ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 36
ERUVIN 36 (15 Sivan) - has been sponsored by David Gerstman in order to
support Torah-study, in lieu of a Todah-offering, for miraculously saving
him and his brother from harm in a traffic accident (as recommended by the
Mishnah Berurah OC 218:32).
(a) Rebbi Yossi rules Lechumra by Safek Taval, even by a Tum'ah
de'Rabbanan - because basically, Tum'ah is d'Oraysa, so we decree by
Tum'ah de'Rabbanan, in order that people should not come to deal leniently
in cases of Tum'ah d'Oraysa; Eruvin, on the other hand - is purely
de'Rabbanan, which is why he is lenient.
Indeed, by Eruv there is also a Chazakah that his residence is his house
in town, so when there is a Safek, we ought to say that his place of
residence is *there*. However, against that there is also a Chezkas
Taharah of the Terumah, in which case his new Eruv should be valid.
Consequently, since we now one a clash of Chazakos, we are lenient, since
Eruv is de'Rabbanan.
(b) Rebbi Yossi quoted Avtulmus, who testified in the name of five elders
that Safek Eruv is Kasher.
(c) The reason that, according to Rava, Rebbi Yossi contends with the
Chezkas Tum'ah of the person, and not with the Chezkas Taharah of the
Mikvah - is because the Mikvah has no Chezkas Taharah. Why not? Because
it speaks about a Mikvah which was not previously measured (if it had
been, Rebbi Yossi would contend with it).
(a) In the case of 'Safek mi'be'Od Yom Nitma'as, Safek mi'she'Chasheichah
Nitma'as', Rebbi Yossi establishes the Terumah on a Chezkas Taharah (which
it had when it was initially placed) - therefore he declares the Eruv
Kasher; whereas by 'Erav bi'Terumah, Safek Tehorah Safek Temei'ah', where
there is no Chezkas Taharah, the Eruv will be invalid.
(b) 've'Chen Peyros Safek mi'be'Od Yom Niskanu, Safek mi'she'Chasheichah
Niskanu, Zehu Safek Eruv, ve'Kasher' cannot be referring to Safek Tevel -
because then the food would have a Chezkas Tevel, and the Eruv would not
(c) The Beraisa must therefore read, not 'Peyros Safek mi'be'Od Yom
*Niskanu*' etc., but 'Peyros Safek mi'be'Od Yom *Nidme'u*' which either
means that Terumah fell into the Chulin fruit (but we do not know when it
fell in), and the Beraisa will follow the opinion of Sumchus, who
invalidates an Eruv of Terumah which is placed for a Yisrael; or that
Tevel fell into Chulin, in which case, it may be invalid - according to
everyone, whoever the Eruv is placed for.
1. Even Rebbi Meir may concede that if someone designated for his Eruv,
whichever of the two Terumah loaves lying in front of him is Tahor, his
Eruv is Kasher - since unlike our Mishnah (where the loaf is Safek Tamei,
and there is no case of Vaday Tahor), there is one loaf which is
definitely Tahor, so we will place it a Chezkas Taharah.
(b) The Gemara concludes that the Eruv is invalid according to both
Tana'im - because the Eruv must be fit to eat by day (which the loaf in
the Mishnah was), whereas here, the Tamei loaf was definitely unfit to eat
2. And Rebbi Yossi may well concede that, in this case, we will not
validate the Eruv - because in our Mishnah, if the loaf is Tahor, he can
identify it (in which case, the Safek cannot detract from the Chezkas
Taharah), whereas in our case, he cannot identify the Tahor loaf, and it
will therefore remain Safek Tamei.
(c) A loaf which the owner declared Chulin on Friday, and Hekdesh on
Shabbos, can make a valid Eruv - because, since the food was Chulin on
Friday, it has a Chezkas Chulin, which it retains on Shabbos; whereas if
he first declared it Hekdesh on Friday, and Chulin (meaning redeemed) on
Shabbos - it has a Chezkas Hekdesh when Shabbos enters, which will not
fall away because of a Safek.
(d) When Rav Nachman said to Rava 'Lechi Teichol Aleih Kura de'Milcha', he
meant to say - 'When you measure a Kur of salt and give it to me, I will
tell you the reason.
(a) Rava explains that a jar of wine which the Tevul-Yom declared Terumas
Ma'aser on Friday to be effective when Shabbos enters, is not valid as an
Eruv - because it is the *end* of the day (Friday evening) which acquires
the Eruv, and at that time, the Eruv is still Tevel. He proves from here
that it is the end of the day that acquires the Eruv, because, if it was
the beginning, why would it not be valid, seeing as at that moment, the
Terumas Ma'aser is effective, and it is no longer Tevel.
(b) Rav Papa contends that even if it is the beginning of the day that
acquires the Eruv, the Eruv will not be valid. Why not? Because as we saw
already earlier, the Eruv must be fit to eat by day, which is not the case
(a) The Mishnah of 'Masneh Adam al Eruvo ve'Omer "Im Ba'u Nochrim min
ha'Mizrach (or 'min ha'Ma'arav'), Eruvo Eruv"' - is coming to teach us the
principle of 'Yesh Bereirah'.
With regard to a gentile: Our Mishnah is speaking about a gentile who
comes to claim taxes, from whom one tends to run away; whereas the Beraisa
is speaking about a gentile ruler, with whom he needs to plead. Since he
requires his services, the Jew will be going to meet him, rather than to
run away from him.
(b) Our Mishnah also speaks about a case of 'Ba Chacham' etc. - when one
or two Chachamim came either in the east or in the west, and he wants to
hear the Derashah of one of them.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama - in the case of two
Chachamim, one in the east and one in the west, which the Tana Kama
includes in Bereirah, irrespective of who the two Chachamim are; whereas
Rebbi Yehudah maintains that, if one of the Chachamim is his Rebbe, then
it is obvious that that was his intention from the outset, and that is
where he should therefore go.
(d) The Tana Kama disagrees with this - In his opinion, it happens
sometimes that a person wants to go and hear the other Rav, and not his
own Rebbe (see Ya'avatz).
With regard to a Chacham: Our Mishnah is speaking about a Chacham who is
coming to Darshen, and he wants to go and hear him; whereas the Beraisa is
speaking about a Talmid-Chacham who is coming to collect funds, and whom
he therefore is trying to evade (Aruch - Rashi's explanation is very
difficult to understand - Ya'avatz).
(a) Ayo quotes Rebbi Yehudah as saying that an Eruv which is made in two
opposite directions, on the condition that in whichever direction the
Chacham arrives, his Eruv should be valid, is not in fact, valid - because
he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.
(b) Ayo does not in fact, differentiate between two Chachamim in two
directions or one Chacham who may come to the east or he may come to the
west; either way, he holds 'Ein Bereirah'. When he says 'Im Ba Chacham
le'Mizrach, Eruvo le'Mizrach' etc., he is referring to a case when the
Chacham has already arrived, which is not a mater of Bereirah, since it is
already known where the Chacham is, only *he* does not know yet (and a
lack of knowledge is not called Bereirah).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah said, with regard to 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin' etc. - that if
someone buys wine from among the Kutim (who are suspect of not separating
Ma'asros from the produce that they sell to others), he is not permitted
to declare the relevant Ma'asros first, and then to drink the wine, for
the wine to take effect afterwards in retrospect (Bereirah). So it seems
that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein Bereirah', which bears out Ayo's statement,
and contradicts our Mishnah.