The Rashba cites the Raavad who proves that the Halacha follows Rabbah that "Eiruv Mishum Dirah" from the Gemara earlier that says that the owner of the house in which the Eiruv is placed need not contribute to the Eiruv. The Raavad sees in this statement a proof that Eiruv cannot be "Mishum Kinyan".
The Rashba asks that this cannot be because the aforementioned statement was said by Shmuel who holds "Eiruv Mishum Kinyan". Therefore, he explains that even Shmuel means that through the Kinyan the people in the courtyard acquire residence in the home in which the Eiruv is placed. The Bach answers that Shmuel holds of two forms of Eiruv, a "Kinyan Eiruv" and a "Dirah Eiruv".
My question is, how would the Raavad understand the opinion of Shmuel? What does it mean that "Eiruv Mishum Kinyan" ? Is it merely a symbolic acquisition completely independant of, and unrelated to, the residence of the people in the courtyard?
Zak, Nyc, USA
This is a very perceptive and difficult question. I will try to answer by building on different sources describing the Ra'avad's opinion.
1. The Ra'avad could agree with Tosfos (49a, DH Eruv) that each member of the Chatzer gives over his ownership to the other residents. The Gaon Yakov (DH Eruv) writes that this means that each neighbor transfers his own domain to every other neighbor and thereby they become partners in the entire Chatzer, so there is only one domain present in the entire Chatzer.
2. According to the Bach's understanding of the Ra'avad, they do not have to possess a partnership in the food. So the partnership is financial, as you hint. Therefore, the Bach writes that (1) they can effect the transaction through a "Kinyan Sudar"; (2) less than a Perutah is not effective; and (3) a minor is incapable of performing the Kinyan because all three details are applicable to financial transactions.
3. However, even though the Kinyan of the Eruv is achieved by financial means, the end result is not merely economic. This is because the end result is that they are all living together.
4. You hint in your question that we have to understand what the difference is between the opinion of the Rashba and the opinion of the Ra'avad. I want to suggest a Chidush to illustrate vividly the difference between these two Shitos.
5. According to the Rashba, they are all considered to be eating together. According to the Ra'avad, they are not all eating together but they are all living together. Therefore, in the opinion of the Rashba they are all eating the same food from the same table, while in the opinion of the Ra'avad they are not all eating at the same table but they are all living in the same house and each eating from a different table.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi Bloom,
Thank you for responding to my question. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the underlying result of an Eiruv according to both the Rashba's and the Raavad's understanding of Shmuel, is that through this bread the residents of the courtyard are in some way considered to be living in the house in which the Eiruv is placed. The difference between the Rashba and Raavad is merely regarding the extent of this "living". If this is true, what is the Rashba's question on the Raavad? There is no indication in the Gemara that the reasoning of the original Shmuel (when he says that the one in whose house the Eiruv is placed does not need to contribute) is based on the fact that he is actually eating together with everybody as opposed to in one house but separately? Why would you make such a distinction logically?
If I may, I will write what I would propose. I do not know this Masechta well enough to determine whether this is true. I would say that indeed, as you suggest, everybody agrees that even Shmuel agrees that by merging together the food from all of the residents of the courtyard, we consider them to be "living" in the home that houses the Eiruv. Yet Shmuel holds what effects the "heter tiltul" is the "ownership" that the residents of the courtyard acquire in this home via the bread that they placed there. Of course the bread makes it like they are living there, but the relocation of their dwelling place does not effect the heter, it is the "kinyan" that effects it. Rabbah disagrees and maintains that the ownership (if it exists) is irrelevant. The "heter tiltul" was granted by merely relocating the area of dwelling.
The Raavad's proof is merely textual. The Gemara cites the fact that the owner of the home that houses the Eiruv is exempt from contributing because "it is his dirah". According to Raavad's understanding it should have said "because he has a kinyan". Rashba argues on this entire idea. He maintains that even Shmuel agrees that what effects the "heter tiltul" is the "dirah", Shmuel just holds that the change in dirah is accomplished through a kinyan.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
All the best,
Zak
Zak, thank you for your very important comments!
As a result of your challenge, I retract from my Chidush with which I tried to explain the difference between the Rashba and the Ra'avad.
Instead, I will remain with my original explanation that the Ra'avad agrees with Tosfos (49a, DH Eruv) that the Eruv is only because of Kinyan according to Shmuel and not because of Dirah.
D. Bloom