REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 73
ERUVIN 73 (Tamuz 22) - has been dedicated anonymously by a generous donor
in LA in memory of her mother
(a) Accoring to Rav, the 'Makom Dirah' required by Rebbi Yehudah (to
create a need for an Eruv) means the place where he eats. What does
(b) According to Rav, why do shepherds and guards create their own
independent Eruv (two thousand Amah limit) where they *sleep* out in the
fields, despite the fact that they *eat* in the town?
(c) Rav Yosef claimed that he had not heard of Rav's Din before.
Abaye prove to him that he had?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah maintains that five women who have their
own sleeping quarters in their husband's Chatzer, and who receive their
food from him do not require an Eruv. In the same situation however, five
slaves do. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava holds the reverse.
Why does he disagree
(b) What will be the equivalent Din with regard to Talmidim by their
(a) Rabah rules that it is sufficient for *one* of five residents of a
Chatzer who made an Eruv to give bread to combine with the Eruv of another
The Gemara then asks how he accounts for our Mishnah, which
considers five brothers as if they had combined, yet each one is required
to give again, in order to combine with the other members of the Chatzer.
What leads the Gemara to contend that one considers brothers as if they
would have combined?
(b) How does the Gemara answer the Kashya? What is in fact, the difference
between the two cases?
(c) How does the Gemara prove this?
(a) If Talmidim eat at the nearest inn, but sleep in their lodgings at the
Yeshivah, do they measure their Techum Shabbos from where they eat or from
where they sleep, and why is this?
(b) From where does someone who places his Eruv in one place, but who
sleeps at home, measure his Techum Shabbos? Why the difference?
(a) Do a father and son who live together, or a Rav and his Talmid
constitute Yechidim or a Rabim when there is nobody else living in the
(b) Which two other possible ramification of this ruling is brought in the
(c) Rashi brings a second ramification with regard to a father and son who
live in an inner-courtyard.
What is it?
(d) What does the Gemara conclude with regard to whether a afther ans son
require an Eruv, and whether, or not, the Mavoy becomes permitted through
a Lechi or Koreh?
(a) Who is the author of our Mishnah, which rules that an Eruv Chatzeros
cannot double as a Shituf Mavu'os?
Answers to questions
(b) Then how do we explain the next case 've'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy,
Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'?
(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah reads 'Shachach Echad mi'B'nei Mavoy ve'Lo
Nishtatfu, Mutarin ba'Chatzeros, va'Asurin be'Mavoy'. Assuming that this
too, goes like Rebbi Meir, would the Tana be speaking with or without
(b) The Gemara contends that this reflects on the previous statement
'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Chatzer, ve'Lo Erav, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'.
would now have to be the author of this statement, and what is the problem
(c) How does we dispel the problem and still establish the entire Mishnah
(including the last-mentioned case) like Rebbi Meir?
(a) Our Mishnah reads 'Chamesh Chatzeros, u'Pesuchos le'Mavoy ... ve'Im
Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kahn ve'Kahn'. Why does Rav, and perhaps Rav
Kahana, omit the phrase 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu'?
(b) What is the problem with this from the Mishnah that we learnt above
'Ba'al ha'Bayis she'Hayah Shutaf li'Shecheinav la'Zeh be'Yayin, ve'la'Zeh
be'Yayin, Ein Tzerichin le'Arev'?
(c) What does the Gemara answer?
(a) Will an Eruv placed in one of the Chatzeros of the Mavoy qualify as
Answers to questions
(b) What did Rav say - in connection with Eruv - about a group of people
who were eating when Shabbos came in, that refutes the contention held in
the previous question?
- ... an Eruv Chatzeros?
- ... as a Shituf Mavu'os?
(c) What then, is Rav's real reason for erasing 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu' from