Siman - Eruvin Daf 47
- היכא דאיתמר איתמר
On Daf 46b Rav Mesharshiya stated that the general guidelines for paskening halachah are not valid. The Gemara brought sources for his position which are rejected. On this Daf, four more sources are brought, and they too are rejected.
The first source is a Mishna on Daf 49b which brings four opinions whether a resident of a chatzeir who did not join in the eruv chatzeiros with the other residents in his chatzeir, and went to a different city for Shabbos, voids the entire eruv by not participating.
Rav paskens like Rebbe Shimon, and not like Rebbe Yehuda, and even if he stays in the same city he does not void the eruv for the other residents in the chatzeir. According to the guidelines listed on Daf 46b when there is a disagreement between Rebbe Shimon and Rebbe Yehudah the halachah follows Rebbe Yehudah. The Gemara rejects this proof saying, היכא דאיתמר איתמר היכא דלא איתמר לא איתמר – where it was said explicitly that the halachah follows a certain opinion, we follow that opinion and not the general rules, and only where nothing was said about who the halachah should follow, do we follow the general rules.
- A Kohen leaving Eretz Yisroel to learn Torah
Another source for Rav Mesharshiya was brought from a Baraisa that brought a machlokes regarding when a Kohen may contaminate himself with tumah d’Rabbanon by travelling outside of Eretz Yisroel if necessary, to learn Torah. Rebbe Yehudah said he may only do so, בזמן שאין מוצא ללמוד – when he cannot find a teacher in his present location to learn from. Rebbe Yose said, אף בזמן שמוצא ללמוד נמי יטמא – even when he can find a local teacher he may become tamei, שאין מן הכל זוכה אדם ללמוד – for one does not merit to learn from everyone. Rashi explains that there are certain teachers whose learning is very organized and they teach their talmidim in a short, concise way. Rebbe Yochanan said that the halachah is according to Rebbe Yose. Seemingly Rebbe Yochanan needed to teach this because the rule that we always pasken like Rebbe Yose when he argues with Rebbe Yehuda, is not always correct.
Abaye answered that Rebbe Yochanan needed to state this because one might have thought the rules of Daf 46b are only true for Mishnayos, but not for Baraisos. Rashi explains that a Baraisa is less precise, and sometimes the names are switched.
- חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה
Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה – a nochri’s possessions do not acquire a makom shevisa, and they therefore may be moved beyond two thousand amos from their original location. The Gemara seeks to understand who this ruling goes according to, and answers that it goes according to the Chochomim who hold חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה. The chiddush here is that one might have thought, גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל – there is a ban restricting objects of non-Jewish owners to a techum, because of objects that have Jewish owners. Therefore, Shmuel is coming to inform us that no such ban exists.
