1)
(a)Rav Nachman does not hold of the Chazakah that a Sheli'ach carries out his Shelichus. Why then, does he agree by Eruvin, that the Chazakah does apply?
(b)What is Rav Sheshes' proof from the Din of Chadash that the above Chazakah applies even by a Din d'Oraysa?
(c)How does Rav Nachman refute that proof?
1)
(a)Rav Nachman agrees that the Chazakah of 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso' applies by Eruvin - because Eruvin is only mi'd'Rabbanan.
(b)Rav Sheshes proves that Chazakah 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso' applies even by a Din d'Oraysa - from the Mishnah in Menachos, which permits those who lived far away, to eat Chadash from mid-day of the sixteenth of Nisan, on the assumption that the Kohanim had brought the Omer by then, a proof that 'Sheli'ach Oseh Shelichuso'.
(c)Rav Nachman argues - that it was not just ordinary Sheluchim who brought the Omer, but the Beis-Din, who certainly have a Chazakah; and that has no bearing, he argues, on ordinary Sheluchim.
2)
(a)According to the second Lashon, it is Rav Nachman who proves from Chadash that a Sheli'ach does not necessarily fulfill his Shelichus by matters that are d'Oraysa, since the Mishnah explicitly adds 'because they know that the Beis-Din do not delay, from which he infers that any other Sheli'ach cannot be relied upon. How does Rav Sheshes counter that?
(b)And how does Rav Nachman counter Rav Sheshes' proof from the Beraisa, which permits a Zavah or a woman who gave birth, to place her money into the relevant box, and to eat Kodshim that very night - on the understanding that the Sheli'ach (in charge of purchasing and bringing the Korbanos, including hers) has done his job?
2)
(a)Rav Sheshes counters Rav Nachman's implication from the same Mishnah in Menachos) that any other Sheli'ach but for the Beis-Din has no Chazakah. The Mishnah there, he argues, is speaking about a Chazakah that they have brought the Omer by mid-day (as we wrote earlier). Consequently, he explains, we can only deduce that it is the Beis-Din who have a Chazakah to fulfill their Shelichus by mid-day - but that any other Sheli'ach would have a Chazakah to fulfill it until the end of the day (rather than no Chazakah at all).
(b)And with regard to Rav Sheshes' proof from the Beraisa, which permits a Zavah or a woman who gave birth, to place her money into the relevant box, and to eat Kodshim that very night - on the understanding that the Sheli'ach (in charge of purchasing and bringing the Korbanos, including hers) has done his job - Rav Nachman will counter in similar vein to his argument above (in 1c.): that the Zavah is relying, not just on Sheluchim, but on a Beis-Din of Kohanim, who, like the Beis-Din there, certainly have a Chazakah.
3)
(a)If the owner of a fig-tree authorizes someone to pick figs from his tree, he is obligated to separate Ma'asros as Vaday Tevel, and not as Demai. Why is that?
(b)Does this speak when he eats it casually, or when he eats a fixed meal of them?
(c)What will be the Din if the same owner permitted his friend to fill a basket-full of figs and to eat them?
(d)What is the difference between Vaday Tevel and Demai?
3)
(a)If the owner of a fig-tree authorizes someone to pick figs from his tree, he is obligated to separate Ma'asros as Vaday Tevel, and not as Demai - because, seeing as he did not specify how much his friend is permitted to pick, he cannot know how much Ma'asros he needs to separate. Consequently, we know with certainty, that the figs that the friend picks have not been Ma'asered, and that they must be considered Vaday Tevel, and not just Demai.
(b)We are speaking when he wants to eat a fixed meal of these figs. Otherwise, he would be allowed to eat figs from a tree casually without separating Ma'asros.
(c)If the same owner permitted his friend to fill a basket-full of figs and to eat them - he should then consider Demai (since the owner knows how much he authorized his friend to eat, and there is a good chance that he will Ma'aser them from his own crops) and separate the Ma'asros accordingly.
(d)Vaday Tevel requires all the Ma'asros to be separated and given to their rightful owners; Demai is Patur from Terumah Gedolah, and the person who separates them may retain the Ma'aser Rishon and the Ma'aser Ani for himself. All he needs to give away is Terumas Ma'aser, a. because the Amei ha'Aretz tended to be lax, and b. because they were forbidden to a non-Kohen.
4)
(a)According to Rebbi, if the owner was a Chaver, the friend would be permitted to eat without taking Ma'aser. Why is that? Why is Rebbi not concerned that the owner will be taking Ma'aser 'she'Lo min ha'Mukaf' (from produce that is not close)?
(b)What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel hold in this matter?
(c)If not for the concern of taking Terumah she'Lo min ha'Mukaf, everyone agrees that we can safely assume that the Sheli'ach (the owner) would perform his Shlichus. How will Rav Nachman answer this?
4)
(a)According to Rebbi, if the owner was a Chaver, the friend would be permitted to eat the figs without separating Ma'asros - because the Chaver would be sure to separate Ma'asros, in order not to feed the Am ha'Aretz Tevel -even if it meant taking from what is not 'Mukaf'.
(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a Chaver would not separate from what is not 'Mukaf' under any circumstances. Consequently, one must consider those figs to be Tevel Vaday.
(c)Rav Nachman quotes Rav Chanina Chuza'ah, who says that a Chaver has a Chazakah not to give out un'Ma'asered fruit (so as not to be responsible for feeding other people Tevel); but that has no bearing on anybody else, or on other areas outside of Ma'asros.
5)
(a)We established the Reisha of the Beraisa by an Am ha'Aretz. Whom did he authorize to eat from his fig-tree, an Am ha'Aretz or a Chaver, and how do we know this?
(b)In that case, how will we explain the Seifa, where Rebbi explains why his own opinion is preferred to his father's, because a Chaver would rather Ma'aser from what is not close, than feed an Am ha'Aretz Tevalim? Which Am ha'Aretz? Did we not just conclude that the recipient must be a Chaver, and not an Am ha'Aretz?
(c)What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi and his father?
5)
(a)The Am ha'Aretz must have authorized a Chaver to eat from his fig-tree - because otherwise, what point is there in instructing him to Ma'aser the basket-full of figs? Why should we expect an Am ha'Aretz to obey us?
(b)The Reisha does indeed speak about an Am ha'Aretz who authorized a Chaver to eat, as we explained - the Seifa however, speaks about the reverse case, when a Chaver authorized an Am ha'Aretz to eat, but when a Chaver overheard this; and it is with regard to this Chaver (whether or not, he needs to Ma'aser before eating or not) that Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel are arguing.
(c)Rebbi holds that a Chaver will prefer to transgress a minor sin, rather than allow an Am ha'Aretz to transgress a major one; whether according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he will prefer to allow the Am ha'Aretz to transgress a major sin, that to transgress a minor one himself.
32b----------------------------------------32b
6)
(a)'Nesano be'Ilan Lema'alah me'Asarah Tefachim, Ein Eruvo Eruv; Lematah me'Asarah Tefachim, Eruvo Eruv. Why can our Mishnah not possibly be speaking about a tree in a Reshus ha'Yachid?
(b)The tree must therefore be situated in a Reshus ha'Rabim. Where does the person placing the Eruv want his place of residence to be, above ten Tefachim, or below?
(c)Why is there no problem with the fact that, wherever the tree is, one is not permitted to take the food from it on Shabbos?
(d)Which other Isur de'Rabbanan is involved in taking the food from below ten Tefachim?
6)
(a)Anywhere on a tree which is situated in a Reshus ha'Yachid has the Din of a Reshus ha'Yachid. Consequently, if the tree had been situated in a Reshus ha'Yachid, the Mishnah would not have made a distinction between above and below ten Tefachim.
(b)The person placing the Eruv must want his place of residence to be below ten Tefachim - because if he wanted it to be above, why would his Eruv be invalid because it was placed above ten Tefachim? He and his Eruv are in one and the same location!
(c)What matters is, not whether he can take the Eruv on Shabbos, but whether he can take it on Erev Shabbos Bein Hashemashos. Consequently, since that is something that he can do (because this Tana holds like Rebbi, who permits something that is only a Shevus - such as taking the Eruv from a tree - during the period of Bein Hashemashos), his Eruv is valid.
(d)He is also carrying from a Karmelis to a Reshus ha'Rabim, which is an Isur de'Rabbanan.
7)
(a)One may also place one's Eruv in a pit. Is there any limit regarding the depth of the pit?
7)
(a)If one placed one's Eruv in a pit - even if it is a hundred Amos deep, the Eruv is valid.
8)
(a)In which case will it be permitted to place one's Eruv even above ten Tefachim (in a tree in the Reshus ha'Rabim), even though he meant to acquire his place below ten Tefachim?
(b)What problem does the Gemara then have from Rava, who gives every person who makes an Eruv four Amos around the Eruv?
(c)How does the Gemara answer this?
(d)Then why is the Eruv valid, when he places it below ten Tefachim? What Heter does he have to bring it to his chosen place of residence (even during Bein Hashemashos), and why is it any better than when his Eruv is above ten Tefachim?
8)
(a)It will be permitted to place one's Eruv even above ten Tefachim (in a tree in the Reshus ha'Rabim), even though he meant to acquire his place below ten Tefachim - provided the tree is within the boundaries of the city, because we consider the ground of the boundaries of the city as if it was filled in; consequently, it is as if he was standing above ten Tefachim - in the same domain as his Eruv (a strange concept, considering that it does permit him to take his Eruv, even during Bein Hashemashos!).
(b)According to this Sevara, asks the Gemara - even an Eruv that is placed outside the borders of the town should be valid (according to Rava, who gives every person who makes an Eruv four Amos around the Eruv) - under the same circumstances, since, here too, the condition of 'Hu ve'Eruvo be'Makom Echad' is fulfilled (despite the fact that here too, he is not permitted to take the Eruv from its perch above ten Tefachim).
(c)We are speaking, answers the Gemara - about a tree whose branches stretch beyond four Amos, and that is where he placed the Eruv, although he intended to acquire his place by the trunk. Otherwise, he would be permitted to take the Eruv under all circumstances.
(d)An Eruv that he places below ten Tefachim in the Reshus ha'Rabim is valid (even though it is more than four Amos away from his place of residence in the Reshus ha'Rabim) - because he can bring it there by carrying it less than four Amos at a time (which is permitted during Bein Hashemashos, according to Rebbi); whereas when the Eruv is placed above ten Tefachim, there is no way that he can bring the Eruv down to him, since even carrying one inch from one Reshus to another, involves an Isur d'Oraysa, which is prohibited even during Bein Hashemashos.
9)
(a)What does 'above and below ten Tefachim' mean, according to Rava's explanation?
(b)What causes the Gemara to ask this question? Why can we not understand 'above and below ten Tefachim, as we did before?
(c)What does the Gemara mean when it asks that, in that case, it should be permitted to place the Eruv even above ten Tefachim, since 'I Ba'i, Maysi Lah Derech Alav'?
(d)What does the Gemara answer from Ula's Din of 'Amud Tish'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim' etc.? What does Ula say?
9)
(a)When the Mishnah speaks of 'above and below ten Tefachim' - it refers to a branch which extends horizontally from the trunk for more than four Amos (at a height of less than ten Tefachim), before bending vertically. In that case, we can explain 'above and below ten Tefachim' as we did before.
(b)If the branch had grown from the tree diagonally, as we initially thought - then the term 'above and below' would have been inappropriate, it should have rather written 'higher or lower than ten Tefachim'.
(c)'I Ba'i, Maysi Lah Derech Alav' - means that he could climb the tree (Bein Hashemashos) and take the Eruv to him from its perch of above ten Tefachim on the tree, even if it is beyond four Amos. So why should the Eruv not be valid? All he will be doing is carrying through the air of a Reshus ha'Yachid, since that is what all the air above ten Tefachim is.
(d)The Gemara quotes Ula's Din to answer the Kashya. Ula says: 'Amud Tish'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, ve'Rabim Mekatfin Alav, ve'Zarak, ve'Nach Alav, Chayav' - The branch which is below ten Tefachim is precisely such a branch, which is easily accessible to the public, and which therefore has the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim. Now someone who carries from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Yachid via the air of a Reshus ha'Rabim (even above ten Tefachim) is Chayav, and that is the case that we are now dealing with here. Consequently, he will not be permitted to take the Eruv from the branch below ten Tefachim to where he is now perched above ten Tefachim - even during Bein Hashemashos, in which case, the Eruv will not be valid.