Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 46

46b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient than the laws of Eruvei Techumin, and therefore we might have thought that the principle that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion with regard to Eruvin applies only to Eruvei Chatzeros but not to Eruvei Techumin. The Gemara proves that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient from the Mishnah (81b) that says that one may make an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else without his knowledge, but one may not make an Eruv Techumin for someone else without his knowledge.

How does this show that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient? That same Mishnah states that the reason why one may not make an Eruv Techumin for someone else is because it is a detriment ("Chov") to him, since the Eruv causes him to lose his two thousand Amos in the opposite direction. One may make an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else only because it is a benefit ("Zechus") for him, since he is gaining the ability to carry from his home into the Chatzer. This reason has nothing to do with one being more lenient than the other! How, then, does the Gemara prove from here that Eruv Chatzeros is more lenient than Eruv Techumin?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH v'Ein) answers that in truth both Eruvei Chatzeros and Eruvei Techumin are a slight detriment for the person. When making an Eruv Techumin for someone else, even if it is *known for sure* that he wants to travel in the direction where you make his Eruv, nevertheless he is losing the Techum on the other side. This is considered only a *slight* detriment to him, nevertheless the Eruv cannot be made for him because of the slight detriment. When making an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else, one takes from him a loaf of bread to put in the communal collective (sometimes giving him the loaf first, and then taking it from him for the collective). Even though he is gaining the Eruv Chatzeros, it is again a *slight* detriment to the person the Eruv is made for because he is losing his bread. Since both types of Eruv have slight detriments, yet one may make an Eruv Chatzeros for someone else without his knowledge but not an Eruv Techumin, it is evident that the laws of Eruvei Chatzeros are more lenient.

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that there is a difference between "Shiyurei Eruv" (using as an Eruv Chatzeros food that was already set aside for the Eruv in previous weeks) and "Techilas Eruv" (food newly set aside as an Eruv Chatzores); we are more lenient in the case of the latter.

The Gemara cites proof for this premise from the Mishnah (80b) which states that when using an old Eruv, one may use the leftover food even if it is less than the amount of food that is normally required for an Eruv. The Mishnah continues with a cryptic statement, "we only make an Eruv so that the concept of Eruv should not be forgotten from the children." What does the end of that Mishnah mean, and how is it connected to the statements prior to it?

(a) RASHI (80b, DH Ela she'Lo) explains that even though a Shituf Mavo'os joins together all of the people in all of the Chatzeros opening into the Mavoy, nevertheless the people in each Chatzer around the Mavoy must still make an Eruvei Chatzeros to join the Chatzeros together. Why is that Eruv Chatzeros necessary, if it is already permitted to carry from one Chatzer to another, and to the Mavoy, because of the Shituf Mavo'os? The Mishnah explains that the Eruv Chatzeros is not really necessary in order to permit carrying there, since the Shituf Mavo'os already combines all of the Reshuyos. Rather, the purpose of making the Eruv Chatzeros is in order for people not to forget the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros -- that is, lest people forget to make an Eruv Chatzeros when there is *no* Shituf Mavo'os. As a safeguard, the Rabanan decreed that one must make an Eruv Chatzeros even though there is no need for it.

Since in most cases an Eruv Chatzeros is not really necessary (because the Shituf Mavo'os is operative), the Rabanan were therefore lenient with regard to "Shiyurei Eruv."

(b) RASHI here (DH v'Lo Amru) gives a different explanation, which TOSFOS (DH she'Lo) endorses. The Mishnah does not mean that *Eruvei Chatzeros* are made "so that they should not be forgetten,", but that *Shitufei Mavo'os* are made for that reason.

In order to permit carrying into a Chatzer and into a Mavoy, an Eruv Chatzeros, combining the various Chatzeros around a Mavoy, should be all that is necessary. Why, then, did the Rabanan make the extra enactment of Shituf Mavo'os? The extra enactment of Shituf Mavo'os was made in order to act as a reminder for the concept of Eruvei *Techumin*. The Rabanan wanted something that would remind us of the concept of Eruvei Techumin, and therefore they decreed that a Shituf Mavo'os, consisting of two meals worth of any type of food (at most), be made. (Apparently, Shituf Mavo'os, more than Eruv Chatzeros, is reminiscent of Eruvei Techumin because it can be done with *any food* like an Eruv Techumin, whereas Eruvei Chatzeros may only be made with bread.)

OPINIONS: Rebbi Yakov and Rebbi Zereika said that the Halachah follows Rebbi Akiva when he argues with one of his colleagues, Rebbi Yosi even when he argues with a number of Rabanan, and Rebbi when he argues with one of his colleagues. Rav Asi said that these rules are the "Halachah," Rebbi Chiya bar Aba said "Matin," and Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina said "Nir'in." What is the difference between these three applications of the rule? (We find a similar argument in Berachos 33b.)

(a) According to RASHI, "Halachah" means that this rule or opinion is taught in the public lecture. "Matin" means that although it is not taught publicly, the rabbi should instruct individuals according to this opinion when they ask what they should do. "Nir'in" means that one should not even instruct individuals what to do, but nevertheless if does make such a ruling, we do not stop him from enacting it (and we do not revoke whatever was done in accordance with his ruling).

(b) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Asi) explains that all three expressions mean that this opinion is taught publicly; the difference between them lies in what happens if one accidentally rules otherwise.

"Halachah" means not only is this opinion taught publicly, but if one did *not* act in accordance with this opinion, then b'Di'eved we revoke the ruling (for instance, if it involves the performance of a Mitzvah, one must go back and do the Mitzvah again). "Matin" means that this opinion is taught publicly, but if someone ruled otherwise we do *not* revoke his ruling. However, if the ruling has not has not yet been acted upon we do not let them act upon it. "Nir'in" means that although it is taught publicly, if someone rules otherwise we allow him to act upon his ruling.