Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 30

1) GETTING THE BODY OF OG THROUGH A DOOR

QUESTION: The Gemara says that Og Melech ha'Bashan, whose body was very large (see Berachos 54b), is different than everyone else. Normally, if there is a dead person in a house, all of the utensils standing in all the doorways become Tamei. This Tum'ah can be averted in one of three ways:

(1) If one of the doorways is four Tefachim wide and all the others are smaller, then only the utensils in the four-Tefach doorway are Tamei and the utensils in all the other doorways are Tahor.
(2) If all of the doors are larger than four Tefachim but one is opened and others are closed, only what is the open one becomes Tamei.
(3) If all of the doors are larger than four Tefachim, but the owner of the house *decides* to remove the dead person through a specific doorway, only what is in that doorway becomes Tamei.

The Gemara states that when the Tum'ah is caused by a very large dead body ("Og melech ha'Bashan"), the doorway must be as large as his body. With reference to what was it stated that the body of Og is judged differently from all other bodies? If all the doorways are small and there is only one larger than four Tefachim, then no matter how large the body is all the small doorways should be Tahor (since the body will probably be taken out through the large doorway). And if all the doors are more than four Tefachim wide, then no matter how large the body is the utensils in all of the doorways will be Tamei!

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that this Halachah was said l'Chumra, as a stringency. Normally, if there are many doors all of which are the same size, and one opens one of the doors (#2, above) or decides in his mind to remove the body through one of them (#3, above), then all of the other doorways become Tahor. With regard to Og Melech ha'Bashan, though, it does not suffice to open or think about one of the doorways; one must open or think about a door that is as large as he in order for all of the other doorways to be Tahor.

(b) The RITVA says that this Halachah was said l'Kula, as a leniency. If *all* the doorways are more than four Tefachim wide, but one door is as big as Og, then only that door is Tamei, and the other doors are Tahor. Even though they are four Tefachim wide, they are not Tamei, since we know that one will not take Og through those doorways. A normal-sized body, though, which can fit through a normal-sized, four-Tefach wide doorway, will be Metamei all of the doorways even though one of them is much larger than the others.

QUESTION: The Gemara asks how many raw eggs are needed to make an Eruv. Rav Nachman said that "Sinai" said two eggs. "Sinai," explains Rashi, refers to Rav Yosef. Why did Rav Nachman refer to Rav Yosef as "Sinai," and not by name, as usual?

ANSWERS:

(a) The BECHOR SHOR explains that according to the Gemara in Pesachim (110b), it is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that it is harmful to eat *two* eggs (because demons harm those who eat "Zugos," pairs, of certain foods). How, then, could the Shi'ur for making an Eruv with eggs be *two* eggs? Two eggs should not be considered edible food! The Eruv would be "Zugos" and we could not eat it! (This question is asked by the Besamim Rosh #183).

We find on the next Daf (31a) that Rav Yosef maintains that an Eruv may be made only for the sake of a Mitzvah (such as walking afar to learn Torah). According to one opinion in Pesachim (109b), the reason why the fourth cup of wine at the Pesach Seder is not considered "Zugos" is because it is a Kos Shel Berachah. If so, it could be whenever a pair is eaten for a Mitzvah it is not harmful to eat it.

This is Rav Nachman's intention. The Shi'ur for an Eruv is indeed a pair of eggs, and there is no problem of "Zugos" because the Eruv is made for the sake of a Mitzvah. Who is to say that the Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that states that eating two eggs constitutes "Zugos" does not apply to Mitzvos? "Sinai," i.e. Rav Yosef, known to be an expert in the intricacies of Halachos le'Moshe mi'*Sinai*, was the author of the statement. He can be relied upon to say that "Zugos" does not apply to objects of Mitzvos.

(The RASHASH and the GRIV ask on this explanation that an Eruv is made of the amount of food used for *two* meals. If so, there is no problem with using two eggs, because only one egg will be eaten at each meal.)

(b) The Gemara earlier (28a) cites a Beraisa that says that the amount of pomegranates of Ma'aser Ani that one gives to a poor person on the threshing floor is two. If Rav Nachman would have just said that "*Rav Yosef* said two eggs," we would have thought that Rav Yosef is merely making an inference from that Beraisa and comparing Ma'aser Ani to Eruv Techumim, and the size of eggs to pomegranates. That would have been a mistake, though, as we find that Rav Yosef himself became upset when someone said that the laws in the Beraisa apply equally to Eruv Techumin. Therefore, Rav Nachman referred to Rav Yosef as "Sinai," meaning that he was an expert in all of the Beraisos (Rashi) and found some explicit Beraisa that said that the Shi'ur of an Eruv is two eggs. (M. Kornfeld)

(It should be pointed out that Rav Nachman also calls Rav Yosef "Sinai" in Mo'ed Katan 12a. None of these answers seems applicable in that Gemara.)

30b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Mishnah in Kelim which says that a person makes an Eruv with the amount of food that he normally eats ("ha'Kol l'Fi Mah she'Hu Adam"). The Gemara says that that Mishnah follows the opinion of Sumchus, who, in our Mishnah (26b), states that the food that one uses for making an Eruv must be fit for that person to eat.

After that, the Gemara points out that the Mishnah in Kelim is only referring to a sick person and an elderly person, and is teaching a leniency by saying that they may rely on the amount of food that they eat although it is must less than what a healthy person eats. If so, how do we know that the Mishnah in Kelim is following the opinion of Sumchus? The Rabanan say that one may *even* make an Eruv with food that another person can eat (and one does not need to make it with food that he, personally, eats). They certainly agree l'Kula that one *may* use the amount of food that he personally eats!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Targuma) answers that the Mishnah in Kelim implies that it suffices to use a small amount for a sick person and an elderly person no matter what type of food is being used. According to the Rabanan, if the person is sick or old, he may not use a *small amount* of *healthy man's* food (which is not fit for the sick or old person because it is food for a healthy man, and is also not fit for a healthy man because it is such a small amount). Therefore the Mishnah must be in accordance with Sumchus (who does not allow healthy man's food to be used for a sick person in the first place, and therefore a small amount will indeed suffice no matter what type of Eruv-acceptable food is being used).

(b) TOSFOS also answers that when the Mishnah says that a person makes an Eruv with the amount of food that he normally eats, it does not mean that *only* a sick person or an elderly person uses the amount that he normally eats. It also means that a Yisrael must use only what is fit for him (and he may not use Terumah). The Mishnah cannot be following the opinion of the Rabanan, who maintain that a Yisrael may use Terumah to make his Eruv. When the Gemara concludes that the Mishnah in Kelim is referring to a sick or elderly person, it only means to say that the Mishnah is not referring to a *Ra'avtan* (glutton). Such a person is "Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam," and does not need to use the large amount of food that he normally eats even according to Sumchus; when it comes to permissible or forbidden foods, though, the Mishnah in Kelim only allows foods permissible to the one making the Eruv to be used. (See also RASHASH)