Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 72

72b

OPINIONS: In the Mishnah (72a), Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue whether five groups of people in one large hall separated from each other by Mechitzos are considered one big group or five separate groups. In the Gemara, there are four opinions regarding the exact point of the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (see Chart #12): (1) they are arguing about a case when the Mechitzos are nothing more than low dividers made of strips of wood ("Mesifas"), but when the Mechitzos are ten Tefachim high, they agree that they divide the five groups; (2) they argue even when the groups are separated by nothing more than a "Mesifas;" (3) they argue when the Mechitzos reach the roof, but when the Mechitzos do not reach the roof, they agree that they do not separate the groups; (4) they argue when the Mechitzos do not reach the roof, but when the Mechitzos do reach the roof, they agree that they separate the groups from each other.

The Gemara (72b) cites a Beraisa that says that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue only when the Eruv is being brought from the five groups in the hall to another place (in order to make an Eruv between all the houses in the Chatzer). In a case when others bring the Eruv to the hall, all of the groups in the hall are considered to be one group.

How does this Beraisa understand the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in the Mishnah, and what point is it adding to the Mishnah? Is it expanding on the opinion of Beis Hillel, or is it only discussing the opinion of Beis Shamai?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Aval) and the ROSH explain that the Beraisa maintained that the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is in a case where the Mechitzos do not reach the roof ((4) above). When the Mechitzos do reach the roof, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that they are considered separate. The Beraisa is discussing a case where the Mechitzos reach the roof, and nevertheless if the Eruv is brought to the hall, the groups in the hall are considered joined. (Thus, the Beraisa is teaching a *Kula* according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.)

(b) The RITVA explains that the Beraisa maintains that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue in a case where there is only a 10-Tefach high Mechitzah between each group ((1) above). The Beraisa is teaching that Beis Shamai agrees that when the Eruv is brought to them, they are considered joined even though there is a Mechitzah between them. Thus, the Beraisa is teaching a *Kula* according to *Beis Shamai*. (This might be the intention of Rashi as well.)

(c) The RASHBA explains that it is not logical to say that in a case where the Mechitzos are ten Tefachim high, Beis Shamai maintains that if the Eruv is brought to them, they are considered joined. Rather, the Beraisa is referring to when there is a "Mesifas" between each group, and the Beraisa understands the argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel the same way that the second Lashon of Rav Nachman does ((2) above). The Beraisa means that according to *Beis Shamai*, each group, must contribute separately to the Eruv only when they bring the Eruv to another location. When the Eruv is brought to them, though, Beis Shamai agrees that they are all considered one group.