ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 32
ERUVIN 31-35 - have been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y.,
in loving memory of her late husband, Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger,
whose Yahrzeit is the 10th of Sivan.
(a) Rav Nachman agrees that the Chazakah of 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso'
applies by Eruvin - because Eruvin is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) Rav Sheshes proves that Chazakah 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso' applies
even by a Din d'Oraysa - from the Mishnah in Menachos, which permits those
who lived far away, to eat Chadash from mid-day of the sixteenth of Nisan,
on the assumption that the Kohanim had brought the Omer by then, a proof
that 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso'.
(c) Rav Nachman argues - that it was not just ordinary Sheluchim who brought
the Omer, but the Beis-Din, who certainly have a Chazakah; and that has no
bearing, he argues, on ordinary Sheluchim.
(a) Rav Sheshes counters Rav Nachman's implication from the same Mishnah in
Menachos) that any other Sheli'ach but for the Beis-Din has no Chazakah. The
Mishnah there, he argues, is speaking about a Chazakah that they have
brought the Omer by mid-day (as we wrote earlier). Consequently, he
explains, we can only deduce that it is the Beis-Din who have a Chazakah to
fulfill their Shelichus by *mid-day* - but that any other Sheli'ach would
have a Chazakah to fulfill it until *the end of the day* (rather than no
Chazakah at all).
(b) And with regard to Rav Sheshes' proof from the Beraisa, which permits a
Zavah or a woman who gave birth, to place her money into the relevant box,
and to eat Kodshim that very night - on the understanding that the Shli'ach
(in charge of purchasing and bringing the Korbanos, including hers) has done
his job - Rav Nachman will counter in similar vein to his argument above (in
1c.): that the Zavah is relying, not just on Sheluchim, but on a Beis-Din of
Kohanim, who, like the Beis-Din there, certainly have a Chazakah.
(a) If the owner of a fig-tree authorizes someone to pick figs from his
tree, he is obligated to separate Ma'asros as Vadai Tevel, and not as Demai
- because, seeing as he did not specify how much his friend is permitted to
pick, he cannot know how much Ma'asros he needs to separate. Consequently,
we know with certainty, that the figs that the friend picks have not been
Ma'asered, and that they must be considered Vadai Tevel, and not just Demai.
(b) We are speaking when he wants to eat a fixed meal of these figs.
Otherwise,he would be allowed to eat figs from a tree casually without
(c) If the same owner permitted his friend to fill a basket-full of figs and
to eat them - he should then consider Demai (since the owner knows how much
he authorized his friend to eat, and there is a good chance that he will
Ma'aser them from his own crops) and separate the Ma'asros accordingly.
(d) Vadai Tevel requires *all* the Ma'asros to be separated and given to
their rightful owners; Demai is Patur from Terumah Gedolah, and the person
who separates them may retain the Ma'aser Rishon and the Ma'aser Ani for
himself. All he needs to give away is Terumas Ma'aser, a. because the Amei
ha'Aretz tended to be lax, and b. because they were forbidden to a non-
(a) According to Rebbi, if the owner was a Chaver, the friend would be
permitted to eat the figs without separating Ma'asros - because the Chaver
would be sure to separate Ma'asros, in order not to feed the Am ha'Aretz
Tevel -even if it meant taking from what is not 'Mukaf'.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a Chaver would not separate from
what is not 'Mukaf' under any circumstances. Consequently, one must consider
those figs to be Tevel Vaday.
(c) Rav Nachman quotes Rav Chanina Chuza'ah, who says that a Chaver has a
Chazakah not to give out un'Ma'asered fruit (so as not to be responsible for
feeding other people Tevel); but that has no bearing on anybody else, or on
other areas outside of Ma'asros.
(a) The Am ha'Aretz must have authorized a Chaver to eat from his fig-tree -
because otherwise, what point is there in instructing him to Ma'aser the
basket-full of figs? Why should we expect an Am ha'Aretz to obey us?
(b) The Reisha does indeed speak about an Am ha'Aretz who authorized a
Chaver to eat, as we explained - the Seifa however, speaks about the reverse
case, when a Chaver authorized an Am ha'Aretz to eat, but when a Chaver
overheard this; and it is with regard to this Chaver (whether or not, he
needs to Ma'aser before eating or not) that Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel are arguing.
(c) Rebbi holds that a Chaver will prefer to transgress a minor sin, rather
than allow an Am ha'Aretz to transgress a major one; whether according to
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he will prefer to allow the Am ha'Aretz to
transgress a major sin, that to transgress a minor one himself.
(a) Anywhere on a tree which is situated in a Reshus ha'Yachid has the Din
of a Reshus ha'Yachid. Consequently, if the tree had been situated in a
Reshus ha'Yachid, the Mishnah would not have made a distinction between
above and below ten Tefachim.
If one placed one's Eruv in a pit - even if it is a hundred Amos deep, the
Eruv is valid.
(b) The person placing the Eruv must want his place of residence to be
*below* ten Tefachim - because if he wanted it to be *above*, why would his
Eruv be invalid because it was placed above ten Tefachim? He and his Eruv
are in one and the same location?
(c) What matters is, not whether he can take the Eruv on *Shabbos*, but
whether he can take it on *Erev Shabbos* Bein Hashemashos. Consequently,
since that is something that he can do (because this Tana holds like Rebbi,
who permits something that is only a Shevus - such as taking the Eruv from a
tree - during the period of Bein Hashemashos), his Eruv is valid.
(d) He is also carrying from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Rabim, which is an
(a) It will be permitted to place one's Eruv even *above* ten Tefachim (in a
tree in the Reshus ha'Rabim), even though he meant to acquire his place
*below* ten Tefachim - provided the tree is within the boundaries of the
city, because we consider the ground of the boundaries of the city as if it
was filled in; consequently, it is as if he was standing above ten Tefachim
- in the same domain as his Eruv (a strange concept, considering that it
does permit him to take his Eruv, even during Bein Hashemashos!).
(b) According to this Sevara, asks the Gemara - even an Eruv that is placed
*outside* the borders of the town should be valid (according to Rava, who
gives every person who makes an Eruv four Amos around the Eruv) - under the
same circumstances, since, here too, the condition of 'Hu ve'Eruvo be'Makom
Echad' is fulfilled (despite the fact that here too, he is not permitted to
take the Eruv from its perch above ten Tefachim)?
(c) We are speaking, answers the Gemara - about a tree whose branches
stretch beyond four Amos, and that is where he placed the Eruv, although he
intended to acquire his place by the trunk. Otherwise, he would be permitted
to take the Eruv under all circumstances.
(d) An Eruv that he places *below* ten Tefachim in the Rshus ha'Rabim is
valid (even though it is more than four Amos away from his place of
residence in the Reshus ha'Rabim) - because he can bring it there by
carrying it less than four Amos at a time (which is permitted during Bein
Hashemashos, according to Rebbi); whereas when the Eruv is placed *above*
ten Tefachim, there is no way that he can bring the Eruv down to him, since
even carrying one inch from one Reshus to another, involves an Isur
d'Oraysa, which is prohibited even during Bein Hashemashos.
(a) When the Mishnah speaks of 'above and below ten Tefachim' - it refers to
a branch which extends horizontally from the trunk for more than four Amos
(at a height of less than ten Tefachim), before bending vertically. In that
case, we can explain 'above and below ten Tefachim' as we did before.
(b) If the branch had grown from the tree diagonally, as we initially
thought - then the term 'above and below' would have been inappropriate, it
should have rather written 'higher or lower than ten Tefachim'.
(c) 'I Ba'i, Maysi Lah Derech Alav' - means that he could climb the tree
(Bein Hashemashos) and take the Eruv to him from its perch of above ten
Tefachim on the tree, even if it is beyond four Amos. So why should the Eruv
not be valid? All he will be doing, is carrying through the air of a Reshus
ha'Yachid, since that is what all the air above ten Tefachim is?
(d) The Gemara quotes Ula's Din to answer the Kashya. Ula says: 'Amud
Tish'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, ve'Rabim Mekatfin Alav, ve'Zarak, ve'Nach Alav,
Chayav' - The branch which is below ten Tefachim is precisely such a branch,
which is easily accessible to the public, and which therefore has the Din of
a Reshus ha'Rabim. Now someone who carries from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a
Reshus ha'Yachid via the air of a Reshus ha'Rabim (even above ten Tefachim)
is Chayav, and that is the case that we are now dealing with here.
Consequently, he will not be permitted to take the Eruv from the branch
*below* ten Tefachim to where he is now perched *above* ten Tefachim - even
during Bein Hashemashos, in which case, the Eruv will not be valid.