ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 67
ERUVIN 67 - 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) Rav Sheshes was an outstanding expert in Mishnayos. Rav Chisda was
afraid that he would present him with a discrepancy between two Mishnayos,
which he would be unable to answer.
(b) And Rav Sheshes was afraid that Rav Chisda, who was an Amkan (a man of
great depth) would pose questions that would leave him stymied.
Incidentally, this distinction appears to coincide with the difference
between Rav Yosef - who (blind like Rav Sheshes), is referred to as
'Sinai'), and Rabah - whose title is 'Oker Harim'.
(a) Rav Chisda asked Rav Sheshes (with regard to the two houses on opposite
sides of the street, when gentiles built two Mechitzos on Shabbos, blocking
off the street at both ends, to form a courtyard joining the two houses) -
whether Bitul Reshus on the part of one of the houses will permit the
residents of the other one to carry ir house to the 'Chatzer',
seeing as a Mechitzah that is made on Shabbos is Kasher.
(b) Those who hold that Bitul Reshus does *not* help from one Chatzer to
another - are of the opinion that before one can be Mevatel Reshus, two
things are required: that the one (Chatzer or house) forbids the other, and
that they could have made an Eruv before Shabbos. Since here neither is
applicable, it goes without saying that Bitul Reshus will not be effective.
(c) The Sha'aleh therefore, is according to those who hold that Bitul Reshus
*does* help from one Chatzer to another - because since they do not require
the two courtyards to forbid each other, perhaps they do not require the
possibility if making an Eruv either, or perhaps they *do* require at least
one of the two factors.
(d) Rav Sheshes replied - that Bitul Reshus will not be effective, like the
latter side of the Sha'aleh.
(a) It is obvious that - according to those who permit renting the gentile's
Reshus on Shabbos (which also then requires Bitul Reshus), Bitul Reshus
alone (upon the gentile's death) will certainly be permissible.
(b) The Sha'aleh is according to those who hold that renting the gentile's
Reshus is forbidden on Shabbos - Maybe that is because two things are
required, renting gentile and Bitul Reshus; whereas here (where the
gentile died) where it is only Bitul Reshus that is needed, maybe Bitul
Reshus is permitted; or perhaps there is no difference.
(c) Rav Hamnuna holds Ein Mevatlin - not having rented the gentile's Reshus
before Shabbos, they would not have been able to make an Eruv; and whenever
it is not possible to make an Eruv, Bitul Reshus does nor help either.
(a) A gentile who owns a small doorway leading from his house in the Mavoy
out to the fields, does not forbid the other Jewish residents of the Mavoy
to carry there - because he prefers his own exit to the fields, considering
the regular exit to be a secondary one. And this will apply even if he uses
the Mavoy regularly.
(b) The minimum size of his entrance must be four Tefachim by four Tefachim.
(c) Rabah and Rav Chisda say - that for a Karfaf to prevent the gentile from
forbidding the Jeweish residents from carrying in the Mavoy, it must be more
than a Beis Sasayim (because then it is sufficiently Chashuv to render it
important in the eyes of the gentile), but not if it is less than that.
(a) With regard to a Jew who has his own entrance leading out to the area
behind the Mavoy and who forgot to participate in the Eruv, the Din is
exactly the reverse - by a Karfaf that is more than a Beis Sasayim (which is
not Hukaf le'Dirah), he will forbid the other residents to carry, since he
is not permitted to carry there, he does *not* consider it sufficiently
important to over-ride his part of the Mavoy, which he therefore retains;
whereas if it is less than that, he *does* (in which case he will relinquish
his entrance in the Mavoy, and will not therefore forbid the other
(b) As far as a Jew is concerned, a small Karfaf is Chashuv on Shabbos -
because he does not have to carry heavy goods there, and for the purpose of
relaxing on Shabbos, it is very useful.
(a) One is Chayav for throwing street into a Karfaf that was not
Hukaf le'Dirah (according to Ula quoting Rebbi Yochanan) - because a Karfaf
that was not Hukaf le'Dirah is considered a proper Reshus ha'Yachid
(b) It is the Rabbanan who nevertheless forbade carrying there - because
people do not live there, and it will be confused with a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a) It is permitted to throw (less than four Amos) sea on to a rock
that is less than ten Tefachim high and which has an area of more than a
Beis Sasayim - because, says the Beraisa, one is throwing from a Karmelis to
(b) When the Beraisa writes 'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim' - it is referring,
not to the Seifa, but to the Reisha, to tell us that although it is
forbidden to carry sea on to a rock that is *less* than a Beis
Sasayim, it is permitted to do so if the rock is *more* than a Beis Sasayim,
because then, it is no longer a Reshus ha'Yachid, but a Karmelis - not like
Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that mi'd'Oraysa, it remains a Reshus
(c) Rava learns that 'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim' refers not to the Beraisa,
but to what we infer Beraisa: 'Ha be'Socho (i.e. not sea),
Metaltelin; ve'Ad Kamah, Ad Beis Sasayim', because the Rabbanan gave this
the Din of a Karmelis, as we explained above.
(d) According to Rav Ashi - it should really be forbidden to throw
sea on to a rock that is higher than ten Tefachim and more than a Beis
Sasayim, just like it is forbidden to carry four Amos on its surface.
However, Chazal did not include this case in the decree - since, whereas
throwing four Amos on its surface *is* common, throwing sea on to
dry land is *not*, 'u'Milsa de'Lo Shechi'ach, Lo Gazru Bah Rabbanan'.
(a) The Gemara initially thought that Rabah permitted them to fetch hot
water from his house to the house where the baby was, despite the fact that
they had not made an Eruv - because the Chatzeros had made a Shituf Mavu'os,
which would suffice for the Chatzeros, too.
(b) Rabah then instructed them to ask a gentile to fetch the hot water from
(c) Rav Yosef did not let Abaye query Rabah's ruling - because, in matters
which are de'Rabbanan, one acts first, and asks questions afterwards.
(a) Abaye wanted to query Rabah Din of Haza'ah (the sprinkling of
the ashes of the Parah Adumah), which is only an Isur de'Rabbanan, yet it
does not over-ride Shabbos, even if it is for the sake of a Mitzvah (such as
in order to bring the Korban Pesach) - so how could Rabah permit the Isur
de'Rabbanan of Amirah le'Nochri for the sake of the Mitzvah of Bris Milah?
(b) Rav Yosef dispensed with Abaye's Kashya - by pointing out that, whereas
Haza'ah is an action, Amirah le'Nochri is only words, and a Mitzvah does
over-ride an Isur de'Rabbanan which only involves words (This is known as a
Shevus di'Shevus be'Makom Mitzvah).