Eruv Between Two Balconies (Eruvin 79a)

The mishna on 78b says that two balconies can join in one eruv. Rashi says that the Mishna is teaching us that they can join even if they're far apart as long as you put a four tefach wide board to connect the two that people can comfortably walk across. Tosafos says that the case of the Mishna is that the two balconies are within four tefachim of each other they can combine because it's like a ditch less than four between them and they can easily get over it. So far so good.

Then Rava on 79a says that this is only true if they are less than three tefachim apart either horizontally or vertically. That means that they're not directly across from each other but if you would draw a straight line from the edge of one across to the other side it would be within three tefachim of the edge of the other one. Or the same thing vertically. That explanation probably wasn't great but if you don't get it then try to check one of the picture books. Anyway, if it's more than 3 tefachim then the two balconies can't combine. That's where I have a problem with Rashi and Tosafos.

Tosafos actually has a problem with Rashi. According to Rashi why should it matter that it's more than three tefachim away, there is a four tefach board going across between the two balconies and we said a few blatt ago that a person isn't afraid to walk on top of the wall if it's at least four tefachim across. The way I understood Rashi (and the way the Ran explains it) is that the reason this is worse is because the person is afraid to walk on a plank if it's on a steep slope or a sharp angle. My problem is that if that is true shouldn't we measure the angle and not the distance? In other words, if the two porches are 10 tefachim away from each other across and one is three tefachim higher than the other then you'd have a somewhat steep slope but if you push them to 20 tefachim apart from each other and keep one three tefachim higher than the other then the slope would be much, much less steep. So why shouldn't that be good? We should be looking at the slope!

I also have a problem with Tosafos' explanation. He said that there are four tefachim betwen the balconies and then Rava said that they're 3 tefachim apart which means that there is now actually a 5 tefach distance between the two. Why is that still good? We said that a person can only walk across four tefachim not five?

Wine and Oil (Eruvin 71a)

Rav explains that the beginning of the mishna is talking about when the wine is in one utensil but if the wine is in two utensils it would not be good. Rava then tries to bring a proof that must be true from our Mishna and Abaye says that Rava's proof is no good. I think that the simple understanding of the gemara (especially when considering that Rava and Abaye were from the same generation - a few years later than Rav) is that the only machlokes is if the mishna can be used as a proof but Abaye does not intend to argue on Rav's statement. The Ritva though actually quotes it as two opinions and according to some Abaye is actually arguing on Rav.

Then on amud beis, Rav Yosef explains that the machlokes between R' Shimon and the Chachamim is if wine and oil mix or not. This makes it seem that he's definitely arguing with Rav and that's how the Maharsha explains it. Rav says the machlokes has nothing to do with the substance but the only thing that matters is if it's one utensil or two and Rav Yosef seems to say that the only thing that matters is the substance.

The Sfas Emes (it's very short but this is at least how I understand it) says that he disagrees with the Maharsha and he says that it could be that Rav Yosef and Rav agree. According to them the Chachamim hold that if it's wine then it depends if it's in one utensil or two but if it's wine and oil then it's no good even if they're both in one utensil. That also seems to be how the Ritva understands it.

Can a tziduki be part of the eruv? (Eruvin 69a)

The mishna quotes a machlokes if a tziduki can be relinquish his rights in the courtyard - mevatel reshus (R' Gamliel) or if he's like a non-Jew and he can't be mevatel reshus (tanna kama). However, the gemara never seems to address the question if the tziduki can be part of the eruv in the first place. I think that there are three possibilities:
1. Everyone would agree that he can't be part of the eruv.
2. It would be the same machlokes - if you hold that he can't be mevatel then he can't be part of the eruv otherwise he could be part of the eruv.
3. Everyone would agree that he can be part of the eruv.

I think that Rashi would hold of option 1. In the mishna (on 61b) Rashi says that a tziduki can't be mevatel reshus because we're afraid he's going to carry there on purpose and thereby nullify his bitul. We don't have that fear if he's actually part of the eruv so that would be permissible. The Rambam (hilchos Eruvin 5:16) though seems to pasken like option 3. He paskens that a tziduki could be mevatel reshus but he can't be part of the eruv. I think that pashut pshat in the gemara is like option 2

Backdoor (Eruvin 67b)

(a) (Rav Yehudah): If a Nochri has an opening four by four [Tefachim] to a valley, even if he brings camels and wagons [into the Mavoy], he does not forbid the Benei Mavoy.
(b) Question: What is the reason?
(c) Answer: He prefers using his own opening [for the valley is less crowded - therefore, it is as if he has no share in the Mavoy].
(d) Question: If a Nochri has an opening to a Karfef, what is the law?
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Ami): I have a tradition, even if it is open to a Karfef [he does not forbid].
(f) (Rabah and Rav Yosef): If a Nochri has an opening to a Karfef [at most] Beis Sa'atayim, he forbids (it is not so big, he still uses the Mavoy); if it is more than Beis Sa'atayim, he does not forbid;
(g) If a Yisrael has an opening [to a Karfef at most] Beis Sa'atayim, he does not forbid (it is big enough for his needs on Shabbos); if it is more than Beis Sa'atayim (it is a Karmelis, he cannot bring from his house to it) he forbids [unless he participates in the Eruv].

Summary courtsey of Kollel iyun hadaf. The parentheses and brackets are their additions and not the translation of the gemara. In (g), they added in the words "at most" but that is not clear that those words should be there. The Sfas Emes assumes there there must be a minimum size to the karfef in order for the Jew not to forbid the others in the chatzeir. He is unsure what that minimum is. He suggests that maybe it is a beis sa'atayim which would mean that the only way he doesn't forbid is if the karfef is exactly that size. He finds that hard to believe but doesn't have any other suggestions for that minimum size.

I'm not sure why he doesn't quote Rashi d"h yisrael who says that the reason it doesn't forbid is because it's bigger than the courtyard. So that seems to be the minimum - as long as it's bigger than the chatzeir. Why is that the minimum shiur? It could be that as long as the Jew has this backdoor we will force him to use it (I think that we don't actually force him to use it but just force him to be mevatel his rights in our chatzeir since he could use that one - he could still walk through our chatzeir as a guest) so that he won't forbid the rest of us as long as it's bigger than the chatzeir because he really doesn't lose much. So it's a classic zeh nehene v'zeh lo chaseir. He might be losing a little because we're forcing him to use the backdoor but as long as it's bigger even by a little it balances out.

2 in the inner and 1 in the outer (Eruvin 65b)

The gemara quotes a case of a Jew and a non-Jew living in the inner courtyard and only a Jew in the outer chatzeir. The gemara concludes that they can't carry in the outer courtyard because it's two Jews since the people from the inner walk through there but they can carry in the inner courtyard because there it's only one Jew living with the non-Jew and nobody else comes through. The gemara says this is based on R' Eliezer Ben Yaakov's opinion. Later the gemara says that they made the gezeira in this case even though it's just one Jew living with a non-Jew in a chatzeir because in this scenario it's not uncommon. The Jew isn't afraid to live with the non-Jew in the back because the guy in the front will check up on him if he doesn't come out for a few days so the goy will be afraid to do anything to him.

Someone asked this morning if that's true then why can the Jew in the inner courtyard carry? It's common for a Jew to live like this so they should have made the gezeira in that case! I immediately responded that it's true that in that scenario it may be common but they just made the rule across the board that one Jew living with one non-Jew in a chatzeir isn't a problem so they weren't going to pick out common scenarios and forbid only those. It's just an across the board rule.

I saw though that the Ritva asks this exact question. He answers that it's the fault of the guy in the outer courtyard that the inner guy is willing to live there so he's the one who gets penalized. If it wouldn't be for him the guy in the inside would never live there. He then asks the obvious question that we should just penalize both of them. Maybe I could understand choosing the guy in front if we were forced to penalize only one but we can easily penalize both. So he answers that we don't penalize the guy in back so as not to differentiate in REB"Y's opinion (which is basically what I said - baruch she'kivanti).

include akum in eruv II (Eruvin 64a)

In order to ameliorate the situation of a Goy that won't rent his property in a movoi for Eruv purposes, Rava (on the top of 64a) says that "one Yid should go and befriend the goy (Likriv LeGabay) and borrow a spot in the movoi from him and the Yid should place something in that spot", which is effective for allowing the movoi to have an Eruv. Rashi comments on Likriv LeGabay, "work with the Goy until he is the Yid's friend...".

Is it not ironic that the reason that one must rent the property of a Goy who lives in a movoi with Yiddin is solely because the Chachomim sought to discourage us from living with them, yet Rava's solution to the problem of a Goy living in a movoi with Yiddin who will not rent his property is to befriend the Goy?

Did anyone see any Meforshim that comment on this?

include akum in eruv (Eruvin 62a)

Rashi in d"h ela about 10 lines down on 62a explains that the purpose of the enactment to forbid the Jew from including the non-Jew in his eruv was to discourage us from living with them. This way we would need to go to them each week and ask them to rent the area from them. It would be such a huge pain in the neck that we would prefer just not to live with them.

Some rishonim pasken this way that you must make rent anew from the goy each week. The Rosh, however paskens that one rental is enough. Furthermore, he says that even Rashi agrees to that and the only reason that Rashi says you need to do it every week is if the non-Jew backs out then you must go re-rent it from him. To me that sounds a little forced in Rashi but I was thinking that maybe the Rosh is still correct that Rashi agrees that it doesn't have to be done every week ...

The Rashash asks on this Rashi, why does he say that the detriment is that you'll have to rent each week? The gemara says later that the reason this will disuade people from living with the goyim is because they won't rent it to the Jews - nothing to do with the bother of doing it every week! The Rashash answers, "maybe Rashi believes that the reason of the gemara doesn't apply unless it's a long term-rental." If I'm understanding the Rashash correctly, he's suggesting that Rashi believes that there are really two detriments:
1. A non-Jew won't make a long term rental of his land to a Jew
2. He would make a short-term rental but that's a pain in the neck for the Jew

So Rashi agrees that a long-term rental would be effective if you could somehow convince the non-Jew to do it.

Storage House counts as remnant (Eruvin 60a)

Abaye says that in Pumpedisa they counted the storage hours of Bar Pupedisa as the remnant to allow them to make an eruv around the rest of the city. Rashi says that they were ablt to do this because we pasken like R' Shimon that you don't need 50 residents to consider it the remnant. How does it help that we pasken like R' Shimon - he still requires three chatzeiros?!?

Tosafos says that there were three chatzeiros together with this storage house - the point here is just that the storage house can count as one of them even though there are no residents. The Sfas Emes says that it doesn't sound like Rashi agrees with this because he doesn't mention that at all. He explains that it could be that Rashi didn't want to give that explanation because then that would be no proof. If Tosafos was right then the only thing we see is that the storage house could count as one of the houses needed but it doesn't answer Abaye's question if the entire remnant could be something that couldn't have been included. The Sfas Emes therefore explains that it must be according to Rashi the storage "house" included three chatzeiros of two houses each. My only problem with this explanation is why does Rashi say that we pasken like R' Shimon who says that you don't need 50 residents? Why doesn't he say it in the positive - we pasken like R' Shimon who requires only three chatzeiros?

The Rif though understands the gemara differently. He paskens like R' Yitzchok at the end of the gemara who says that you only require a single house (not like R' Shimon or the T"K of our mishna) and Pumpedisa likewise paskened like R' Yitzchok so there was no need for chatzeiros. Tosafos paskens like R' Shimon so he couldn't explain our gemara like that. The Rosh is bothered by this Rif - how could he pasken like an amora when there are tannaim who argue on him? We pasken like the Rif though.

I was thinking to answer the Rif and my question on Rashi that R' Yitzchok doesn't mean to argue on the tannaim but he just means to explain R' Shimon. He's saying that's what R' Shimon really held. Our mishna quotes him as requiring three chatzeiros but R' Yitzchok argues and says he only requires a single house. I'll admit that I'm not crazy about this explanation for a number of reasons.

What's this mishna doing here? (Eruvin 59a)

When I started learning the mishna on 59a I assumed it was talking about eruvei techumin. Took me a couple minutes to realize that we had suddenly switched back to eruv chatzeros. Then I looked at the next mishna and we switch right back to eruvei techumin. That leads to the obvious question: What is this mishna doing in the middle of a perek all about eruvei techumin??

The Keren Orah pointed me to the Tosafos Chadashim in the mishnayos who asks this question. They answer that the last mishna concluded with the line that we're lenient by eruvin so this mishna shows that is not only true by eruvei techumin but even by eruvei chatzeros as evidenced by the fact that you can make an eruv around a city of a yachid that becomes a city of rabim. Not crazy about the answer but I haven't seen anything better.

70 and 2/3 (Eruvin 57a)

The chachamim in the mishna on 57a say that the only time you get 70 and 2/3 amos extension on a city is when there are two cities. Then Rav Huna in the gemara says that between two cities you get 141 and 1/3 amos because each city gets the 70.7 amos. Does this mean that there is never a time that you'll only get the 70.7 amos?

Tosafos in d"h Rav Huna, explains that when the chachamim say you only get the karfef between two cities they don't mean between two cities but between two things. In other words a house gets the karfef also. You don't need a city at all. If I have a house and my neighbor has a house 70 amos away then that's OK and we can start our techums only after the other's house. However, when Rav Huna says that both get 70.7, he means that only when there are two cities. So between a house and a city you only get 70.7 just like between two houses but between two cities you get 141.3 (and I think that according to Tosafos that is only true if they're both walled).

The Ritva brings up another interesting point. Let's say you have a city with a house 50 amos away and then another city 140 amos from that house, can you say that it's all one big city? Or do you have have less than 140 amos between the cities and the house doesn't count to extend the city for that purpose? The Ritva says the house doesn't count. The Maharam M'Rutenberg disagrees.