ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 91
ERUVIN 91 - has been dedicated to the memory of Dr. Simcha
Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens
N.Y. by his wife and daughters on his first Yarzeit (7 Av).
Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah,
he will long be remembered.
(a) Rav Yehudah does indeed hold that, according to Rebbi Meir, one is
permitted to carry vessels from one person's roof to another's without an
(b) And the same applies to carrying from one person's courtyard or
enclosure to another's.
(c) Rebbi Meir concedes however - that one requires a joint Eruv if Reuven
wishes to carry from his house to Shimon's courtyard via his own.
(d) Rebbi Meir only argues with the Rabbanan with regard to carrying from
one Reshus to the *same* Reshus of another person (since their usage is
the same), but not to a *different* one (since the usage of one differs
from the usage of the other). Consequently, he will agree that carrying
from a courtyard to an enclosure is forbidden.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir, who
forbids the transfer from any high place to a low one or vice-versa - even
in the same person's domain - because of a pile in the street). But that
has nothing to do with carrying from one person's Reshus to another,
which, like two houses belonging to two people, requires an Eruv - even
according to the Chachamim.
(b) What they do permit is 1. the above cases when they belong to the same
person; 2. from one public courtyard to another; 3. from a roof to a
(c) The usage of a roof is not as common as that of a house. That is why
the Chachamim did not compare it completely to a house, and permitted
carrying from it to a public Chatzer.
(d) According to Rav Yehudah, Rebbi Shimon gives all three Reshuyos the
Din of one Reshus. Consequently, one may carry from a roof to a courtyard
to an enclosure.
(a) The Beraisa in support of Rav's opinion in the Rabbanan reads: 'Kol
Echad ve'Echad Reshus Le'atzmo, ve'Ein Metaltelin Bo Ela Arba'.
(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, proved Rav Yehudah's interpretation of Rebbi
Shimon, by giving testimony that, when they used to learn Torah by Rebbi
Shimon in Tako'a, they used to carry the oil and the towel (for a bath)
via the roofs, courtyards and enclosures.
(c) The Rabbanan rejected Rebbi Yehudah's proof that the Halachah is like
Rebbi Shimon, from his testimony that they once carried a Sefer-Torah from
a courtyard to an enclosure via a roof and a second Chatzer - on the
grounds that *that* took place in the time of danger, and does prove that
it is permitted at other times.
(a) Rav restricts the ruling like Rebbi Shimon to a case where the
neighboring courtyards did not make independent Eruvin. If they made an
Eruv, he maintains, it will be forbidden to carry from one courtyard to
another (even those vessels which rested in the courtyard) - because one
may come to carry the vessels that rested in the house and are now lying
in the courtyard (which even Rebbi Shimon forbids).
(b) Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan are not concerned about this - because Rebbi
Shimon himself, in a similar case, did not issue such a decree: In the
Mishnah in 'Mi she'Hotzi'uhu', Rebbi Shimon forbids the outer courtyards
which made an Eruv with the middle one, and permits the middle courtyard
(in a case when they open into each other and also into the street),
without decreeing the former because of the latter.
(c) Rav, who establishes Rebbi Shimon when no Eruv was made, explain the
Beraisa, which forbids vessels that were moved from the house to the
courtyard to be moved from to another courtyard - by various types of
head-gear that he had carried to the courtyard by *wearing* them.
(a) Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan explain the Beraisa, which considers a
roof, a courtyard, a porch and a Mirpeset one Reshus (to carry from one to
another) when they did not make an Eruv, but not when they did - like the
Rabbanan, who even disagree with Rebbi Shimon regarding the three
courtyards (refer to 4b), so they will certainly disagree with him here
and decree by vessels that rested in the courtyard because of those that
rested in the house, in a case when an Eruv was made.
(b) If the author of the Beraisa had been Rebbi Shimon, then it ought to
have included a Karfaf and a Mavoy, together with a roof, a courtyard, a
porch and a Mirpeset (since they all have the same Din) - from the fact
that the Beraisa omits them, it is clear that the author is the Rabbanan,
who consider only the cases listed as one Reshus, but not a Karfaf or
(a) The Beraisa implies that Rebbi Shimon permits carrying the vessels of
the Chatzer in the Mavoy specifically when they forgot to make an Eruv
referred to by the Tana Kama, from which we can infer that - if they would
have made an Eruv, Rebbi Shimon would agree that it is forbidden to carry
(b) The Gemara initially answers that 'Lo Ervu' means that the courtyards
did not make a combined Eruv (but not that they did not make independent
ones). The Gemara's conclusion is that 'Lo Ervu' refers to Shituf and not
(c) Rebbi Shimon's words '*Kol Z'man she'Hein Shel Rabim* ve'Shachechu ...
Gag ve'Chatzer ... Reshus Achas Hen' - is not the *reason* of the Heter,
as we originally thought, but comes to teach us that Rebbi Shimon's
leniency extends even to a case where there are many people, some of whom
are very likely to forget and carry the vessels that were transferred from
the house to the courtyard.
(d) 'According to me', says Rebbi Shimon to the Rabbanan, 'it makes no
difference whether they made an Eruv or not. But as far as you are
concerned, won't you at least admit that, where they did *not* make an
Eruv, they will be permitted to carry vessels that did not come from the
(a) The Rabbanan's reply to Rebbi Shimon's suggestion - is that (although
they do agree with him by a roof, a Chatzer, a porch and a Mirpeset) by a
Karfaf and a Mavoy they do not differentiate between whether they made an
Eruv or not; either way, carrying is forbidden, because they are
considered a different Reshus.
(b) It is not clear that the text in the Rabbanan ought to read
'u'*ve*'Mavoy Asur', which implies that carrying more than four Amos in a
Mavoy that did not make a Shituf is forbidden (like Rebbi Zeira in
Shabbos); - maybe the correct version ought to be 'u'*le*Mavoy Asur',
meaning that carrying from the courtyard to the Mavoy is forbidden, but
vessels which rested in the Mavoy may be carried even more than four Amos.
(c) The Rabbanan need to mention this twice - because otherwise, we would
have thought that they only disagree with Rebbi Shimon by Ervu, but not by
Lo Ervu (as we explained above); the Beraisa needs to inform us therefore,
that they argue in both cases.