ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 72
(a) If there are no Mechitzos separating the five groups - then even Beis
Shamai will agree that no Eruv is necessary.
(b) In addition - there where an Eruv *is* required, they will be
forbidden to carry from one group to another without an Eruv, and one
person from the one group will not be eligible to act as a Sheli'ach, to
give of his own bread towards the Eruv Chatzeros, on behalf of the other.
(c) Beis Hillel agree that each group requires its own Eruv - with regard
to those who are living in separate rooms or in attics.
(a) A proper Mechitzah is one of at least ten Tefachim high; a Mesipas is
a low wall made of sticks and such-like.
(b) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman says - that Beis Shamai and Beis
Hillel argue by a Mesipas, too.
(c) According to the opinion which establishes the Machlokes by full-size
Mechitzos that reach the ceiling - even Beis Shamai will agree that by
Mechitzos that are lower than that, no Eruv is needed, even according to
(d) And according to the second opinion (of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon
b'Rebbi) - they argue by Mechitzos which do *not* reach the ceiling, but
by those which *do*, even Beis Hillel will agree that an Eruv is required.
(a) Rav Nachman in the second Lashon, will say that they argue by
Mechitzos that do not reach the ceiling, as well as by a Mesipas.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proves Rav Nachman's ruling (like Rebbi Yehudah
ha'Sabar) from the Mishnah - which points out how even Beis Hillel concede
that when some of the members of one or more of the groups reside in rooms
or attics, they will require a separate Eruv. If taken literally, this
Mishnah is obvious, and would not need to be mentioned. What the Tana must
therefore mean is, that if they reside in something that resembles rooms
i.e. walls which reach the ceiling, Beis Hillel agree; from which it is
clear that they are arguing by walls that do *not* reach the ceiling
(exactly like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar).
(b) The Tana presents their Machlokes by a Mechitzah (rather than by a
Mesipas) - to teach us the extent of Beis Hillel (that even when *a
Mechitzah* divides between the groups, they may still combine to form one
(c) The Tana prefers to speak by a *ýMechitzah* to teach us the extent of
*Beis Hillel's* opinion, rather than by *a Mesipas to teach us the extent
of *Beis Shamai's* - because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Hetera Adif' (the
strength of leniency is stronger than that of stringency - since when in
doubt, it is easy to be strict, but demands extreme care before issuing a
(a) The Beraisa (which confines Beis Shamai's Din to when the five groups
take their Eruv to one of the other houses of the Chatzer, but not to when
the other residents of the courtyard bring their Eruvin to *them*) - does
not explain the Machlokes as we have explained until now (that is a
question of defining the Mechitzos). In fact, even Beis Shamai agree that,
in spite of the walls of the salon, they remain one group. Where Beis
Shamai argues with Beis Hillel however, is whether one member of the group
(which has already made its own Eruv) in the Chatzer to combine with the
other residents of the Chatzer, on behalf of the entire group: Beis Hillel
permit this, Beis Shamai do not. That explains why Beis Shamai agrees that
the Eruv Chatzeros with the other residents of the Chatzer is valid if it
is brought to them.
(b) The author of the Beraisa which permits *one* of the participants in
the Eruv of his Chatzer to place an Eruv in another Chatzer on behalf of
the other residents of his Chatzer - will therefore be Beis Hillel.
(c) And according to the second Lashon of the Beraisa, which establishes
the Machlokes when the Eruv is brought to *them*, but that, when it is
*they* who place their Eruv in another house in the Chatzer, even Beis
Hillel will agree that each group must place its own Eruv - Beis Hillel
will learn like we just explained according to Beis Shamai, whereas Beis
Shamai maintain that, even if the Eruv is brought to them, each member of
the group is obligated to participate personally in the Eruv.
(a) Since brothers who eat by their father but who sleep elsewhere in the
Chatzer, must make their own Eruv - it follows that they require Bitul
Reshus so as not to forbid each other to carry in the Chatzer.
(b) It does not follow that with regard to Eruv, we go after the place
where a person sleeps, as opposed to where he eats - because we could be
speaking here when the brothers only *receive their food* from their
father, but do not actually *eat* with him (i.e. if they *did*, then they
would not require individual Eruvin).
(c) If the Eruv from the other residents of the Chatzer was brought to
their father's house, or if they were the only residents in the Chatzer -
they would not require individual Eruvin; in the former case - because the
house which contains the Eruv does not need to provide bread, and in the
latter - because there is no-one to force them to make an Eruv; and in
both cases, they are subsequently Patur from making an Eruv, because they
are considered like individuals.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, if someone owns ...
1. ... a gate-house, a porch or a balcony - he does *not* force his friend
to make an Eruv in order to carry from his house to the Chatzer and vice-
(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is only a second *residence* that forbids
the owner to carry without an Eruv.
2. ... a straw-store, a cattle-barn or a store-house - he *does*.