(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 65



(a) "Ga'avah *Afikei Maginim* Sagur Chosam" - either means that someone who is drunk should remove (i.e. not say) the Berachah of Magen Avraham (i.e. begin the Amidah) when he is drunk (see Agados Maharsha - as to why "Ga'avah" refers to drunkenness) will be spared Tzaros, or that he should not reveal (i.e. not say) his Tefilah.

(b) The practical difference between the two interpretations - is manifest by someone who goes to sleep: according to the first explanation, he should sleep until wakes up by himself before he will be permitted to Daven; according to the second, he may Daven even if someone wakes him up.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ba'Tzar Al Yoreh" - that someone whose mind is not settled should not Daven.

(a) Mar Ukva be'Yoma de'Shusa, Lo Havah Nafik le'Bei Dina' - means that on a day when the (strong) south-wind blew, Mar Ukva (who was a Dayan) would not go to Beis-Din.

(b) The best time to issue rulings - is on a day when the (moderate - Rashi explains light) north-wind blows which is conducive to a lucid mind.

(c) Abaye's step-mother made a point of not bothering him with home-chores, because she knew that this would have interfered with his learning ability.

(d) Mar Brei de'Revina's mother make him seven vests - so that he could wear a fresh one each day, and not be disturbed by the lice, which, in turn, would interfere with his learning.

(a) The short summer nights created for sleeping.

(b) The long winter nights created for learning.

(c) Rebbi Zeira attributed his exceptional sharpness - to the fact that he used to learn in the day, rather than by night.

(d) Rav Chisda told his daughter that he hardly slept because 'Hashta Asu Yomi de'Arichi u'Ketini' - meaning that the day will arrive when he will enter the grave, where the time for sleeping is long, but the time for learning Torah and performing Mitzvos is short (i.e. non-existent).

(a) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak described Talmidei-Chachamim as day workers - he meant to say that we are day employees of Hashem, and are obligated to work for Him all day.

(b) 'Rav Acha bar Ya'akov Yazif u'Para' - means that if, on any given day, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, due to a heavy work-load, was unable to fulfill his quota of learning on any given day, he would make up for it at night.

(c) Rebbi Elazar learns from Ezra that, someone who arrives home from a long journey should not Daven - for three days until his mind is once more lucid.

(d) Shmuel would not Daven in a house which contained beer and Rav Papa in a house which contained small fish - because the smell of the former made Shmuel drunk, and that of the latter disturbed his concentration.

(a) Someone who knows how to drink just enough for him to be appeased on account of his drinking - in the same way as Hashem smelt the aroma of No'ach's offering after the flood, and was appeased.

(b) We saw above that Shmuel became drunk from smelling intoxicating drinks as if he had drunk them.

(c) A person drinks wine and is compared to the seventy elders - when he drinks and retains his composure.

(d) If he drinks and loses his composure, then he lets out all the secrets. That is why 'Yayin' and 'Sod' both share the numerical value = 70, equivalent to the seventy elders.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Tenu Shechar le'Oved, ve'Yayin le'Marei Nefesh" - that wine was created for two purposes: to reward the Resha'im in this world, and to comfort the mourners.

(b) Spilt wine is a sign of plenty - a sign of Berachah (see Agados Maharsha, who explains that we are not talking about wasting the wine).

(c) This is derived from the Pasuk in Sh'mos "u'Verach es Lachmecha ve'es Meimecha" - because just as 'Lachmecha' can be bought with Ma'aser Sheni money, so too, 'Meimecha' (since the Torah compares them). Consequently, it must be referring, not to water, but to wine. So why does the Pasuk call it 'Mayim', if not to teach us that it is only a sign of Berachah, if it spills like wine, as we explained.

(a) One read a person's character - by his cup (how he responds to drink); by his purse (how honest his business dealings are); and his anger (not over-particular). (Note: these three appear to be synonymous with the three things which drive one out of this world - jealousy (purse), desire (wine) and power-glory (anger).

(b) The fourth that some add is - his laughter (the extent that a person's laughter is uncontrolled demonstrates his light-headedness).




(a) Rav Sheshes said that Rav (who said that according to both Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya, if a gentile and a Jew share the inner courtyard, and a Jew lives alone in the outer one, the latter Jew is forbidden to carry in the outer courtyard) - holds like Rebbi Meir (who does not require *two* Jews to forbid each other to carry when a gentile shares the same courtyard). That is what caused Rabah to nod his head in assent.

(b) Rav Yosef was surprised at Rav Sheshes, and at Rabah for agreeing with him - because, according to Rebbi Meir, why would the Beraisa need to mention the second Jew in the outer courtyard?

(c) We cannot answer that really, even the Jew living in the inner-courtyard is forbidden to carry there (like Rebbi Meir), and it only mentions the Jew in the outer-courtyard because in the case that prompted the Sha'aleh, he happened to be there - because they asked Rav whether the Jew in the inner courtyard will be permitted to carry from his house to the inner courtyard, and he replied in the affirmative. Why? Because a Reshus which is shared by only one Jew and a gentile (like this case, where the Jew in the outer courtyard has no rights in the inner courtyard) is permitted - like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

(a) Rav Yosef tries to establish Rav like Rebbi Akiva - who holds 'Regel ha'Muteres bi'Mekomah, Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah', which explains why in spite of the fact that the Jew in the inner courtyard is permitted to carry there (as we explained earlier), he nevertheless forbids the Jew in the outer courtyard to carry there (e.g. from his house to the Chatzer).

(b) This explanation however, is not acceptable - because, if the author of the Beraisa would be Rebbi Akiva, why would it need to mention the gentile at all, seeing as the Din is exactly the same with, or without him?

(c) Rav Yosef finally establishes Rav like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - in whose opinion a gentile only forbids *two* Jews to carry, even if they have made an Eruv, but not one; and Rav is speaking when they made an Eruv However, the Tana of this Beraisa also holds like Rebbi Akiva, otherwise, the Jew in the inner courtyard would not forbid the Jew in the outer courtyard to carry there.

(a) When the Jew and the non-Jew live together in the *inner*-courtyard, the non-Jew will be afraid to kill the Jew, because the Jew in the outer courtyard will demand to know where he is, knowing that there is no-one else who could possibly have killed him. That makes it common, and the case is therefore among those which render the Jew forbidden to kill. However, in this case, where they share the outer-courtyard, the non-Jew is not afraid, because he can avoid any awkward situation by saying that the Jew left the courtyard, and he knows nothing about it. Consequently, the it is unnatural to live with him and the Din will be as if there was only *one* Jew sharing the courtyard with a gentile.

(b) On the other hand, the gentile may be just as frightened here as he was in the previous - in case the Jew in the inner courtyard passes through just as he is killing his fellow Jew; in which case, it will have the Din of *two* Jews living with a gentile.

(a) Resh Lakish (who ruled that the two Jews who lived in the same Chatzer should rent the place from the gentile who owned a section of the courtyard, but who had hired it out to another gentile, who was not there that Shabbos) would never have issued such a ruling - had the owner not had the right to take back the courtyard from the hirer any time he wished.

(b) Resh Lakish's Sha'aleh - was whether we say that since the owner has the right to take back the property whenever he wished, he is the owner and one may therefore rent the property from him; or whether we say that since he did not claim it, he is no more than a potential owner, but not a real one.

(c) Resh Lakish relied on his own lenient ruling, even though he was not certain what the Halachah was - because of Safek de'Rabbanan Lekula.

(a) The Sha'aleh in the case of renting the Reshus of the gentile owner who returned on Shabbos - was whether renting from a gentile owner has the Din of Me'arev (which is forbidden on Shabbos), or of Bitul Reshus, which is permitted on Shabbos.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan ruled there too, Lehakel - that Socher Ki'Mevatel Reshus Dami.

Next daf


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