ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 66
ERUVIN 66 - was generously dedicated by an anonymous donor in Los Angeles.
The third ramification of 'Socher ki'Me'arev Dami' - is that one person can
act as an agent for a number of people and take his own bread on their
behalf (as will be explained later on Daf 72b).
(a) 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin, Mevatlin' - means that wherever one
person forbids the other to carry without an Eruv, but where it is possible
to make an Eruv, Bitul is effective.
(b) The example of ...
1. ... 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin' - is a case of two courtyards, one
within the other.
(c) In any event, we see from the latter case that Bitul Reshus does not
help on Shabbos, which explains Rebbi Elazar's consternation at the Sugya at
the end of 65b, which took for granted that Bitul Reshus is effective even
2. ... 'Me'arvin ve'Ein Osrin' - is a case of two courtyards one next to the
other, both of which open out into a Mavoy or Reshus ha'Rabim, as well as
opening one into the other (via a doorway between them).
3. ... 'Osrin ve'Ein Me'arvin' - is a case of a gentile who returned to the
courtyard that he shared with Jews on Shabbos (because had he arrived before
Shabbos, why would the Beraisa have said 'Osrin ve'Ein Me'arvin'? Why could
they have made an Eruv, and rented the gentile's Reshus?).
(a) Abaye said (quite often) to Rav Yosef 'At Amrat Nehelan, ve'A'ha Amrat
Nehelan' - because Rav Yosef became ill and would often forget what he had
taught his Talmidim.
A Churvah is a ruin. 'Ein Bitul Reshus be'Churvah' - means that Bitul Reshus
does not help by a case of two houses (or rooms) with a ruin in between,
since Chazal restricted Bitul Reshus to a Chatzer, in order to facilitate
carrying there - because a Chatzer is a major domain that is intended to be
used, whereas a ruin is not.
(b) It was the first of Shmuel's statements 'Kol Makom she'Osrin u'Me'arvin
- Mevatlin' - that Rav Yosef claimed he had never heard.
(c) Rav Yosef had said that Shmuel's statement 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer
le'Chatzer, ve'Ein Bitul Reshus be'Churvah' - was confined to two Chatzeros
next to each other, but by two Chatzeros that are one behind the other,
Bitul Reshus of the inner-courtyard does indeed help. This is because, due
to the fact that they have the right to pass through the outer-courtyard (to
get to the Mavoy), they forbid them to carry, and Bitul therefore helps.
(d) Rav Yosef himself was surprised that he had ever quoted Shmuel as having
said that, because drawing on another statement of Shmuel (that the Lashon
of the Mishnah with regard to Eruvin must be taken literally) - he cited a
Mishnah which, with reference to Bitul, mentioned 'Anshei Chatzer', implying
that it is only by the men of *one* Chatzer that Bitul is effective, but not
Shmuel said 'Ein Lanu be'Eruvin Ela ki'Leshon Mishnaseinu' (with regard to
Eruvin) in connection with the Mishnah 'she'ha'Batim la'Chatzeiros,
ke'Chatzer le'Batim' (from which we derive that, in order to become
permitted by means of a Lechi or a Koreh, a Mavoy requires at least two
Chatzeros opening into it, each consisting of at least two houses).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees totally with Shmuel. According to him 'Yesh
Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer, ve'Yesh Bitul Reshus be'Churvah'.
(b) Had they only argued by 'me'Chatzer le'Chatzer' - we would have said
that there, Bitul Reshus does not help, according to Shmuel, since each
Chatzer is used independently, but by a Churvah, which is used jointly,
perhaps he will agree with Rebbi Yochanan. And had they confined their
Machlokes to a Churvah, we would have said that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with
Shmuel (that Ein Bitul me'Chatzer le'Chatzer)
(c) Abaye says (like his Rebbe Rav Yosef said earlier) - that Shmuel only
said 'Ein Bitul Reshus me'Chatzer le'Chatzer' by two Chatzeros which are
next to each other, but by two Chazteros that are one within the other,
since they forbid each other to carry, they can also be Mevatel their
(d) 'Aval Shtei Chatzeros Zu Lifenim mi'Zu, Mitoch she'Osrin, Mevatlin'
must be speaking when the inner Chatzer did not make its own Eruv -
otherwise, it will not conform with the opinion of the Rabbanan, who hold
'Regel ha'Materes bi'Mekomah, Eino Oseres she'Lo bi'Mekomah' (But now that
they did not make an Eruv, it is a Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah.
(a) If they placed the Eruv in the outer Chatzer, Bitul Reshus will not help
if it is ...
1. ... one of the outer residents who forgot - because to whom would he be
Mevatel? If it was to the other residents of his own Chatzer, the inner
residents will still forbid carrying there; and if it was to the residents
of the inner-Chatzer, but Shmuel holds that Bitul does not help from one
Chatzer to another!
(b) Nor will it help for one of the inner residents to be Mevatel his Reshus
to the other residents of his courtyard - since the Eruv is not in his
courtyard, but in the outer one.
2. ... the inner residents who made the Eruv who are Mevatel Reshus to the
one who forgot - because even though he now becomes a Regel ha'Muteres
bi'Mekomah, his friends who have been Mevatel their Reshus to him, are a
Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah.
3. ... one of the outer residents who was Mevatel Reshus to the other
residents of his Chatzer - because the inner residents, who will not be
affected by the outer Chatzer's Bitul, will forbid the outer residents (like
in the previous case).
(a) The case where Rava agrees that Bitul Reshus, according to Shmuel, will
help by two courtyards - is when the Eruv was placed in the inner-courtyard,
and it was one of the outer residents who forgot to combine in the Eruv. The
outer residents would not normally have used the inner courtyard, and it is
only on account of the Eruv that they now want to use it. Here Bitul Reshus
helps on their part, seeing as the inner residents can say to them 'We only
combined you in our Eruv for our benefit, but not for our loss!'
According to Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that it is sufficient to be Mevatel
Reshus to just *one*of the residents. In the case when the Eruv was placed
in the inner- courtyard, and one of the inner residents forgot to join the
Eruv, he could be Mevatel his Reshus to any of the other residents of his
Chatzer, and the outer residents will be permitted to carry in the inner-
Chatzer together with the inner residents. (See Tosfos DH 'ke'Ma'an').
Consequently, the inner residents can shut the intervening gate and carry
in their courtyard.
(b) It is only according to Rebbi Akiva (on Daf 75b) that Bitul Reshus is
necessary; according to the Rabbanan, the argument of 'We only accepted you
in our Eruv for our benefit, but not for our loss!' takes effect even
without Bitul Reshus.
(c) This argument of 'We only accepted you in our Eruv for our benefit, and
not for our loss!' would simply make no swense if it was one of the
residents of the *inner* courtyard who forgot.