Eruvin 31
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns דף ל"א beginning on דף ל' עמוד ב' at רבי יהודה אומר אף בית הקברות, and it frames the sugya around whether an *eiruv* must be both edible to the intended person and located in a place the person can reach. The *Gemara* explains רבי יהודה’s permission for a כהן’s *eiruv* in a cemetery through access via שידה תיבה ומגדל and the principle that *ohel zaruk* is an *ohel*, then challenges how the תרומה avoids becoming טמא and how it can be retrieved without טומאה. The sugya then shifts to the broader dispute about acquiring *shevisah* via *issurei hana’ah* and to the principles מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו and אין מערבין אלא לדבר מצווה as explained by רבא and רב יוסף, with later *Acharonim* probing their logic. The משנה then lists which foods qualify for *eiruv* (including דמאי, redeemed מעשר שני and הקדש, and excluding various forms of טבל and improperly redeemed items), and it closes with the laws of appointing a messenger for *eiruv*, disqualifying חרש שוטה וקטן and a כותי unless another person receives it, relying on בעומד ורואהו and חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו.
- Today's *shiur* begins with רבי יהודה’s ruling that an *eiruv* may be placed for a כהן in a בית הקברות מפני שיכול לחוץ because the כהן can reach it. The *Gemara* explains that he can go וילך בשידה תיבה ומגדל, and this works because רבי יהודה holds *ohel zaruk* is an *ohel* that blocks טומאה. The *Gemara* ties this to the earlier תנאים about ארץ העמים, where רבי says the person becomes טמא because *ohel zaruk* is not an *ohel*, and רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה says he remains טהור because it is an *ohel*.
- The *Rishonim* debate whether the requirement that the *eiruv* be accessible applies only according to סומכוס, who requires the intended person to be able to eat the *eiruv*, or whether even the רבנן who disagree with סומכוס still require the *eiruv* to be placed where the person can actually go. The *mefarshim* require that the box used for access be large enough to hold מ' סאה. Rashi as explained by the רשב"א limits the *machlokes* of *ohel zaruk* to when the *ohel* is in transit and says that when it is at rest everyone agrees it is an *ohel*, while Tosafos says the opposite and places the *machlokes* when the *ohel* is at rest.
- The *Gemara* asks how the כהן can eat the תרומה if placing it on a קבר makes it טמא, and it answers that it is placed בשלא הוכשרה or it is kneaded שלש במי פירות so it is not susceptible to טומאה. The *Gemara* then asks how the כהן brings it to himself without becoming טמא when reaching out from the שידה תיבה ומגדל, and it answers that he uses פשוטי כלי עץ which are not מקבל טומאה. The *Gemara* challenges that טומאת אוהל applies regardless, and it answers דמייתי לה אהוריי by holding it by a narrow end less than a טפח, since a width under a טפח does not generate טומאת אוהל.
- The *Gemara* asks why רבנן still invalidate the *eiruv* and Rashi explains that the question addresses a case of a single grave rather than a cemetery, where access is not the issue. The *Gemara* answers that רבנן hold אסור לקנות בית באיסורי הנאה, and Rashi grounds the grave’s איסור הנאה in a *gezeirah shavah* of שם from ותמת שם מרים and the עגלה ערופה passage. The *Gemara* infers that רבי יהודה holds it is permitted, and *Rishonim* explain that the משנה chose the כהן case to show how מקיל רבי יהודה is, since the same issue would apply to a ישראל as well.
- Rabbeinu Peretz answers that the case can be where the *eiruv* is placed between graves rather than on top of a grave, removing the issue of איסורי הנאה while leaving the access problem for a כהן. The *mefarshim* then limit the dispute by stating that if it is only a single grave and the *eiruv* is not on the grave itself, everyone agrees the *eiruv* is valid because access is possible and the איסור הנאה concern does not apply.
- The *Gemara* explains רבי יהודה’s permissive stance through מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו. The *Gemara* challenges whether רבא’s general statement מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו is merely a תנאים dispute and answers that the dispute hinges on whether *eiruv* is only for דבר מצווה (רבי יהודה) or even for דבר רשות (רבנן). The אבני מלואים challenges this by comparing to חליצה shoes that are אסור בהנאה yet valid, and the שו"ת עונג יום טוב distinguishes that חליצה removes an איסור while *eiruv* establishes residence with potentially non-mitzvah repercussions.
- The *Gemara* similarly asks whether רב יוסף’s rule אין מערבין אלא לדבר מצווה is a תנאים dispute and answers that everyone agrees both אין מערבין אלא לדבר מצווה and מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו. The *Gemara* explains that רבי יהודה focuses on the *eiruv*’s function at בין השמשות, while רבנן want the *eiruv* to remain for the rest of שבת because ניחא ליה דמנטרא and it can be eaten later, which is not a דבר מצווה and thus creates forbidden benefit from the grave’s איסור הנאה.
- The ראשונים and later authorities ask that if by מצווה דרבנן one can say מצווה ליהנות ניתנו, then many *eiruv* purposes like a חתונה, שבע ברכות, or בית אבל would reintroduce benefit. The מהרש"ם answers that the “benefit” idea only overrides an עבירה דאורייתא, while here the *eiruv* framework is itself דרבנן, and another answer grounds these activities in דאורייתא חסד. The ט"ז and אבני נזר state that תלמוד תורה is the one מצווה given for enjoyment, defined as לשוש ושמח ומתענג בלימודו, based on רב אברהם מן ההר in נדרים about using another’s ספרים despite a הנאה restriction. The סטריקובער רבי explains מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו with a משל that the reward of עולם האמת makes present enjoyment negligible.
- The משנה rules that one may make an *eiruv* with דמאי, with מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו, with מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו, and that כהנים may use חלה, but not with מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו, not with מעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו, and not with טבל. The רשב"א and מאירי ask why unredeemed הקדש cannot be like a נזיר using wine since it can potentially become permitted, and they answer that wine is permitted to others while unredeemed הקדש is forbidden to everyone. Tosafos states it is obvious the משנה follows סומכוס because it restricts חלה to כהנים, matching the view that the intended person must be able to eat the *eiruv*.
- The *Gemara* asks how דמאי can work for *eiruv* under סומכוס, and it answers מיגו דאי בעי מפקיר לנכסיה והוי עני וחזי ליה, since the person could become poor and then dמאי is edible to him. The *Gemara* supports this with the משנה מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואכסניא דמאי, and Rav Huna teaches that בית שמאי forbid feeding poor people דמאי while בית הלל permit it. Rashi says אכסניא are Jewish soldiers and Tosafos says they are non-Jewish soldiers, and Tosafos explains the novelty even for non-Jews because one might treat דמאי like טבל and assume it is אסור בהנאה, so the משנה teaches it may still be given to soldiers.
- The ריטב״א raises that making property ownerless is like business and is אסור on שבת, and several answers say the *eiruv* takes effect at בין השמשות when דרבנן restrictions do not apply, or that הפקר is permitted לדבר מצוה, or that the prohibition concerns transferring to another person rather than merely relinquishing ownership. The מרי חגיז asks who would be מפקיר all his property just to eat דמאי, and he answers that one can be מפקיר בינו לבין עצמו privately without fear that others will seize it.
- The *Gemara* explains that מעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו can refer to a case where the לוי took it prematurely לא צריכא שהקדימו בשבלים and gave תרומת מעשר but no תרומה גדולה was taken. Rav and ריש לקיש rule that מעשר ראשון שהקדימו בשבלים is פטור מתרומה גדולה from והורמתם ממנו תרומת ה׳ מעשר מן המעשר, meaning only “a tithe from the tithe” is required. Rav Pappa challenges that this would apply even when taken after processing, and Abaye answers with מכל מתנותיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה׳, requiring both gifts once the grain is processed. The *Gemara* resolves that one case is אידגן and one case is לא אידגן, and Tosafos explains that the *hava amina* is to exempt תרומה גדולה even when it was processed if the לוי received it before תרומה גדולה was separated.
- The *Gemara* explains that מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו includes a case where the קרן was paid but not the חומש, teaching אין החומש מעכב. Tosafos notes that other sugyos ask whether חומש is essential and answers that the משנה’s wording could have been incidental without proving the point. The Rambam rules that even though the redemption works without the חומש, מדרבנן one may not have הנאה until the חומש is paid. The *Gemara* also explains invalid redemption cases: redeeming מעשר on an אסימון despite וצרת הכסף בידך requiring כסף שיש לו צורה, and redeeming הקדש on land despite ונתן הכסף וקם לו requiring movable money even though normally שוה כסף ככסף.
- The *Gemara* explains the exclusion of טבל by saying it refers to טבל טבול מדרבנן כגון שזרעו בעציץ שאינו נקוב. The רשב"א asks that if a child may be fed a דרבנן prohibition then it should qualify for *eiruv* like the *Gemara*’s logic for יום כיפור, and the ריטב״א infers that even דרבנן forbidden food may not be fed to a child. The רשב"א distinguishes that טבל is an איסור חפצא while יום כיפור is an איסור גברא, and he adds that טבל is uniquely stringent because it is אסור בהנאה even for הנאה של כילוי such as fuel.
- The *Gemara* explains that מעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו refers to a case where it was taken after processing שהקדימו בכרי and only תרומת מעשר was removed but not תרומה גדולה, so it remains forbidden to eat. The *Gemara* explains that מעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו can include cases where they were redeemed but not כהלכתן, such as redeeming on אסימון or redeeming הקדש on land.
- The משנה rules that sending an *eiruv* through חרש שוטה וקטן or through someone who אינו מודה בעירוב is invalid, but if one designates another person to receive it from them it is valid. The *Gemara* asks why a קטן cannot serve when רב הונא says קטן גובה את העירוב, and it answers that this is true for עירובי חצירות but not for עירובי תחומין. Rashi explains that עירובי חצירות is automatic once breads are collected, while עירובי תחומין requires intent and verbalization of קנין שביתה which a קטן cannot perform, and Tosafos adds that תחומין are treated more strictly because they have an אסמכתא from אל יצא איש ממקומו ביום השביעי ביום השבת.
- Rav Chisda identifies מי שאינו מודה בעירוב as a כותי, and the Gaon Yaakov asks whether a בית שמאי person counts as such for בית הלל, answering that בית שמאי accepts *eiruv* but requires different conditions. The *Gemara* worries that the item may not reach the receiver and answers כדאמר רב חסדא בעומד ורואהו, requiring the sender to see it arrive, and it then relies on חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו as stated by רבי יחיאל to assume the receiver takes it. The באר הלכה rules that seeing the קטן reach the receiver suffices even without seeing the transfer into the receiver’s hand.
- The *Gemara* sources these rules from a ברייתא where giving the *eiruv* to an elephant or a monkey makes it invalid unless another person is appointed to receive it, requiring בעומד ורואהו and then relying on חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו. Tosafos says this חזקה applies to a גדול and not a קטן, but it can be relied upon for a קטן in cases like בדיקת חמץ in his own house because the obligation is דרבנן since ביטול is sufficient מדאורייתא and because it concerns his own matter. רבי עקיבא איגר applies this to טבילת כלים and rules that one can rely on a קטן only for his own utensils when the obligation is דרבנן, but not for another person’s utensils without independent knowledge that he did it.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions