that a person carries out the Shelichus,
once he undertakes it.
Note: See Tosfos (DH 've'Lichush') as to why the Gemara raises this point
specifically here, when the Sheli'ach received the Eruv from a Kuti.