(a)When the Tana says 'ba'Kol Me'arvin u'Mishtatfin Chutz ... ', what does he mean by 'Mishtatfin'?
(b)What kind of Eiruv is he talking about?
(c)Why can he not be talking about an Eiruv Chatzeiros?
(d)The two exceptions listed by the Mishnah are water and salt. Which other two foods are included in the list of exceptions?
(e)The Tana omits them based on the principle - that 'One cannot learn from principles, even where the Tana specifically says "Chutz" '?
(f)On what grounds are these items not eligible (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
1)
(a)When the Tana says 'ba'Kol Me'arvin u'Mishtatfin Chutz ... ', 'Mishtatfin', he means - Shitufei Mavo'os an Eiruv that permits the residents of the Chatzeros that open into a Mavoy (a blind alley) to carry in the Mavoy.
(b)The Eiruv that he is referring to is - an Eruvei Techumin.
(c)He cannot be talking about an Eiruv Chatzeiros - for which only bread can be used.
(d)The two exceptions listed by the Mishnah are water and salt. The other two foods that are included in the list of exceptions are - Kemehin u'Pitriyos (different species of mushrooms).
(e)The Tana omits them based on the principle - that 'One cannot learn from principles, even where the Tana specifically says 'Chutz' '.
(f)These items are not eligible - because the food that one puts down as an Eiruv serve as one's Shabbos meals (Mazon), and they are not considered 'Mazon' (See Tiferes Yisrael).
2)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Ma'aser-Sheini) "Venasata ha'Kesef be'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha"?
(b)What are the two sole exceptions?
(c)Why is that?
2)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk in "Venasata ha'Kesef be'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" - that one may use one's Ma'aser-Sheini money to purchase anything ...
(b)... except for water and salt.
(c)The reason for that is - because they are not 'P'ri mi'Pri'.
3)
(a)And if somebody makes a Neder to desist from Mazon, what are the two sole exceptions?
(b)This speaks where he said 'Kol ha'Zan Alai Konem'. What would be the Din if he were to say 'Ye'aser alai Mazon!'?
(c)What does the Mishnah say about making an Eiruv for a Nazir with wine and for a Yisrael with Terumah?
(d)What is the reason for this ruling?
3)
(a)If somebody makes a Neder to desist from Mazon, the two sole exceptions are - water and salt (and presumably, mushrooms are precluded too), since everything else but for them sustains and satisfies.
(b)This speaks where he said 'Kol ha'Zan Alai Konem'. If he were to say 'Ye'aser alai Mazon!' - then only the five species of grain (eheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt are forbidden.
(c)The Mishnah - permits making an Eiruv for a Nazir with wine and for a Yisrael with Terumah ...
(d)... seeing as fit for somebody to eat (even if it is not oneself).
4)
(a)What does Sumchus say about making an Eiruv for a Yisrael with Terumah?
(b)On what basis does he concede that one is permitted to make an Eiruv for a Nazir with wine?
(c)Then why does he not say the same with regard to Terumah, which one can also rescind?
(d)What is the problem? Why can the owner not then separate Terumah from it Bein ha'Shemashos?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
4)
(a)Sumchus - prohibits making an Eiruv for a Yisrael with Terumah.
(b)He concedes however that one is permitted to make an Eiruv for a Nazir with wine - since the Nazir is able to rescind his Nezirus via a Chacham in which case he will be able to drink the wine that very Shabbos.
(c)He does not say the same with regard to Terumah, which one can also rescind - because, even if the owner were to do so, it would still be Tevel, which is forbidden even to a Kohen.
(d)Nor can the owner separate Terumah from it Bein ha'Shemashos - since one is not permitted to separate Terumah on Shabbos, even during the period of Bein-ha'Shemashos.
(e)The Halachah is like - the Tana Kama.
5)
(a)The Mishnah permits placing an Eiruv for a Kohen in a Beis ha'Peras. What is a Beis ha'Peras?
(b)Who is the author of this statement?
(c)What reason does the Tana give for this Heter?
5)
(a)The Mishnah permits placing an Eiruv for a Kohen in a Beis ha'Peras - (a field in which a grave has been dug-up).
(b)This statement is stated unanimously. It is not connected with Sumchus' previous statement.
(c)The Tana permits it - since he is allowed to go through the field, blowing the small bones away, and avoiding passing over bones that are the size of a barley (See Tos.Yom-Tov).
6)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits placing it even in a Beis ha'Kevaros. What reason does he give for this concession?
(b)How is the Kohen able to get to the Eiruv?
(c)What do the Rabbanan then say?
(d)What is their basic reason for forbidding it?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
6)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits placing it even in a Beis ha'Kevaros - because the Kohen is able to form a Mechitzah between the food and the graves.
(b)The Kohen is able to get to the Eiruv - by entering the Beis-ha'Kevaros via a Shidah Teivah or Migdal (a box or a wagon).
(c)The Rabbanan - forbid placing an Eiruv in a Beis ha'Kevaros ...
(d)... due to the prohibition of deriving benefit from a Beis-ha'Kevaros.
(e)The Halachah is - like the Rabbanan.
7)
(a)What do the Rabbanan hold with regard to making an Eiruv in a Beis-ha'Kevaros on behalf of a Yisrael?
(b)Then why do they argue specifically by a Kohen?
(c)Seeing as it is forbidden to derive benefit from a Beis-ha'Kevaros, how can Rebbi Yehudah permit placing an Eiruv there?
(d)Bearing in mind that the Eiruv takes effect Bein-ha'Shemashos (with the entry of Shabbos), the Machlokes is based on the fact that the Eiruv generally in the guarded spot that he placed it, after that time. What in fact, is now the basis of the Machlokes?
7)
(a)The Rabbanan hold - that making an Eiruv in a Beis-ha'Kevaros on behalf of a Yisrael, too.
(b)And they only present their Machlokes with regard to a Kohen - to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yehudah's lenient opinion.
(c)Even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from a Beis-ha'Kevaros, Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless permits placing an Eiruv there - a. because one is only permitted to make an Eiruv for a D'var Mitzvah, and b. on account of the principle 'Mitzvos La'av Lehanos Nitnu' (Mitzvos were not given for the pleasure that one derives from them).
(d)Bearing in mind that the Eiruv takes effect Bein-ha'Shemashos (with the entry of Shabbos), the Machlokes is based on the fact that the Eiruv generally remains in the guarded spot that he placed it, after that time ... whether a person does not want the Eairuv to get eaten or lost (in which case he benefits from the fact that the Eiruv is safeguarded (the Rabbanan), or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
Mishnah 2
8)
(a)The Tana permits making an Eiruv with 'D'mai, Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has been taken (she'Nitlah Terumaso), Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have been redeemed and for Kohanim with Chalah and Terumah (See Tos. Yom-Tov). On what grounds does the Tana permit making an Eiruv with D'mai (bearing in mind that the owner is forbidden to eat it before separating Ma'asros, which in turn, is forbidden on Shabbos)?
(b)What does the Tana mean when he says 'Ma'aser Rishon she'Nitlah Terumaso'?
(c)In that case, why is it permitted?
(d)Why does the Mishnah see fit to teach us that Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have been redeemed are permitted?
8)
(a)The Tana permits making an Eiruv with 'D'mai, Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has been taken (she'Nitlah Terumaso), Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have been redeemed and for Kohanim with Chalah and Terumah (See Tos. Yom-Tov). He permits D'mai (despite the fact that the owner is forbidden to eat it before separating Ma'asros, which in turn, is forbidden on Shabbos) - since, based on the Mishnah in D'mai which permits feeding the poor D'mai, the owner is able to declare his property Hefker, which would render him poor.
(b)When the Tana says 'Ma'aser Rishon she'Nitlah Terumaso, he means - that Ma'aser Rishon has not been taken.
(c)It is nevertheless permitted - since it is speaking where the Levi arrived at the barn when the corn was still in stalks (prior to the winnowing and 'Miru'ach' [the flattening of the pile which renders the crops subject to Terumah], at which point the Levi is not obligated to separate Terumas Ma'aser.
(d)The Mishnah sees fit to teach us that Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have been redeemed are permitted - because it speaks where the owner did indeed redeem them, but failed to add the extra fifth (which is not crucial to the validity of the Mitzvah).
9)
(a)The Mishnah then forbids making an Eiruv with Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken and Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have not been redeemed. Why is Tevel not obvious?
(b)And what is the Chidush in the case of Ma'aser ...
1. ... Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken?
2. ... Sheini that has not been redeemed?
3. ... Hekdesh that has not been redeemed?
9)
(a)The Mishnah then forbids making an Eiruv with Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken and Ma'aser Sheini and Hekdesh that have not been redeemed. The reason that Tevel is not obvious is - because the Tana is speaking about Tevel de'Rabbanan (such as corn that was grown in a pot without a hole in its base.
(b)And the Chidush in the case of Ma'aser ...
1. ... Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken is - because it is speaking where the Levi, who arrived at the barn after the Miru'ach had taken place, then separated Terumas Ma'aser, but not Terumah Gedolah.
2. ... Sheini that has not been redeemed is - that it is speaking where the owner redeemed it, but using silver instead of the minted coins that he was supposed to use.
3. ... Hekdesh that has not been redeemed is - that it too, is speaking where he redeemed it, but not according to the Halachah, such as using Karka instead of Metaltelin.
10)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about someone who appoints a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan to place his Eiruv Techumin?
(b)Which fourth person does he add to the list?
10)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if someone appoints a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan to place an Eiruv Techumin - his Eiruv is invalid.
(b)The fourth person that he adds to the list is - someone who does not believe in the Mitzvah of Eiruv (such as a Kuti or an Tzedoki).
11)
(a)How will the Din differ by an Eiruv Chatzeros?
(b)What can he nevertheless do to render his Eiruv Kasher?
(c)On what additional condition will that be effective?
(d)Why does he not need to witness the actual placing?
11)
(a)As far as arranging an Eiruv Chatzeros is concerned however - a Katan is eligible (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)He can nevertheless render his Eiruv Kasher - by arranging for a someone who is Kasher to take it from the one who is Pasul and to place it in the required location ...
(c)... provided he actually witnesses the handing over (though he does not need to witness the placing ...
(d)... due to the Chazakah that 'a Shalia'ch carries out his Shelichus'.
Mishnah 3
12)
(a)On what grounds does the Mishnah declare invalid an Eiruv that one places on a tree in the R'shus ha'Rabim above the height of ten Tefachim?
(b)Why can one not simply leave the Eiruv where it is?
(c)What is then the area of the tree?
12)
(a)The Mishnah declares invalid an Eiruv that one places on a tree in the R'shus ha'Rabim above the height of ten Tefachim - because taking it from the tree entails carrying from a R'shus ha'Yachid to a R'shus ha'Rabim.
(b)One cannot simply leave the Eiruv where it is - because he needs to have access to the Eiruv when he eats it.
(c)The area of the tree must then be - four Tefachim by four Tefachim.
13)
(a)Why, if one places the Eiruv below ten Tefachim, is the Eiruv valid?
(b)Is one permitted to use a tree on Shabbos?
(c)Then why is the latter case permitted?
(d)Who must be the author of the Mishnah?
13)
(a)If one places the Eiruv below ten Tefachim, the Eiruv is valid - because below ten Tefachim is considered a Karmelis.
(b)Despite the fact that one is forbidden to use a tree on Shabbos ...
(c)... the latter case is permitted - because it is a pure Isur de'Rabanan (Sh'vus), which is permitted Bein ha'Hemashos, ...
(d)... according to Rebbi, who is the author of the Mishnah.
14)
(a)The Tana then discusses an Eiruv that is placed inside a pit. In which domain is the pit situated?
(b)What is then the problem? Where did he intend to 'make his base'?
(c)Then why does the Mishnah validate the Eiruv?
14)
(a)The Tana then discusses an Eiruv that is placed inside a pit - that is situated in a Karmelis.
(b)The problem is - that he intended to make his base - in the Karmelis, so that taking it out of the pit entails carrying it from a R'shus ha'Yachid to a Karmelis.
(c)The reason that the Mishnah validates the Eiruv is - since carrying from a R'shus ha'Yachid to a Karmelis is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (as we answered in the previous case, (of below ten Tefachim).
15)
(a)The next case on the Tana's list is where the Eiruv is placed atop a cane or a tall pole that is stuck in the ground but not attached it, even if it is a hundred Amos tall. Why would the Eiruv be invalid if it was simply hung on top of the pole?
(b)What is then the case?
(c)On what grounds is the Eiruv then valid? Why would he be permitted to take the Eiruv even on Shabbos?
15)
(a)The next case on the Tana's list is where the Eiruv is placed atop a cane or a tall post that is stuck in the ground but not attached it, even if it is a hundred Amos tall. The Eiruv would be invalid if it was simply hung on top of the pole - because an Eiruv must be placed on an area of at least four by four Tefachim.
(b)The case is therefore - where the post is narrow at the bottom, but four by four Tefachim on top (or where a board of four by four Tefachim is stuck on to its top.
(c)The Eiruv is then valid - since a post in the R'shus ha'Rabim that does not measure four by four Tefachim is not a R'shus ha'Yachid (but a Makom P'tur).
16)
(a)What would be the Din if the cane was still attached to the ground?
(b)Assuming that the prohibition is based on the fear that one may cut the top of the cane when taking the Eiruv, why would that be a problem? Which Melachah does it involve?
(c)Then why do we not extend the prohibition to the case of an Eiruv in a tree that we discussed earlier?
(d)What other (similar) reason do we give for the prohibition?
(e)Why does it not apply in the case of the tree?
16)
(a)If the cane was still attached to the ground - the Eiruv would be invalid.
(b)Assuming that the prohibition is based on the fear that one may cut the top of the cane when taking the Eiruv, the problem will be - that one will then transgress the Melachah of 'Kotzer' (reaping).
(c)We do not extend the prohibition to the case of an Eiruv in a tree that we discussed earlier - because unlike a cane, a tree is thick and hard, and one is unlikely to do cut of the branch on which the Eiruv is placed.
(d)The other (similar) reason do we give for the prohibition is - because, since there are many canes that are stuck in the ground, one may confuse one that is attached with one that is detached, and cut off the top.
(e)This does not apply in the case of the tree - since one not tend to find detached trees that are stuck in the ground.
17)
(a)What does the Mishnah now say in a case where the Eiruv is placed in a wooden cupboard and the key is lost?
(b)Given that the bolt is firmly tied with ropes, on what grounds does the Tana Kama validate the Eiruv?
17)
(a)The Mishnah now rules in a case where the Eiruv is placed in a wooden cupboard and the key is lost - that the Eiruv is valid
(b)Despite the fact that the bolt is firmly tied with ropes, the Tana Kama validates the Eiruv - because cutting the ropes is an act of Kilkul (destruction), which is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (and the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi, as we have already explained).
18)
(a)What does Rebbi Eliezer say?
(b)What is his reason?
(c)But is that not mi'de'Rabbanan (and the Mishnah goes like Rebbi, who permits de'Rabbanans in the realm of Eruvei Techumin)?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
18)
(a)Rebbi Eliezer - invalidates it ...
(b)... because he holds (like Rebbi Yitzchak) that a K'li may only be taken on Shabbos for the purpose for which it was made, and a knife is made to cut food, and not ropes.
(c)That may well be mi'de'Rabbanan (and the Mishnah goes like Rebbi, who permits de'Rabbanans in the realm of Eruvei Techumin). Nevertheless - since there are two de'Rabbanans involved, Rebbi Eliezer is strict.
(d)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 4
19)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about an Eiruv that is placed at the edge of the T'chum and rolls out, a pile of stones fell on it or it got burned ...
1. ... before Shabbos arrived?
2. ... after Shabbos arrived?
(b)What is the reason for the latter ruling?
(c)What will be the Din if an Eiruv that comprises Terumah becomes Tamei?
(d)What is the reason behind the prohibition regarding the Eiruv that rolled outside the T'chum before Shabbos?
(e)Why is it nevertheless valid if it rolled no more than two Amos outside the T'chum?
19)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if an Eiruv is placed at the edge of the T'chum and rolls out, a pile of stones fell on it or it got burned ...
1. ... before Shabbos arrived - it is Pasul.
2. ... after Shabbos arrived - it is Kasher ...
(b)... because the Eiruv takes effect as soon as Shabbos arrives, as we learned earlier ...
(c)... and the same will apply in the case of an Eiruv that comprises Terumah becomes Tamei.
(d)The reason behind the prohibition regarding the Eiruv that rolled outside the T'chum before Shabbos is - that since the distance from his house to the Eiruv is more than two thousand Amos, he is unable to take it on Shabbos (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(e)If it rolled no more than two Amos outside the T'chum however - it is valid, since everybody is allowed an extra two Amos in every direction from the location of his Eiruv.
20)
(a)How deep must the pile of stones that fell on the Eiruv be to invalidate the Eiruv?
(b)Having taught us the Din regarding the Eiruv ...
1. ... that rolled outside the T'chum, why does the Tana need to then add the case where a pile of stones fell on it?
2. ... on which a pile of stones fell, why does he need to add the case where it rolled outside the T'chum?
(c)And why does he then find it necessary to add the case ...
1. ... where the Eiruv got burnt?
2. ... of Terumah that became Tamei?
20)
(a)For the pile of stones that fell on the Eiruv to invalidate the Eiruv, it must be deep enough to require a spade and a pick-axe to get to the Eiruv (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)Having taught us the Din regarding the Eiruv ...
1. ... that rolled outside the T'chum, the Tana neverttheless needs to then add the case where a pile of stones fell on it - because the latter (unlike the former) is at least in the same domain as the owner is.
2. ... on which a pile of stones fell, he needs to add the case where it rolled outside the T'chum - because whereas the former necessitates a Melachah to get to it (as we explained), the latter does not, since it is possible for the wind to blow it back.
(c)He then finds it necessary to add the case ...
1. ... where the Eiruv got burnt - to teach us the extent of Rebbi Yossi's Chidush (which we will learn shortly).
2. ... of Terumah that became Tamei - to teach us the extent of Rebbi Meir's Chidush (which we shall learn shortly).
21)
(a)If in any of the above cases, one is not sure whether the 'P'sul' occurred before Shabbos entered or afterwards, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah say "Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal'. What does this mean Halachically?
(b)Why is he not permitted to go ...
1. ... beyond the location of the Eiruv?
2. ... even one step from his house in the opposite direction?
(c)Why do they refer to it in this way?
(d)What is the basis for this stringent ruling (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
21)
(a)If in any of the above cases, one is not sure whether the 'P'sul' occurred before Shabbos entered or afterwards, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah say "Harei Zeh Chamar Gamal', which means (Halachically) - that he is now only allowed to go from his house up to the area of the Eiruv (exclusively, and not even one step in the other direction).
(b)He is not permitted to go ...
1. ... beyond the location of the Eiruv - in case the Eiruv is Pasul.
2. ... even one step from his house in the opposite direction - in case it is Kasher.
(c)We refer to it in this way - because it is comparable to a person who is leading a donkey (which one tends to lead from behind) and a camel (which one leads from the front) simultaneously.
(d)The reason that they are so stringent is - because they hold 'T'chumin d'Oraysa' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
22)
(a)What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(b)Why is that?
(c)What is the basis for his lenient ruling?
(d)What did Avtulmus rule citing five elders?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
22)
(a)Rebbi Yossi holds 'Safek Eiruv Kasher' ...
(b)... because we place the Eiruv on its Chazakah (that it is the way it was when he placed it).
(c)The basis for his lenient ruling is - the fact that he holds 'T'chumin de'Rabbanan'.
(d)Citing five elders, Avtulmus ruled - that a Safek Eiruv is Kasher (like Rebbi Yossi) ...
(e)...and that is the Halachah.
Mishnah 5
23)
(a)In a case where a group of Nochrim is known to be approaching, but it is not known from which direction, what does the Mishnah say about placing two Eruvin, one in the east and one in the west?
(b)What does he then stipulate?
(c)And what does he stipulate if he thinks that they may well ..
1. ... come from both directions?
2. ... not arrive at all?
(d)What similar case does the Tana add to the above?
(e)Which principle governs these rulings?
23)
(a)In a case where a group of Nochrim is known to be approaching, but it is not known from which direction - the Mishnah permits placing two Eruvin, one in the east and one in the west, and deciding which one he wants to be effective when he discovers from which direction they are coming.
(b)He then stipulates - that should they come from the east, he wants the Eiruv in the west to be valid; ... from the west, then he wants the Eiruv in the east to be valid.
(c)And he stipulates, if he thinks that they may well ..
1. ... come from both directions - that the Eiruv in whichever direction he chooses should be valid.
2. ... not arrive at all - that neither Eiruv should be valid, and he will retain the same status as all the other residents of the town,
(d)The Tana adds to the above a case - where a Chacham or two Chachamim arrived in one of the directions and he wants to go and hear his D'rashah.
(e)The principle that governs these rulings is - 'Yesh B'reirah' (one can decide the status of the Eiruv later - to take effect retroactively (when Shabbos enters [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
24)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the latter case, assuming that ...
1. ... one of the two Chachamim is his Rebbe?
2. ... both of them are his Rebbes?
(b)What is the reason for the former?
(c)Why does the Mishnah find it necessary to add the latter case (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
24)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah rules that, in the latter case, assuming that ...
1. ... one of the two Chachamim is his Rebbe - he is bound to go to where his Rebbe is.
2. ... both of them are his Rebbes- then even Rebbi Yehudah concedes that he may go wherever he decides at the last moment.
(b)The reason for the former is - because it is obvious that in his heart of hearts, that is where he really intended to go in the first place.
(c)The Mishnah finds it necessary to add the latter case - because it is speaking where one of the Chachamim is is Rebbe Muvhak (from whom he learned most of what he knows).
(d)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.
Mishnah 6
25)
(a)When Yom-Tov falls on Friday or on Sunday, what does Rebbi Eliezer say concerning someone who wishes to go three thousand Amos (See Tos.Yom-Tov) to the east on the first day and three thousand Amos to the west on the second, or vice- versa?
(b)On what principle is this ruling based?
(c)What if he places only one Eiruv, which he wants to use one day and to remain like the other residents of the town on the other?
(d)Why is the second statement necessary?
25)
(a)When Yom-Tov falls on Friday or on Sunday - Rebbi Eliezer permits someone who wishes to go three thousand Amos (See Tos.Yom-Tov) to the east on the first day and three thousand Amos to the west on the second on the second, or vice-versa to place two Eruvin (See Tos. Yom-Tov) at Bein ha'Shemashos and to stipulate accordingly.
(b)This ruling is based on the principle - that Shabbos and Yom-Tov are (not considered one long day, but) in fact, two different Kedushos.
(c)And the same will apply if he places only one Eiruv, which he wants to use one day and to remain like his co-residents on the other.
(d)The second statement is necessary- because otherwise, having placed the Eiruv for the first day, he will not be permitted to go his full two thousand Amos in the opposite direction (See Tos.Yom-Tov DH 've'Od').
26)
(a)What do the Chachamim say?
(b)What is the problem with their second statement 'O Me'arev li'Shenei Yamim O Eino Me'arev Kol Ikar'?
(c)Then why did they say it? What are they in fact saying to Rebbi Eliezer?
(d)What is the Chachamim's reason?
26)
(a)The Chachamim maintain - that either he places his Eiruv in one location for both days, or he doesn't place it at all.
(b)The problem with their second statement 'O Me'arev li'Shenei Yamim O Eino Me'arev Kol Ikar' is - that it seems to merely repeat the first one.
(c)What they are in fact saying to Rebbi Eliezer is - that just as one cannot divide one day into two Eruvin (half a day to the east and half a day to the west), so too, can one not divide Shabbos and Yom-Tov into two ...
(d)... due to the possibility of their being a Yoma Arichta (a long day).
27)
(a)According to the Chachamim, what should the owner then do if he wants to make an Eiruv in the same direction on both days?
(b)Why must the Shali'ach take the Eiruv home to re-use on the second day? Why can he not eat it and use a fresh Eiruv on the second day?
(c)Why is that?
27)
(a)According to the Chachamim, if the owner wants to make an Eiruv in the same direction on both days - he sends a Shali'ach (See Tos. Yom-Tov) at the first Bein-ha'Shemashos (before the entry of Yom-Tov), who waits until nightfall, and then returns with the Eruv (in case it gets lost), which he places again at the second Bein-ha'Shemashos, (before the entry of Shabbos).
(b)The Shali'ach must take the Eiruv home to re-use on the second day; He cannot eat it and use a fresh Eiruv on the second day - because the Din is that someone who wants to make an Eiruv on both the first and second days using bread, is obligated to use the same loaf of bread ...
(c)... because placing a new loaf on behalf of Shabbos - is akin to preparing on Yom-Tov for Shabbos.
28)
(a)The Chachamim conclude 'Nimtza Mistaker ba'Halichaso u'Mistaker be'Eruvo'. What do they mean when they say 'Nimtza Mistaker ...
1. ... ba'Halichaso'?
2. ... Mistaker be'Eruvo'?
(b)What will Rebbi Eliezer say about this (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(c)The above is speaking in a case when Yom-Tov falls before Shabbos (and one is permitted to carry the Eiruv home. What does one do when Shabbos falls before Yom-Tov?
28)
(a)The Chachamim conclude 'Nimtza ...
1. ... Mistaker ba'Halichaso' - inasmuch as it enables him to go an extra two thousand Amos in that direction.
2. ... Mistaker be'Eruvo' - (i.e. he gains by the fact that his Eiruv remains intact [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) in that he is able to eat it on the second day once Shabbos comes in.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that Shabbos and Yom-Tov constitute two Kedushos - will most certainly agree that the Eiruv must remain intact until the second day (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The above is speaking in a case when Yom-Tov falls before Shabbos (in which case one is permitted to carry the Eiruv home). When Shabbos falls before Yom-Tov, seeing as it is forbidden to carry on Shabbos, there is no way one can prepare an Eiruv for the second day using bread (only on foot ['Me'arev be'Raglav', as we will learn in the seventh Perek]).
29)
(a)What do the Chachamim say in a case where one places the Eiruv for two days and it is eaten on the first day?
(b)What did Rebbi Eliezer comment on that?
(c)How will we then explain the Chachamim's contradictory rulings? Why is there no contradiction?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
29)
(a)In a case where one places the Eiruv for two days and it is eaten on the first day - the Chachamim invalidate the Eiruv for the second day.
(b)Rebbi Eliezer commented - that this indicates that they concede to his opinion after all, that Shabbos and Yom-Tov constitute two Kedushos.
(c)To explain the contradictory ruling of the Chachamim - we point out that they have a Safek as to whether Shabbos and Yom-Tov constitute one Kedushah or two. Consequently, they always rule le'Chumra.
(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Eliezer.
Mishnah 7
30)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about someone who suspects that Beis-Din will declare two days Rosh ha'Shanah, and who intends to go beyond the T'chum to the east on the first day and to the west on the second day, or vice-versa?
(b)What do the Chachamim say?
(c)Who is the Chachamim?
(d)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
30)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah permits someone who suspects that Beis-Din will declare two days Rosh ha'Shanah, and who intends to go beyond the T'chum to the east on the first day (the thirtieth of Ellul) and to the west on the second day (the thirty-first), or vice-versa - to place two Eruvin and stipulate accordingly.
(b)The Chachamim - forbid it.
(c)The Chachamim is - Rebbi Yossi (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah have two Kedushos (like the two days of Yom-Tov in Chutz la'Aretz [Rebbi Yehudah]) or not (the Chachamim).
31)
(a)If the Chachamim hold 'Sh'tei Kedushos Hein' with regard to Shabbos and Yom-Tov (like Rebbi Eliezer in the previous Mishnah), why do they hold 'Kedushah Achas Hi' with regard to the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah?
(b)What is then the reason for the two days Rosh ha'Shanah?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
31)
(a)Even though the Chachamim hold 'Sh'tei Kedishos Hein' with regard to Shabbos and Yom-Tov (like Rebbi Eliezer in the previous Mishnah), they hold 'Kedushah Achas Hi' with regard to the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah - because the reason for the two days is not merely because of Safek , as it is with two days Yom-Tov), but ...
(b)... because sometimes, the witnesses of the new moon only arrived in Yerushalayim after Minchah. When that happened, they would declare both that day and the following day Rosh Chodesh/ha'Shanah (as the Mishnah explains in Rosh ha'Shanah).
(c)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
Mishnah 8
32)
(a)What is the problem with a basket of Tevel that one wants to Ma'aser on Yom-Tov?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah therefore say that someone who has a basket containing Tevel on the first day of Yom-Tov should do if he wishes to Ma'aser?
(c)What does he do next?
(d)When is he then permitted to eat the fruit?
(e)Which Yom-Tov is Rebbi Yehudah referring to?
32)
(a)The problem with a basket of Tevel that one wants to Ma'aser on Yom-Tov is - that one is not permitted to Ma'aser on Yom-Tov.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah therefore says that someone who has a basket containing Tevel on the first day of Yom-Tov should do if he wishes to Ma'aser - should stipulate that the Ma'asros that he is taking should take effect on the assumption that 'today is Chol', but if it is Kodesh, then they will not take effect.
(c)On the second day, he states that 'if yesterday was Yom-Tov and today is Chol, then the Ma'asros that he separated yesterday will take effect now, whereas if today is Kodesh (See Tos. Yom-Tov), then it is Terumah from yesterday ...
(d)... and he is then permitted to eat the fruit.
(e)Rebbi Yehudah is referring (even) to - the Yom-Tov of Rosh ha'Shanah.
33)
(a)And what does Rebbi Yehudah say about an egg that is laid on the first day of Rosh ha'Shanah?
(b)What is Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning?
(c)What do the Chachamim say about ...
1. ... both of the above cases?
2. ... the same cases with regard to the two days Yom-Tov of other Yamim-Tovim shel Galiyos?
(d)Who is the Chachamim?
(e)What is the basis of their Machlokes?
33)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah also - permits an egg that is laid on the first day of Rosh-ha'Shanah to be eaten on the second day.
(b)'Mah Nafshach' - if the first day is Kodesh, then the second day is Chol, and an egg that is laid on Yom-Tov is permitted on Chol, whereas if the first day is Chol, then the egg was prepared on Chol, and is permitted on Yom-Tov.
(c)The Chachamim ...
1. ... are stringent in both of the above cases.
2. ... concede to Rebbi Yehudah - that on other Yamim-Tovim shel Galiyos, the two days are considered two Kedushos (See Tos-Yom-Tov).
(d)The Chachamim is Rebbi Yossi.
(e)The basis of their Machlokes is whether the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah are considered two Kedushos like the two days of Yom-Tov (Rebbi Yehudah), or whether that is a Safek (the Chachamim), as we learned in the previous Mishnah with regard to Shabbos and Yom-Tov.
Mishnah 9
34)
(a)According to Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus, the Chazan on Rosh ha'Shanah says 'Retzei ve'Hachalitzenu Hashed Elokeinu es Yom Rosh ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Im h'Yom Im le'Machar'. 've'Hachalitzenu' might mean 'infuse us with enthusiasm'. What else might it mean?
(b)According to Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus, what does the Chazan say on the second day?
(c)In which two points do the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
34)
(a)According to Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus, the Chazan on Rosh ha'Shanah says 'Retzei ve'Hachalitzenu Hashed Elokeinu es Yom Rosh ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Im h'Yom Im le'Machar'. 've'Hachalitzenu' means either 'infuse us with enthusiasm' - of deliver us (from our troubles).
(b)According to Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus, the Chazan says on the second day - he concludes ' ... Im ha'Yom, Im Emesh'.
(c)The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinus - a. In that one does not mention Rosh Chodesh on Rosh ha'Shanah (See Tos. Yom-Tov and Meleches Sh'lomoh), and b. in that one does not mention 'Im h'Yom ... ' either.
