ERUVIN 72 (10 Sivan) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov (Irving) ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
1)
(a)If five groups settle down in a large salon, each with its own exit to the courtyard, Beis Shamai requires each group to participate in the Eruv of the Chatzer independently. Will this apply, even if there are no Mechitzos separating them?
(b)When there are Mechitzos, an Eruv is required. What are the other two ramifications of this Halachah?
(c)Beis Hillel considers them as one family. In which case (in the Mishnah itself) do Beis Hillel agree that each group requires its own Eruv?
1)
(a)If there are no Mechitzos separating the five groups - then even Beis Shamai will agree that no Eruv is necessary.
(b)In addition - there where an Eruv is required, they will be forbidden to carry from one group to another without an Eruv, and one person from the one group will not be eligible to act as a Sheli'ach, to give of his own bread towards the Eruv Chatzeros, on behalf of the other.
(c)Beis Hillel agree that each group requires its own Eruv - with regard to those who are living in separate rooms or in attics.
2)
(a)According to the first Lashon of Rav Nachman, Beis Hillel will concede that, when a proper Mechitzah divides the groups, each group needs its own Eruv. They argue by a Mesipas. What constitutes a proper Mechitzah, and what is a 'Mesipas'?
(b)What does Rav Nachman say in the second Lashon?
(c)Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi disagree with both Leshonos of Rav Nachman. One of them establishes the Machlokes by full-size Mechitzos that reach the ceiling. What will be the Din if they don't?
(d)What does the other Lashon hold?
2)
(a)A proper Mechitzah is one of at least ten Tefachim high; a Mesipas is a low wall made of sticks and such-like.
(b)In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman says - that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue by a Mesipas, too.
(c)According to the opinion which establishes the Machlokes by full-size Mechitzos that reach the ceiling - even Beis Shamai will agree that by Mechitzos that are lower than that, no Eruv is needed, even according to Beis Shamai.
(d)And according to the second opinion (of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi) - they argue by Mechitzos which do not reach the ceiling, but by those which do, even Beis Hillel will agree that an Eruv is required.
72b----------------------------------------72b
3)
(a)A Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar, who says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue by Mechitzos that do not reach the ceiling, but when they do, they agree that the groups each require their own Eruv. This is clearly a proof for one of the opinions cited at the end of Amud Aleph and a Kashya on the other, of the opinions brought . It is also a Kashya on the first Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they argue specifically by a Mesipas). Is it possible for the second Lashon of Rav Nachman (that they also argue by a Mesipas), to conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar?
(b)In that case, since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel disagree in both cases, why does the Tana present their Machlokes by a Mechitzah, and not by a Mesipas?
(c)So why do they not argue by a Mesipas to teach us the extent of Beis Shamai?
3)
(a)Rav Nachman in the second Lashon, will say that they argue by Mechitzos that do not reach the ceiling, as well as by a Mesipas.
(b)The Tana presents their Machlokes by a Mechitzah (rather than by a Mesipas) - to teach us the extent of Beis Hillel (that even when a Mechitzah divides between the groups, they may still combine to form one group).
(c)The Tana prefers to speak by a Mechitzah to teach us the extent of Beis Hillel's opinion, rather than by a Mesipas to teach us the extent of Beis Shamai's - because of the principle 'Ko'ach d'Hetera Adif' (the strength of leniency is stronger than that of stringency - since when in doubt, it is easy to be strict, but demands extreme care before issuing a lenient ruling).
4)
(a)Rav Nachman quoting Rav, rules like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar. What conclusive proof does the Gemara bring for this ruling from the wording of the Mishnah?
4)
(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak proves Rav Nachman's ruling (like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar) from the Mishnah - which points out how even Beis Hillel concede that when some of the members of one or more of the groups reside in rooms or attics, they will require a separate Eruv. If taken literally, this Mishnah is obvious, and would not need to be mentioned. What the Tana must therefore mean is, that if they reside in something that resembles rooms i.e. walls which reach the ceiling, Beis Hillel agree; from which it is clear that they are arguing by walls that do not reach the ceiling (exactly like Rebbi Yehudah ha'Sabar).
5)
(a)The Beraisa confines Beis Shamai's Din to when the five groups take their Eruv to one of the other houses of the Chatzer, but not to when the other residents of the courtyard bring their Eruvin to them. How does this Beraisa explain the basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?
(b)Who will then be the author of the Beraisa which permits one of the participants in the Eruv of his Chatzer to place an Eruv in another Chatzer on behalf of his co-residents?
(c)And what is the basis of their Machlokes, according to the second Lashon of the Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the Eruv is brought to them, but that, when it is they who place their Eruv in another house in the Chatzer, even Beis Hillel will agree that each group must place its own Eruv?
5)
(a)The Beraisa (which confines Beis Shamai's Din to when the five groups take their Eruv to one of the other houses of the Chatzer, but not to when the other residents of the courtyard bring their Eruvin to them) - does not explain the Machlokes as we have explained until now (that is a question of defining the Mechitzos). In fact, even Beis Shamai agree that, in spite of the walls of the salon, they remain one group. Where Beis Shamai argues with Beis Hillel however, is whether one member of the group (which has already made its own Eruv) in the Chatzer to combine with the other residents of the Chatzer, on behalf of the entire group: Beis Hillel permit this, Beis Shamai do not. That explains why Beis Shamai agrees that the Eruv Chatzeros with the other residents of the Chatzer is valid if it is brought to them.
(b)The author of the Beraisa which permits one of the participants in the Eruv of his Chatzer to place an Eruv in another Chatzer on behalf of the other residents of his Chatzer - will therefore be Beis Hillel.
(c)And according to the second Lashon of the Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the Eruv is brought to them, but that, when it is they who place their Eruv in another house in the Chatzer, even Beis Hillel will agree that each group must place its own Eruv - Beis Hillel will learn like we just explained according to Beis Shamai, whereas Beis Shamai maintain that, even if the Eruv is brought to them, each member of the group is obligated to participate personally in the Eruv.
6)
(a)Brothers who eat by their father but who sleep elsewhere in the Chatzer must make their own Eruv. What is the Din with regard to Bitul Reshus? Is it necessary? Will it help?
(b)Does this mean that, with regard to Eruv, we go after the place where a person sleeps, as opposed to where he eats?
(c)In which two cases do the brothers not require an individual Eruv, and why is that?
6)
(a)Since brothers who eat by their father but who sleep elsewhere in the Chatzer, must make their own Eruv - it follows that they require Bitul Reshus so as not to forbid each other to carry in the Chatzer.
(b)It does not follow that with regard to Eruv, we go after the place where a person sleeps, as opposed to where he eats - because we could be speaking here when the brothers only receive their food from their father, but do not actually eat with him (i.e. if they did, then they would not require individual Eruvin).
(c)If the Eruv from the other residents of the Chatzer was brought to their father's house, or if they were the only residents in the Chatzer - they would not require individual Eruvin; in the former case - because the house which contains the Eruv does not need to provide bread, and in the latter - because there is no-one to force them to make an Eruv; and in both cases, they are subsequently Patur from making an Eruv, because they are considered like individuals.
7)
(a)If someone owns the following in his friend's courtyard, is his friend obligated to make an Eruv in order to carry from his house to the Chatzer and vice-versa - according to the Tana Kama:
1. ... a 'gate-house', a porch or a balcony?
2. ... a straw-store, a cattle-barn or a store-house?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about this?
7)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, if someone owns ...
1. ... a gate-house, a porch or a balcony - he does not force his friend to make an Eruv in order to carry from his house to the Chatzer and vice-versa.
2. ... a straw-store, a cattle-barn or a store-house - he does.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah holds that it is only a second residence that forbids the owner to carry without an Eruv.
