(a)According to Rav, the 'Makom Dirah' required by Rebbi Yehudah (to create a need for an Eruv) means the place where he eats. What does Shmuel hold?
(b)According to Rav, why do shepherds and guards create their own independent Eruv (two thousand Amah limit) where they sleep out in the fields, despite the fact that they eat in the town?
(c)Rav Yosef claimed that he had not heard of Rav's Din before. How did Abaye prove to him that he had?
1)
(a)According to Shmuel the Makom Dirah required by Rebbi Yehudah (to create a need for an Eruv) - is the place where he sleeps (overnight).
(b)According to Rav, shepherds and guards create their own independent Eruv (two thousand Amah limit) when they sleep out in the fields, despite the fact that they eat in the town - because we know for a fact that they would prefer to eat in the fields if they could. They only eat in town because neither is there food available in the fields, nor is there any way of getting it to them there.
(c)Rav Yosef had quoted Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's refutal of the proof from our Mishnah that 'Makom Linah Gorem' - 'bi'Mekablei P'ras Shanu', which proves that he must have known of Rav's Din (that 'Makom Pita Gorem').
2)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira maintains that five women who have their own sleeping quarters in their husband's Chatzer, and who receive their food from him do not require an Eruv. In the same situation however, five slaves do. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava holds the reverse. Why does he disagree by slaves?
(b)What will be the equivalent Din with regard to Talmidim by their Rebbe?
2)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, by slaves. According to him five slaves who have their own sleeping- quarters in their master's Chatzer but who receive food from him, do not require an Eruv (like women according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah - because of the Pasuk in Daniel "v'Daniel bi'Sera Malka" (wherever he was, the Pasuk is teaching us, was considered to be the gate of the King - his master).
(b)Talmidim do not require an Eruv - they can rely on the table of their Rebbe (like Rav said about Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Chiya about Rebbi).
3)
(a)Rabah rules that it is sufficient for one of five residents of a Chatzer who made an Eruv to give bread to combine with the Eruv of another Chatzer. The Gemara then asks how he accounts for our Mishnah, which considers five brothers as if they had combined, yet each one is required to give again, in order to combine with the other members of the Chatzer. What leads the Gemara to contend that one considers brothers as if they would have combined?
(b)How does the Gemara answer the Kashya? What is in fact, the difference between the two cases?
(c)How does the Gemara prove this?
3)
(a)The Gemara contends that one considers brothers as if they would have combined - because the Tana says that when there are no other residents, they do not require an Eruv.
(b)Our Mishnah requires each brother to give again in order to combine with the other members of the Chatzer - only because there are other residents in the Chatzer, in which case we say that, since their father is obligated to participate, the brothers are also obligated to participate.
(c)This emerges clearly from the Mishnah itself, which concludes 'Aval Hayah ... O she*'Ein Imahen Diyurin b'Chatzer*, Einan Tzerichin Le'arev', implying that were there are other residents, and an Eruv is required, they must all participate.
4)
(a)If Talmidim eat at the nearest inn, but sleep in their lodgings at the Yeshiva, do they measure their Techum Shabbos from where they eat or from where they sleep, and why is this?
(b)From where does someone who places his Eruv in one place, but who sleeps at home, measure his Techum Shabbos? Why the difference?
4)
(a)Talmidim who eat at the nearest inn, but sleep in their lodgings at the Yeshivah - measure their Techum Shabbos from where they learn, because we know for a fact that they would prefer to eat there too if they could; they only eat at the nearest inn because no food is available to them at the Yeshiva. (See above 1b).
(b)Someone who places his Eruv in one location, but who sleeps at home, measures his Techum Shabbos from where he placed his Eruv - because again we know for a fact that, had he had the choice, he would have slept there where his Eruv is.
5)
(a)Do a father and son who live together, or a Rav and his Talmid constitute Yechidim or a Rabim when there is nobody else living in the same Chatzer?
(b)Which two other possible ramification of this ruling is brought in the Gemara?
(c)Rashi brings a second ramification with regard to a father and son who live in an inner-courtyard. What is it?
(d)What does the Gemara conclude with regard to whether a father and son require an Eruv, and whether, or not, the Mavoy becomes permitted through a Lechi or Korah?
5)
(a)We have already learnt above that - a father and son who live together, or a Rav and his Talmid, constitute Yechidim when there is nobody else living in the same Chatzer (and do not therefore, require an Eruv).
(b)That being the case - their Mavoy should perhaps not be permitted by means of a Lechi or a Korah (since they cannot be considered 'Chatzeros' - only a Chatzer).
(c)Rashi adds the She'eilah with regard to an inner courtyard (which did not participate in the Eruv, and) which forbids the residents of the outer courtyard to carry, provided there are at least two residents in the inner courtyard (because of Regel ha'Oseres bi'Mekomah ... '). Consequently, the She'eilah will be whether, since the father and son are considered Yechidim, will they also be Yechidim with regard to that Din as well.
(d)The Gemara concludes that - despite the fact that the father and the son are called Yechidim, absolving them from the need to make an Eruv, they are nevertheless considered two people (and two Chatzeros) as far as Chatzeros l'Mavoy is concerned.
6)
(a)Who is the author of our Mishnah, which rules that an Eruv Chatzeros cannot double as a Shituf Mavo'os?
(b)Then how do we explain the next case 'v'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kan v'Kan'?
6)
(a)The author of our Mishnah, which rules that an Eruv Chatzeros does not make up for a lack of a Shituf Mavo'os (and that both are necessary) is Rebbi Meir (as we saw above on Daf 71b).
(b)'v'Im Nishtatfu b'Mavoy, Mutarin Kan v'Kan' - goes like Rebbi Meir too, because it speaks when they also made a Shituf Mavo'os.
73b----------------------------------------73b
7)
(a)The Seifa of the Mishnah reads 'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Mavoy ve'Lo Nishtatfu, Mutarin ba'Chatzeros, va'Asurin b'Mavoy'. Assuming that this too, goes like Rebbi Meir, would the Tana be speaking with or without Bitul Reshus?
(b)The Gemara contends that this reflects on the previous statement 'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Chatzer, ve'Lo Erav, Mutarin Kan ve'Kan'. Who would now have to be the author of this statement, and what is the problem with that?
(c)How does we dispel the problem and still establish the entire Mishnah (including the last-mentioned case) like Rebbi Meir?
7)
(a)Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Mavoy, v'Lo Nishtatfu, Mutarin ba'Chatzeros, va'Asurin b'Mavoy' - must be speaking when there was no Bitul Reshus; otherwise, why would the B'nei Mavoy be forbidden - and we have learnt that according to Rebbi Meir, Bitul Reshus helps by a Mavoy.
(b)If the previous case speaks without Bitul Reshus and is the opinion of Rebbi Meir, then so too does the middle case of 'Shachach Echad mi'Bnei Chatzer, v'Lo Erav, Mutarin Kahn v'Kahn', speak without Bitul, in which case the author must be the Rabbanan. Now how can that be, asks the Gemara, that the author of the Reisha and the Seifa should be Rebbi Meir, and the Metzi'asa, the Rabbanan?
(c)In fact, answers the Gemara, the entire Mishnah goes like Rebbi Meir, even the middle case. And Rebbi Meir concedes there that the Shituf doubles as Eruv Chatzeros. Why is that? Because Rebbi Meir's reason for requiring Eruv Chatzeros as well Shituf Mavo'os, is in order that the institution of Eruv should not be forgotten, a reason that does not apply in this case, since most people did in fact, make an Eruv. In such a case, even Rebbi Meis agrees that the Shituf will double for the Eruv as well.
8)
(a)Our Mishnah reads 'Chamesh Chatzeros, u'Pesuchos le'Mavoy ... ve'Im Nishtatfu be'Mavoy, Mutarin Kan v'Kan'. Why does Rav, and perhaps Rav Kahana, omit the phrase 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu'?
(b)What is the problem with this from the Mishnah that we learnt above 'Ba'al ha'Bayis she'Hayah Shutaf li'Shecheinav la'Zeh be'Yayin, ve'la'Zeh be'Yayin, Ein Tzerichin le'Arev'?
(c)What does the Gemara answer?
8)
(a)Rav, and perhaps Rav Kahana, omit the phrase 'Pesuchos Zu l'Zu' (from the Mishnah 'Chamesh Chatzeros Pesuchos Zu la'Zu, u'Pesuchos l'Mavoy ... v'Im Nishtatfu b'Mavoy, Mutarin Kan ve'Kan') - because he requires the Shituf to be taken into the Mavoy directly through the entrance from the Chatzer to the Mavoy and not via other Chatzeros. Consequently, if there would be exits from one Chatzer to the other, we would need to suspect that they might come to carry the Shituf from one Chatzer to another, thereby invalidating it.
(b)In the case of 'Ba'al ha'Bayis she'Hayah Shutaf li'Shecheinav la'Zeh b'Yayin, v'la'Zeh b'Yayin, Ein Tzerichin l'Arev' - they just seem to have carried the barrel (which was jointly owned) from one of the courtyards into the Mavoy, and not from each Chatzer independently, as required by Rav.
(c)The Gemara replies that there too, we will have to say that they actually took the barrel from each Chatzer separately into the Mavoy.
9)
(a)Will an Eruv placed in one of the Chatzeros of the Mavoy qualify as ...
1. ... an Eruv Chatzeros?
2. ... as a Shituf Mavo'os?
(b)What did Rav say - in connection with Eruv - about a group of people who were eating when Shabbos came in, that refutes the contention held in the previous question?
(c)What then, is Rav's real reason for erasing 'Pesuchos Zu le'Zu' from our Mishnah?
9)
(a)An Eruv placed in one of the Chatzeros ...
1. ... will not qualify as an Eruv Chatzeros.
2. ... will qualify as a Shituf Mavo'os.
(b)Rav said that if a group of people were eating when Shabbos came in, the bread on the table in the house qualifies as an Eruv Chatzeros, whereas that on a table in the Chatzer qualifies as Shituf Mavo'os - despite the fact that no-one took it out from the Chatzer to the Mavoy.
(c)Rav's real reason for erasing 'Pesuchos Zu l'Zu' from our Mishnah - is because he holds that a Mavoy only becomes permitted with a Lechi and a Korah if at least two courtyards (each with at least two houses opening into it), and, in his opinion, if the courtyards open into each other, they all have the Din of one courtyard.
