ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 50
ERUVIN 49 & 50 - have been dedicated jointly by the Feldman family to the
memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev [ben Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman Ztz"l (Vilna-
(a) If someone separates more than one tenth of his crops as Ma'aser
Rishon - his crops are rectified, but the Ma'aser that he gives to the
Levi contains Tevel (since whatever is in excess of a tenth does not
(b) This will not be the case if someone gives Terumah which is more than
a fortieth - because Terumah anyway has a scale and is not fixed.
(c) 'Kol she'Eino be'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu be'Bas Achas Eino' does not
apply to giving Ma'aser - because it is possible to declare Ma'aser on a
fifth of one's crop, by declaring half of each grain Ma'aser (whereas by
Eruv, the four Amos must be together).
(d) Nor does 'Kol she'Eino be'Zeh Achar Zeh' etc apply to Ma'aser
Beheimah, because Ma'aser Beheimah 'be'Zeh Achar Zeh' is effective - in a
case of someone who made a mistake and declared the ninth to be the tenth,
the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth (in which case, we learn
from Pesukim, all three are Kadosh mi'd'Oraysa).
(a) If he declared the tenth animal to be the ninth, and the eleventh, the
tenth - he brings the eleventh as a Shelamim.
(b) Shelamim can be redeemed when they become blemished, Ma'aser cannot;
and the Temurah of a Shelamim is sacrificed, whereas that of Ma'aser is
(c) If someone simultaneously declared the two animals to be the tenth,
and does not now know which one is Ma'aser, and which Shelamim -
1. ... he leans his hands on both animals and waves them, but without
reciting a Berachah.
2. ... he brings the drink-offering that is appropriate for a Shelamim -
on which he stipulates that it should be effective on whichever one is the
(a) A Korban Todah was accompanied by forty loaves.
(b) If the owner, forgetting that he has already designated forty loaves,
designates another forty - the second set of forty is not Kadosh.
(c) Chizkiyah holds that when someone Shechted his Todah on eighty loaves
- forty out of the eighty are Kadosh.
(d) Rabah explains that when the owner specifically declared that forty
out of the eighty should be Kadosh, then everyone agrees that forty of
them are Kadosh (as we explained at the end of the previous Amud). When he
says that forty will only be Kadosh if all eighty are Kadosh, then
everyone will agree that none of the loaves are Kadosh. The Machlokes
between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan is confined to a case where he simply
declared forty loaves to be Kadosh. Chizkiyah holds that he means to make
forty loaves Kadosh and the rest as a sort of collateral (in case
something happens to the first forty) - which is effective because it is
similar to the case of forty loaves out of the eighty. Whereas Rebbi
Yochanan maintains that his intention is to bring a large Korban
consisting of eighty loaves - a classical case of 'bas Achas', which is
(a) The reason that, in Abaye's opinion, Rav will agree that, when the
branches span less than twelve Amos, he will be Koneh Shevisah (even
according to Rebbi Meir) - is because then, it is possible to pick a place
of residence of four Amos (i.e. the middle four Amos), which will
incorporate at least a part of any of the three sets of four Amos that he
meant to designate: the outer four, the middle four or the inner four.
(b) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua however, objects to this - because who
says that he had in mind the *middle* four Amos (which incorporate both
outer sets of four Amos)? Perhaps he had in mind the *inner* four Amos
(which is not included in the outer four), or vice-versa?
(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua therefore, amends Abaye's statement to
read that Rav's statement is confined to when the branches of the tree
span at least *eight* Amos, because then, neither of the sets of four Amos
overlaps the other one, and who knows which of the two sets he was
referring to? But if the branches spanned *less* than eight Amos, then Rav
will agree that (even according to Rebbi Meir) he will be Koneh Shevisah.
Because then, each of the two sets of four Amos overlaps the other.
Consequently, whichever of the two he was referring to, incorporated at
least a small section of the other set of four Amos as well.
(a) Rav will agree that one is Koneh Shevisah from a distance, even by an
area that is more than eight Amos wide and even according to Rebbi Meir -
if the area is enclosed by walls - since the entire area is considered as
if it was four Amos.
According to Shmuel, the Beraisa, which forbids walking even one step
outside the four Amos where he now is, when he fixes his residence in an
undefined spot (e.g. under a tree) - speaks when the trunk of the tree is
two thousand and four Amos from where he is. There, even Shmuel will agree
that he is not Koneh Shevisah, since he may have fixed the four Amos which
are on the far side of the tree, a point which is beyond his Techum.
(b) By an area which is (either Hukaf le'Dirah or) not more than a Beis
Sasayim (which is considered as if it was four Amos), he will be permitted
to walk the entire area plus two thousand Amos; whereas if the area is
more than a Beis Sasayim, as well as being not Hukaf le'Dirah, he has only
two thousand Amos including the area itself.
(c) If one of two travelers knows of a certain landmark within two
thousand Amos from the point where they are standing, and from their
house, which is two thousand Amos beyond it in the opposite direction -
then the one who does not recognize it appoints the one who does as his
Sheli'ach to be Koneh Shevisah on behalf of both of them.
(a) If two servants for example, placed an Eruv on behalf of their master,
one in the north, and the other, in the south - he is permitted to walk
only within the area in which the two Eruvin overlap.
(b) According to Rav, whenever the border is not clearly demarcated, it is
forbidden to go more than four Amos - so how can the Tana of the Beraisa
permit him to walk within the area that the two (undefined Eruvin)
(c) Rav is considered a Tana and has the power to argue with a Beraisa.