ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 59
(a) 'Ribah le'Echad, u'Mi'at le'Echad' - is speaking, not when a discrepancy
occured in two different spots, but when it occured on the *same* spot.
There too, we assume that it is the person who measured the *shorter*
distance who erred.
(b) Even if the discrepancy was so great that it was not possible to ascribe
it to the fact that one who measured the shorter distance was not careful to
pull the rope taut, it is still possible to ascribe it to the fact that he
was not aware of the Din of adding the diagonal to the square. But if the
discrepancy is even greater than that, then we must assume that it is not
the shorter one who erred, but the longer one - and we accept the shorter
measurement (though it is not clear why, in this case too, we should not
still apply the principle of going Lehakel by Eruvin).
(c) 'Lo Amru Chachamim es ha'Davar Lehakel Ela Lehachmir' - means that
whatever Chazal decreed in connection with Techumin is all Lehachmir on
Divrei Torah; there is nothing Lehakel (since Techumin is purely
de'Rabbanan). That is why our Mishnah adds that, since Techumin is purely
de'Rabbanan, wherever possible, we are lenient.
(a) The criterion for including the whole town in the one Eruv - is that it
was initially a private town. Therefore it is not similar to the camp of
Yisrael in the desert, and is like a Reshus ha'Yachid.
An Ir shel Rabim ve'Na'asah shel Yachid is permitted to make a communal Eruv
- if they leave a small section on the towwn's outskirts outside the Eruv,
who subsequently make their own Eruv. That small section must consist of
fifty residents (according to Rebbi Yehudah), or three Chatzeros each
consisting of two houses (according to Rebbi Shimon).
(b) Whenever an Eruv incorporates the whole town - the individual Mavu'os do
not require separate Eruvin.
(c) We are speaking here, about a town which has no real Reshus ha'Rabim -
if it does, its Din will be described later in the Sugya.
(d) One cannot be Me'arev an Ir shel Rabim ve'Na'asah shel Yachid - because
it may revert to its original status as an Ir shel Rabim, in which case an
Eruv will not help (and the people unaware of this, will continue to rely on
the Eruv, as they did before).
(a) The Gemara initially thought that an Ir shel Yachid ve'Na'asah shel
Rabim must have previously belonged specifically to the Resh Galusa -
because then, the entire town would fall under his jurisdiction (with regard
to obtaining permission to judge, to permit blemished Bechoros and to give
Semichah). Consequently, the crowds would always meet at the Resh Gelusa's
residence, and would remind each other not to carry without new individual
Eruvin - even after it became a public town.
(b) If that is so, asks the Gemara - they wouold also meet in Shul every
Shabbos morning (to hear the Derashah) - even by an a town that was
initially a public one, and they too, would remind each other not to carry
without individual Eruvin.
(c) If a Reshus ha'Rabim passes through an Ir shel Yachid ve'Na'aseh shel
Rabim - one places a Lechi or a Koreh at both ends and one is permitted to
(d) One cannot however, do the same with an Ir shel Rabim which was always
an Ir shel Rabim - because there, since there is nothing to remind them that
this is not a real Reshus ha'Rabim, all the Mavu'os which resemble a Reshus
ha'Rabim, require individual Tikunim.
(a) One can be Me'arev an Ir shel Yachid ve'Na'aseh shel Rabim - either by
being Me'arev the entire town with one Eruv, or by being Me'arev it Mavoy by
Mavoy. It is not possible to make one Eruv for half the town, and the other
half Mavoy by Mavoy - because, since the town was originally a private one,
each Mavoy will forbid the other Mavu'os, if it does not combine in the
communal Eruv (like a Mavoy where one of the Chatzeros did not join in the
other Chatzeros' Eruv).
(b) An Ir shel Rabim that was always an Ir shel Rabim may combine the whole
town in one Eruv - if there is only one entrance to the town (i.e. the main
street does not pass from the gate at one end of the town to the gate at the
other (in which case, it does not resemble the Camp of Yisrael in the
(c) The author of the Beraisa, who permits making an Eruv in a Reshus
ha'Rabim - is Rebbi Yehudah, whom we quoted a number of times in the first
(d) An Ir shel Yachid ve'Na'asis shel Rabim is not permitted to divide into
two, to make two separate Eruvin - because, since it was initially an Ir
shel Yachid, it is like the case of the residents of a Chatzer who made an
Eruv, where if one resident forgot to participate in the Eruv, he forbids
all the other residents to carry from their houses to the Chatzer.
(a) Rav Papa restricts the previous Din to the Mavu'os dividing lengthwise
(since the Reshus ha'Rabim that runs past the end of the Mavoy combines both
sides of the Mavoy, and there is nothing running down the middle of the
Mavoy to divide one side from the other); but to divide widthwise (i.e. for
the courtyards at one end of the Mavoy and those at the other end to make
independent Eruvin) is permitted. Why? Because it is possible for each half
of the Mavoy to separate from the other half by each using a different
entrance (one the Reshus ha'Rabim at one end, and the other, the Reshus
ha'Rabim at the other end).
(b) Rebbi Akiva holds - that if the members of the inner courtyard did not
combine with the members of the outer one (despite the fact that they made
their own Eruv, permitting them to carry there), they will forbid the
members of the outer courtyard (who also made their own Eruv) to carry,
since they inevitably need to pass through the outer courtyard to get to the
(c) Rav Papa can hold even like Rebbi Akiva - because, in the case of our
Beraisa, there is a Reshus ha'Rabim running past *each* end of the Mavoy,
and the members of the courtyards at one end of the Chatzer are not forced
to pass through the section of Mavoy that belongs to the courtyards in the
other half. Consequently, even Rebbi Akiva will agree that the residents of
the one section of the Mavoy will not forbid those at the other.
(d) Rav Papa in the second Lashon, where he forbids the members of the Mavoy
to split up either way, can go even like the Chachamim, who hold 'Reshus
ha'Materes bi'Mekomah, Einah Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah' - because they speak
when the residents of the inner courtyard can close the door in between them
and the outer courtyard, and remain independent (in fact, we will even force
them to do so because of 'Kofin Osam Al Midas Sedom'); whereas in our case,
nobody can deny the fact that a Reshus ha'Rabim runs past the front of the
Mavoy, and there is nothing in between the two sections of Mavoy to divide
(a) The Beraisa allows the town to be Me'arev Mavoy by Mavoy - only if they
build a Dakah.
(b) A Dakah is a low doorway built at the end of each Mavoy. It serves to
demonstrate that they have severed their connections from the other Mavu'os
who use the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c) Rav Chisda says that if the members of a Chatzer build a Dakah at the
entrance of their Chatzer to the Mavoy, then they do not forbid the
residents of the other Chatzeros of the Mavoy (who made an Eruv) from
carrying in the Mavoy.
(a) Rebbi Zeira thought that Rav Chiya bar Asi, who had made an Eruv before
him in Rebbi Chiya's town, did so because it was an Ir shel Yachid
she'Na'asis Ir shel Rabim - which does not require a Shiyur.
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Asi's real reason for being Me'arev the town - was
because, at that time, there was a trash heap blocking one of the entrances,
and we have learnt in the Beraisa, that even an Ir shel Rabim can make an
Eruv if it has only one entrance. However, that was no longer applicable in
Rebbi Zeira's time, due to the fact that the trash heap had been cleared
(a) If an Ir shel Rabim has an entrance on one side and a only ladder on the
other - then it will depend on what Din the ladder has, as to whether it
will be permitted to make a communal Eruv there or not.
(b) According to Rav Nachman, what Rav really said (with regard to a ladder
between two towns) - was 'Sulam Toras Mechitzah Alav'.
(c) When it came to a ladder between two courtyards - Rav said 'Toras Pesach
Alav' (meaning that they had the option of making a combined Eruv or of
making two separate Eruvin).
(a) Rav Nachman rules with regard to a Chatzer and an upstairs (outside)
balcony with a ladder leading down to the Chatzer whose residents forgot to
to participate in the Eruv - that if there is *no* Dakah in front of the
balcony, at the foot of the ladder, then the residents of the balcony forbid
those of the courtyard to carry from their houses into the Chatzer; but if
there *is*, then carrying is permitted.
(b) Rav Nachman here appears to give a ladder between a Chatzer and a
balcony the Din of an entrance - whereas he just quoted Rav as saying that a
ladder between two courtyards has the Din of a Mechitzah?
(c) The reason that, when there is no Dakah, the residents of the courtyard
are not permitted to carry - is not because the ladder is considered an
entrance and not a Mechitzah, but because it speaks (according to the
Gemara's current contention) when the entire balcony is less than ten
(d) The Dakah is effective concludes the Gemara - because we are speaking
when *most* of the balcony has a Mechitzah, all except for ten Amos. Now an
entrance of ten Amos is Pasul. Consequently, if they build a Dakah there,
they will be permitted to carry, because then, it is as if they had
disassociated the Chatzer from the balcony; otherwise, they are not.