REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 36
ERUVIN 36 (15 Sivan) - has been sponsored by David Gerstman in order to
support Torah-study, in lieu of a Todah-offering, for miraculously saving
him and his brother from harm in a traffic accident (as recommended by the
Mishnah Berurah OC 218:32).
(a) How does the Gemara initially reconcile Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah
(where he places the Eruv on a Chezkas Taharah), with his own opinion in
the Mishnah in Mikva'os (of Safek Taval, where he declares him Tamei -
even by a Tum'ah de'Rabbanan)?
Rava just explained that Rebbi Yossi is strict by Safek Taval, because the
person has a Chezkas Tum'ah. But by Eruv there is also a Chazakah that
his residence is his house in town, so why is he lenient there?
(b) An alternative answer is that the opinion that he cites in our Mishnah
is not his own, but his Rebbe's.
Who is his Rebbi and what did he say in
the name of five elders?
(c) Rava explains that Rebbi Yossi is strict by Safek Taval, because the
person has a Chezkas Tum'ah.
Why do we not contend with the Chezkas
Taharah of the Mikvah?
(a) The Beraisa differentiates in Rebbi Yossi between whether 'Safek
mi'be'Od Yom Nitma'as, Safek mi'she'Chasheichah Nitma'as', and 'Erav
bi'Terumah, Safek Tehorah Safek Temei'ah'.
What is the difference between
(b) The Beraisa incorporates in the former case: 've'Chen Peyros Safek
mi'be'Od Yom Niskanu, Safek mi'she'Chasheichah Niskanu'.
Why can this not
be referring to Safek Tevel?
(c) What then, is it referring to?
(a) If someone designates for his Eruv, whichever of the two Terumah
loaves lying in front of him which is Tahor, why might ...
(b) The Gemara concludes that the Eruv is invalid according to both
- ... Rebbi Meir concede that his Eruv is valid?
- ... Rebbi Yossi concede that it is not?
Why is that?
(c) Why can a loaf which the owner declared Chulin on Friday and Hekdesh
on Shabbos, make a valid Eruv, whereas if he declared it Hekdesh on Friday
and Chulin (redeemed) on Shabbos, it cannot - even though both have the
same Safek during the Bein Hashemashos period?
(d) What did Rav Nachman mean when he said to Rava 'Lechi Teichol Aleih
(a) The Mishnah in Tevul-Yom rules that if, on Friday, a Tevul Yom
declares Terumas Ma'aser when Shabbos enters, a jar of wine which he drew
from a barrel of Ma'aser Rishon wine from which Terumas Ma'aser had not
yet been separated - his declaration is effective.
Answers to questions
Why will this jar of
wine not then be eligible for an Eruv? What does Rava prove from here?
(b) How does Rav Papa refute Rava's proof?
(a) Our Mishnah writes 'Masneh Adam al Eruvo ve'Omer "Im Ba'u Nochrim min
ha'Mizrach (or 'min ha'Ma'arav'), Eruvo Eruv"'. Which basic principle does
this Mishnah come to teach us?
Rav Yitzchak quotes a Beraisa which reverses both of the cases discussed
in our Mishnah: i.e. when he specifically wishes his Eruv to take effect
on the side where the gentiles *are*, and on the side where the Chacham is
*not*. How do we reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah?
(b) Which other case (other than that of 'Ba'u Nochrim') does the Tana
(c) In which case does Rebbi Yehudah disagree with the Tana Kama, and what
does he hold?
(d) Why does the Tana Kama argue with Rebbi Yehudah?
(a) Rav disregards our Mishnah in view of the opinion of Ayo, who quotes
Rebbi Yehudah as saying that an Eruv that is made in two opposite
directions, on the condition that in whichever direction the Chacham
arrives, his Eruv should be valid, is not in fact, valid.
Answers to questions
(b) Then why is it not considered 'Bereirah' even if the Eruv is only
placed in *one* direction, on the condition that the Chacham arrives
(c) Rav preferred to disregard our Mishnah in face of Ayo, rather than
vice-versa. This is on account of the Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin
mi'Bein ha'Kutim' etc. What does Rebbi Yehudah say there, and how did
that influence Rav?