[Avodah] Eruv Tavshilin - Shavuos Erev Shabbos

[Chana Luntz]

On 28/5/20 3:14 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I am pretty sure we discussed this in the past, but I couldn't find it 
> in the archive.
> 
> Today's eruv tavshilin is a rarity as Friday is Yom Tov mideOraisa. We 
> are permitting hakhanah on YT deOraisa for Shabbos.
> 
> I was wondering how eruv tavshilin works in this case. Why isn't it 
> ha'aramah?


And RZS replied:

<<There are two opinions in the gemara on why Eruv Tavshilin was instituted
in the first place: Lichvod Shabbos or Lichvod Yomtov.

The first opinion is that it is indeed a ha'arama, and before the takana we
simply did the ha'arama openly and that was how we prepared for Shabbos.
The chachamim never forbade it, because how else could we prepare?  But then
the chachamim got concerned that this was an insult to Shabbos; we were
officially saying that Shabbos was a day when we were planning to eat only
leftovers.  So they decided  require us to prepare at least one thing
especially for Shabbos, and if we didn't do that we would no longer be
allowed to use the ha'arama.

The second opinion is that on the contrary, before the takana we didn't need
any ha'arama.  It was simply permitted to openly prepare on Yomtov for
Shabbos.  But the chachamim got concerned that this was an insult to Yomtov,
so they said no more, we must now use a ha'arama, and in order to make the
ha'arama plausible we must make an eruv and pretend that is all we plan to
eat on Shabbos, just to save Yomtov's face.

On the first view the ha'arama is permitted as a sort of bediavad, for lack
of any other alternative.  On the second view, on the contrary, the ha'arama
itself is the takana, i.e. we're only pretending to use a ha'amara when
me'ikar hadin we don't even need one.>>

I would have started from a different place than RZS in answering this, but
RZS got in first.  RZS is, I believe, starting with the machlokus between
Rava and Rav Ashi on Beitza 15b.  I would have started with the machlokus
between Raba and Rav Chisda on Pesachim 46b as to why it is that one can,
d'orisa, prepare from Yom Tov to Shabbas.  Erev Tavshilin is rabbinic
(despite the gemora on 16b that precedes the machlokus between Rava and Rav
Ashi quotes a pasuk, but it is an asmachta, as is the later pasuk also
quoted).  Raba holds that we can prepare for Shabbas on Yom Tov on a d'orisa
level because of hoiel  - since guests might come (and consume the food on
yom tov).  Rav Chisda holds that there was never any problem preparing from
yom tov for Shabbas, the only reason that the rabbis instituted an eruv
tavshilin is because preparing on yom tov for chol is an issur d'orisa, so
the rabbis banned preparing from yom tov for shabbas without an eruv
tavshilin, to make sure that nobody would prepare from yom tov for chol.

So as Rav Chisda understands it, eruv tavshilin is not a h'arama at all.
It's a heker (this is specific in the gemora in Pesachim). Every time you
think about the fact that you needed an eruv tavshilin to cook for shabbas,
it reminds you that you can only do this for shabbas, and not for chol.  For
Raba it is a little more complicated as to why you need to ban cooking for
shabbas, and institute an eruv tavshilin, but again it is not really about
harama (and this, I think is where RZS's discussion comes in).

In response to 

RLL who wrote:
> Question:? In many communities there is more than one local rabbi.? If 
> one relied on one in a given year,? and then forgot to make an Eruv 
> Tavshilim the next year, can one then rely on another for this second
year?

I think the key issue is to understand why one might not be able to rely on
the local rabbi's eruv two year's running (which in turn is based on a story
in the gemora about a blind man and Shmuel on Beitza 16b).   And about this
there is a machlokus rishonim.  Rashi and the Rashba explain the reason the
blind man could not rely on Shmuel's eruv the second year, as being because
Shmuel only intended his eruv to be relied upon by those people who had a
legitimate reason to not have made their own eruv.  Forgetting once was one
thing, but not making one twice in a row indicated that somebody was not
careful about mitzvos d'rabbanan, and he had no intention of exempting those
people who were sufficiently cavalier as to fall into this category (along
with those who deliberately had not made their own eruv, as required by
Chazal, so as to rely instead on that of the local rav), who were also not
covered.  On that basis, the question is whether the local Rav (or rabbaim)
intended to include the negligent in their eruv.  If the relevant Rav did
so, then someone could rely on his eruv two years running, whether there was
one or many.   If he did not, like Shmuel, then he can only be relied upon
the first time, when the person who failed to make his own eruv would not be
considered negligent (and that does not give him the option to rely on
anybody else the second year, so long as that person also did not intend to
exempt the negligent).

If however you follow the Rosh and the Tur, then the issue is that the
mitzvah is on a person to make his own eruv, and the local Rav is there as a
backup in situations where a person cannot himself make, but if he could,
and didn't, then that of the local Rav will not work, period.  So the issue
seems to focus on the extent to which the person really could not have made
two years running.  If there really were extenuating circumstances (which
might include forgetting, but also not being knowledgeable enough to make an
eruv) then there is no reason a person cannot rely on the local Rav twice
running.  And if there are no real extenuating circumstances, and somebody
is just too lazy to make and eruv, then he cannot rely on the local Rav's
eruv even the first year.

Then there is the view of the Ran, that the key is whether or not the person
in intending to make his own eruv (and then failing to do so), was in fact
thereby excluding relying on that of the local Rav (the point being that the
blind man was sad two years running - the first time because he failed to
make an eruv, and Shmuel said, so rely on mine.  But then he was sad again
the second year, when he should have known he could have relied on Shmuel's,
and that showed he had no intention of relying on Shmuel's, and Shmuel did
not make an eruv for those who had no intention of relying on it).  On this
basis so long as the person had no objection to relying on the local Rav's
two years running, then he could.

Note that the Mishna Brura Siman 527 si'if katan 26 rules that, because of
simchas yom tov, bideved even one who forgot many times can rely on those
poskim who holds that one can rely on the local Rav many times (even though
clearly this is not an ideal situation, and one ought to be trying to fulfil
the mitzvah of making oneself).

So I don't think that having one or more than one Rav in town actually makes
a difference (except that perhaps one Rav might specifically intend to
include the negligent, and another might perhaps not, which could affect the
din according to Rashi and the Rashba).  

Regards

Chana