ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 70
ERUVIN 70 - Dedicated by Gerald Ziering in honor the very special Rebbi that
his son is currently learning with, Rabbi Elimelech Kornfeld (brother of
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld).
Our Mishnah needs to add the case of 'Shenayim ... ve'Ein Notlin Reshus' -
to teach us that even if they were Mevatel Reshus to one of the two men who
forgot to participate in the Eruv, on the express condition that he is
Mevatel to his friend, the second Bitul is ineffective. Why is that? Because
at the time when he acquired the rights, they were not really his to give
away, and the fact that he is the agent of those who were Mevatel Reshus to
him is meaningless.
(a) The Beraisa, which states 'Echad she'Lo Erav Nosen Reshuso le'Echad
she'Erav' - must be speaking when there was a third person (otherwise, with
whom is he making an Eruv?) Nevertheless, the Beraisa clearly permits being
Mevatel to just *one* of the two - a Kashya on Rabah.
(b) The Seifa, which states 'Aval Ein Echad she'Erav Nosen Reshuso le'Echad
she'Lo Erav', speaks, according to Rabah, when the second person who did not
make an Eruv is still alive ('Ha Ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha Ke'de'Isa').
(c) The Seifa de'Reisha reads 'u'Shenayim she'Irvu Nosnin Reshusan
li'Shenayim she'Irvu', from which we can deduce 'but not to one of them' - a
proof for Rabah.
(d) If the Beraisa means to say 'le'Echad mi'Shenayim', counters the Gemara
- then the Tana should have said 'le'Echad she'Eirav O le'Echad she'Lo
Eirav' (and we know that, since an Eruv was made, there must be at least two
(a) Abaye establishes the Beraisa 'Echad she'Erav Nosen Reshuso le'Echad
she'Erav' - when the third person is still alive, the Chidush being that it
is not necessary to be Mevatel Reshus to each resident independently.
(b) According to Rabah, the Beraisa speaks when the third person died - the
Chidush is that we do not decree (to forbid being Mevatel to *one* person
whenever there where once *two*) because of a case when that person is still
alive (because people will think that there too, it is in order to be
Mevatel to just one of them).
(c) The Chidush of 'Shenayim she'Irvu Nosnin Reshusan le'Echad she'Lo Erav'
- is that we do not penalize the one who forgot to participate in the Eruv.
(d) According to Abaye, 'Shenayim she'Lo Irvu, Nosnin Reshusan li'Shenayim
(meaning 'le'Echad mi'Shenayim') she'Irvu' comes to teach us - that Chazal
did not decree, on the grounds that if we permit *two* to be Mevatel Reshus
to *one*, maybe people will also do the reverse, and permit *one* person to
be Mevatel Reshus to *two*.
1. ... 'Shenayim she'Lo Irvu, Nosnin Reshusan ... O le'Echad she'Lo Eirav'
comes to teach us - that even though none of them made an Eruv, Bitul Reshus
is still effective, and that Chazal did not penalize them (to ensure that
the institution of Eruv does not become forgotten).
2. ... 've'Ein Shenayim she'Irvu Mevatlin Reshusan li'Shenayim she'Lo Irvu'
comes to teach us that - even if the first of the latter two was Mevatel
Reshus to the second, it does not help, since it was not his Reshus to be
Mevatel (catch 22 situation).
3. ... 've'Ein Shenayim she'Lo Irvu, Nosnin Reshusan li'Shenayim she'Lo
Irvu' comes to teach us that - the previous case is not even effective if
those who were Mevatel Reshus did so on the express condition that he is
Mevatel to his friend (as we explained in 1).
(a) A heir whose father died on Shabbos may possibly not be able to be
Mevatel Reshus - since, due to the fact that he did not own the property
yesterday, he could not have made an Eruv then, and, someone who was not
able to make an Eruv yesterday, cannot be Mevatel Reshus.
(b) Rav Nachman holds that he may - because a son is always called the 'leg
of the father' (i.e. he stands in his father's place and takes over all his
(a) According to Rav Nachman, when the Beraisa states 'Chutz mi'Mevatel
Reshus' - it means 'Chutz *mi'Toras* Bitul Reshus', incorporating both the
Mevatel Reshus and his son.
(b) 'Kol she'Mutar le'Miktzas Shabbos, Hutar le'Chol ha'Shabbos' - refers to
a case of someone who made an Eruv via a door or a window which caved in or
became blocked on Shabbos.
(c) We will not know the case of the Lechi or the Koreh fell from the
previous case - because *there* the Mechitzos at least, are still standing,
whereas here, even the Mechitzos (the Lechi or the Koreh) are no longer
standing. So we need 'Zeh ha'K'lal', to include it. (It would appear that,
according to those who hold that Lechi or Koreh Mishum Heker, it is even
more difficult to learn from the previous case, since here, in the middle of
Shabbos it will transpire that there is suddenly no Heker to remind him not
to carry out into the street. Consequently, it will certainly requires 'Zeh
ha'K'lal' to teach us that Hutar le'Chol ha'Shabbos'.)
(a) 'Kol she'Ne'esar le'Miktzas Shabbos, Ne'esar le'Chol ha'Shabbos' -
refers to the case of two houses on opposite sides of the street, when
gentiles fenced off the street on both sides, forming a sort of Chatzer.
(b) We would not have known the case when the gentile who shared the Chatzer
with other Jewish residents died, from the previous one - because whereas in
the previous case, there was no way of permitting carrying from the two
houses into the street, in the case when the gentile died, it was possible
to rent the gentile's rights in the Chatzer before Shabbos.
(a) If someone from the Chatzer died, having bequeathed his Reshus to
someone who lived outside the Chatzer ...
1. ... *before* Shabbos - that beneficiary is not included in the Eruv, and
forbids all the residents of the Chatzer to carry from their houses into the
(b) if someone from outside the Chazter, who had owned a section of the
Chatzer, died, having bequeathed that section to a resident of the Chatzer
2. ... *after* Shabbos has already come in - they are permitted to carry,
because of the principle 'Kol she'Mutar le'Miktzas Shabbos ... '
1. ... *before* Shabbos - the residents of the Chatzer will be permitted to
carry, since the beneficiary will participate in the Eruv before Shabbos
(c) According to Rav Nachman (who holds that Yoresh Mevatel) - when the
Beraisa says 'Oser' it means *without* Bitul Reshus, but it goes without
saying that Bitul Reshus will be effective.
2. ... *after* Shabbos had already come in - the beneficiary will forbid all
the other residents to carry.