Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 80

1) 'LIFTING UP THE FOOD' OF A "SHITUF"

OPINIONS: The Beraisa says that in order to make a Shituf in a Mavoy, one is Mezakeh the contents of a barrel to all the residents of the Mavoy. If the food in the barrel belongs to them (that is, everyone owns a share in it), then he must inform them that he is making a Shituf with it. He must raise it up off the ground one Tefach.

Why, and when, is it necessary to lift the barrel one Tefach?

(a) RASHI (79b, DH Tzarich) says that the lifting of the barrel is being Mezakeh (an act of acquisition) for the residents of the Mavoy. The way to be Mezakeh is through Hagbahah, lifting. Rashi cites proof to this from the Tosefta. It is therefore necessary to lift the barrel only when the other members of the Mavoy do not yet own a portion of its contents.

(b) The GE'ONIM and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Eruvin 1:17) explain that one must pick up the barrel because the food being used for the Shituf must be placed in a location in the Chatzer that is raised and noticeable. Even if the contents of the barrel already belong to the residents of the Mavoy, the person making the Shituf must still place it in a raised area in order to make the Shituf consipicuous. They infer this from the order of the Beraisa, which states that the barrel must be picked up *after* mentioning the case where the contents of the barrel already belong to members of the Mavoy.

80b

QUESTION: Shmuel states that we may force a person to join a Shituf against his will (such as by having his wife join the Shituf on his behalf) if his obstinacy is preventing the Shituf from being made. The Gemara attempts to prove this from a Beraisa that says that we may force a person to agree to have a Lechi or Korah erected at the entrance of a Mavoy.

The Gemara responds that the two cases are not comparable, because "in that case, there are no Mechitzos." What does that mean, and what does it have to do with forcing a person to join the Shituf or to erect a Lechi/Korah against his will?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI explains that without a Lechi or Korah, the Mavoy is vulnerable and exposed ("Megulah;" the Ritva's text of Rashi reads "Megunah" or unmannerly). Therefore, one can be forced to join in erecting a Lechi or Korah, in order to provide physical protection (or aesthetic enrichment, according to the Ritva's Girsa) to the Mavoy. When it comes to Shituf, though, the Mavoy has valid Mechitzos around it, so there is no pressing need to force him to join the Shituf.

The Rishonim question this explanation, asking how a Lechi or Korah can make a Mavoyany less Megulah or Megunah?

(b) TOSFOS (DH Sha'ani) suggests that a Lechi or Korah enables carrying *inside* the Mavoy. Making a Shituf Mavo'os allows carrying *from the houses* and Chatzeros to the Mavoy. Without a Shituf, the residents are still able to carry in the Mavoy itself, and therefore the need to make a Shituf is not as pressing as the need to erect a Lechi or Korah.

(c) RABEINU TAM's text of the Gemara reads that Lechi and Korah are different because they *are* Mechitzos. That is, the Lechi and Korah are by definition Mechitzos, so they work against the person's will -- whether he wants them there or not, they serve as Mechitzos. Shituf, though, requires the person's consent to give his portion of the Mavoy to the collective ownership of the Shituf (see Eruvin 49a, with regard to Eruv), and therefore there it will not help if it is done against his will.

If any amount of food remaining from an Eruv will suffice, then why did the first part of the Mishnah talk about *adding* to what is left, when it is diminished?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHAL inserts into the words of Rashi that "Rebbi Yosi argues with the Tana Kama." The Tana Kama maintains that the remains of an Eruv require a Shi'ur, and Rebbi Yosi argues that they do not require a Shi'ur. Although the early manuscripts and printings of Rashi did not have these words, the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) and BARTENURA do say clearly that Rebbi Yosi argues with the Tana Kama. (However, if Rebbi Yosi is arguing, the text of the Mishnah should have been "Rebbi Yosi Omer." "Amar Rebbi Yosi" implies that he is adding something new and not arguing with the previous statement.)

(b) RABEINU YEHONASAN M'LUNIL explains that the first part of the Mishnah refers to when the food decreased *before* Shabbos, in which case it must have a Shi'ur at the time that Shabbos enters. Rebbi Yosi is referring to when the food decreased on Shabbos, in which case it is sufficient if *any* of the food remains.

(This explanation of Rabeinu Yehonasan is noted by the BACH (#8) on the Rif, and in his commentary on TUR OC 368.)

(c) Alternatively, the Tana Kama does not mean that one has to add food to the Eruv. Rather, it means that if one *wanted* to add to the Eruv, he may do so without informing the others. Why would a person want to add to the Eruv? One would want to add to the Eruv in order to ensure that if the *rest* of the original Eruv gets lost, the Eruv will still be valid due to the part that he added. (CHIDUSHEI MAHARALBACH & BACH OC 368)

(d) Rebbi Yosi says that the remains of the food of an Eruv are still considered a valid Eruv even if only a small bit is left because there is already a Shituf Mavo'os, and the Eruv is made only in order that the concept of Eruvin not be forgotten from the children. If so, the first part of the Mishnah might be discussing a case when there was no Shituf, in which case the food of the Eruv *would* need a Shi'ur. (MAHARALBACH, MAGEN AVRAHAM)

Next daf