Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 22, 2020 | ื•ืณ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.ย May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Eruvin 105

Click here for the text for the Siyum Ceremony

The siyum is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks zt”l.

It is also dedicated by Dora Chana and Josh Haar in honor of their daughter Evie’s bat mitzva. We are so happy that you are celebrating becoming a bat mitzva in a world with wonderful female role models like Rabbanit Farber, who make Torah accessible and inspiring for all. And by Ora Rosenfeld Canter in honor of her daughter, Shira’s bat mitzva. “I say a Shira of Thanks for you every day but the Torah itself is called Shira. As Rabbi Sacks A’H explains, it is because in order for Torah to penetrate and affect you spiritually ,it needs to sing to you. I know that as you watch me, toiling over Gemara for the first time in my life, R Akiva style, at age 40+, that you don’t always “get it.” My bracha to you at this special time is that in the merit of the tremendous effort of Torah study by all these incredible women, that you find your own melody of Torah that sings to you. Own it and make it your own and may Hashem grant me the privilege of humming along. I love you, Mommy.” Mazel tov to both of you!ย 

What is the source for Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas’ and Rabbi Akiva’s opinions regarding taking out a sheretz from the Temple. If the Temple needs repairs or building, who is allowed to go into sanctified areas to do it? Is a Levite or Israelite permitted to go? Is a blemished or impure priest allowed? The mishna ends with a cryptic statement of Rabbi Shimon. What does it mean? To what it is referring? And why is that the final line of the masechet?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ื•ื™ื‘ืื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ืœื˜ื”ืจ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืฉืจ ืžืฆืื• ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ืœื—ืฆืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืงื‘ืœื• ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœื ื—ืœ ืงื“ืจื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both of them, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva, derived their opinions from the same verse: โ€œAnd the priests went into the inner part of the House of God, to cleanse it, and they brought out all the impurity that they found in the Temple of God into the courtyard of the House of God. And the Levites took it, to carry it out to the brook of Kidronโ€ (II Chronicles 29:16).

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื“ืืฉืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืœื™ื›ื

One Sage, Rabbi Shimon Ben Nannas, maintains: As there was a change from the priests who removed the ritual impurity from the inner part of the Temple to the Levites, who took over in the courtyard, this indicates that there is no obligation to remove impurity in the courtyard, and consequently the priests are not required to do so.

ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืžืคืงื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืชื• ืœื ืžื˜ืžืื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื

And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, maintains: Up to where it is impossible for the task to be performed by the Levites, as it is prohibited for Levites to enter the Sanctuary, the priests took it out. However, now in the courtyard, where it is possible for the ritual impurity to be removed by the Levites, the priests no longer render themselves ritually impure, as they are prohibited from maintaining contact with ritual impurity for any longer than necessary. That is to say, the Levites removed it from any place where they were permitted to enter.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ืœืชืงืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœื•ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื•ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ื ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืœื

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is permitted for everyone to enter the Sanctuary to build, to repair, or to remove impurity from inside. However, wherever possible, the mitzva is for these tasks to be performed by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are available, Israelites enter. In both cases, if they are ritually pure, yes, they may enter, but if they are impure, no, they may not enter the holy place.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื•ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืš ืืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืื•ืœื ื•ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืจื™ืงื•ืขื™ ืคื—ื™ื

Rav Huna said: Rav Kahana, who was a priest, supports priests by emphasizing their special sanctity. As Rav Kahana taught in a baraita: Since it is stated with regard to a priest who has a physical blemish, โ€œOnly he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish, that he profane not My holy places; for I am the Lord who sanctifies themโ€ (Leviticus 21:23), I might have thought that priests with blemishes may not enter the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar to manufacture beaten plates of gold for the Holy of Holies.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš ื—ืœืง ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ื ืœื

Therefore, the verse teaches โ€œonlyโ€ as an expression of exclusion, which means that there is a distinction here: Although the mitzva should be performed with unblemished priests ab initio, if no unblemished priests are available, blemished ones may enter. Likewise, it is the duty of ritually pure priests; if no pure priests are available, impure ones may enter. In both cases, if they are priests, yes, they may enter, but if they are Israelites, no, they may not enter the holy place. According to Rav Kahana, ritually impure priests take precedence over ritually pure Israelites.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืก ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืžื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one priest is ritually impure and another has a blemish, which of them should enter to perform repairs? Rav แธคiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The impure one should enter, as he is permitted to participate in communal service. If the entire community is ritually impure, even impure priests may perform the service, whereas blemished priests may not serve under any circumstances. Rabbi Elazar says: The one with the blemish should enter, as he is permitted to eat consecrated foods, which indicates that he retains the sanctity of the priesthood despite his blemish. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ืงืื™ ื”ืชื ืงืื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื—ืฉื™ืš ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืชื—ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืืžื” ืื—ืช ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื” ื™ื›ื ืก ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ื—ื•ืช ืžืžืฆืขื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžื“ื•ืช ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื˜ื•ืขื™ื

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever the Sages permitted an action to you, they granted you only from your own. The Gemara asks: With regard to Rabbi Shimon, on the basis of what mishna did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught this principle on the basis of the mishna there, as we learned: With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit he may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town, because when the surveyors mark the Shabbat limit, they do not measure precisely. Rather they position the boundary mark within the two-thousand-cubit limit, because of those who err.

ื“ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื™ื›ื ืก:

With regard to that which the first tanna said, i.e., that he may not enter, Rabbi Shimon said to the tanna: He may enter. His reason, as stated, is that the limit does in fact extend that far, as any area the Sages granted to a person was actually permitted to him by Torah law.

ืฉืœื ื”ืชื™ืจื• ืœืš ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื•ืช: ื”ื™ื›ื ืงืื™ ื”ืชื ืงืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืงื•ืฉืจื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ื ื‘ื”

Rabbi Shimon further said: As they permitted to you only activities prohibited due to rabbinic decree, but not actions prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: On the basis of what teaching did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught it on the basis of the mishna there, where the first tanna said with regard to a harp string in the Temple that broke on Shabbat, that one may tie it with a knot, and Rabbi Shimon said: He may form only a bow.

ืขื ื™ื‘ื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืจื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืœื ืฉืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ:

The reason why only forming a bow is permitted, is that it cannot lead to liability for a sin-offering, as forming a bow cannot constitute a violation of the category of the prohibited labor of tying. Consequently, the Sages permitted it. However, with regard to tying a knot, which can lead to liability for a sin-offering when performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit it, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Sages permitted only activities whose prohibition involves a rabbinic decree.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืžื•ืฆื ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกืœื™ืงื ืœื” ืžืกื›ืช ืขื™ืจื•ื‘ื™ืŸ

 

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month of learning is dedicated by Pam and Yoav Schwartz to honor the 5th yahrtzeit of their nephew Ezra Schwartz. Ezra's life was full of love, curiosity, laughter, and friendship. May this learning replace some of the light that was lost from this world.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.ย May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...
Architecture during the time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn for Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin

Architecture During the Time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn

Watch architect Amy Cohn's full presentation from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin https://youtu.be/QhuZzfg3vRA
London Eruv

Real Life Eruv by Naomi Cohen

Lโ€™ilui nishmat Pesach Nachman ben Tzvi Hirsh (Peter Olswang)   I was responsible for building our suburban Eruv (London) a...
#finishingthumbnail

#FinishingEruvin – Our community of women completing Masechet Eruvin!

https://youtu.be/Fml5X2tUvO8 Thank you to over 1000 participants who joined us on zoom and facebook on the Hebrew and English Siyums!...

Eruvin 105

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 105

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ื•ื™ื‘ืื• ื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ืžื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ืœื˜ื”ืจ ื•ื™ื•ืฆื™ืื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืฉืจ ืžืฆืื• ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ื”ืณ ืœื—ืฆืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืณ ื•ื™ืงื‘ืœื• ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืœื ื—ืœ ืงื“ืจื•ืŸ ื—ื•ืฆื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both of them, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva, derived their opinions from the same verse: โ€œAnd the priests went into the inner part of the House of God, to cleanse it, and they brought out all the impurity that they found in the Temple of God into the courtyard of the House of God. And the Levites took it, to carry it out to the brook of Kidronโ€ (II Chronicles 29:16).

ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื“ืืฉืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ืœื™ื›ื

One Sage, Rabbi Shimon Ben Nannas, maintains: As there was a change from the priests who removed the ritual impurity from the inner part of the Temple to the Levites, who took over in the courtyard, this indicates that there is no obligation to remove impurity in the courtyard, and consequently the priests are not required to do so.

ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืžืคืงื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืคืฉืจ ื‘ืœื•ื™ื ืชื• ืœื ืžื˜ืžืื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื

And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, maintains: Up to where it is impossible for the task to be performed by the Levites, as it is prohibited for Levites to enter the Sanctuary, the priests took it out. However, now in the courtyard, where it is possible for the ritual impurity to be removed by the Levites, the priests no longer render themselves ritually impure, as they are prohibited from maintaining contact with ritual impurity for any longer than necessary. That is to say, the Levites removed it from any place where they were permitted to enter.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ืœืชืงืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœื•ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื•ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ื ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืœื

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is permitted for everyone to enter the Sanctuary to build, to repair, or to remove impurity from inside. However, wherever possible, the mitzva is for these tasks to be performed by priests. If no priests are available, Levites enter; if no Levites are available, Israelites enter. In both cases, if they are ritually pure, yes, they may enter, but if they are impure, no, they may not enter the holy place.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื•ืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืš ืืœ ื”ืคืจื•ื›ืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื• ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืื•ืœื ื•ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืจื™ืงื•ืขื™ ืคื—ื™ื

Rav Huna said: Rav Kahana, who was a priest, supports priests by emphasizing their special sanctity. As Rav Kahana taught in a baraita: Since it is stated with regard to a priest who has a physical blemish, โ€œOnly he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish, that he profane not My holy places; for I am the Lord who sanctifies themโ€ (Leviticus 21:23), I might have thought that priests with blemishes may not enter the area between the Entrance Hall and the altar to manufacture beaten plates of gold for the Holy of Holies.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš ื—ืœืง ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืžืฆื•ื” ื‘ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ื ืœื

Therefore, the verse teaches โ€œonlyโ€ as an expression of exclusion, which means that there is a distinction here: Although the mitzva should be performed with unblemished priests ab initio, if no unblemished priests are available, blemished ones may enter. Likewise, it is the duty of ritually pure priests; if no pure priests are available, impure ones may enter. In both cases, if they are priests, yes, they may enter, but if they are Israelites, no, they may not enter the holy place. According to Rav Kahana, ritually impure priests take precedence over ritually pure Israelites.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื˜ืžื ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืื™ื–ื• ืžื”ืŸ ื ื›ื ืก ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ืžื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one priest is ritually impure and another has a blemish, which of them should enter to perform repairs? Rav แธคiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The impure one should enter, as he is permitted to participate in communal service. If the entire community is ritually impure, even impure priests may perform the service, whereas blemished priests may not serve under any circumstances. Rabbi Elazar says: The one with the blemish should enter, as he is permitted to eat consecrated foods, which indicates that he retains the sanctity of the priesthood despite his blemish. The Gemara leaves this question unresolved.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ืงืื™ ื”ืชื ืงืื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื—ืฉื™ืš ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืชื—ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืืžื” ืื—ืช ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ืžืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื” ื™ื›ื ืก ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ื—ื•ืช ืžืžืฆืขื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžื“ื•ืช ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื˜ื•ืขื™ื

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Wherever the Sages permitted an action to you, they granted you only from your own. The Gemara asks: With regard to Rabbi Shimon, on the basis of what mishna did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught this principle on the basis of the mishna there, as we learned: With regard to one for whom it grew dark while he was outside the Shabbat limit, even if he was only one cubit outside the limit he may not enter the town. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he was fifteen cubits outside the limit, he may enter the town, because when the surveyors mark the Shabbat limit, they do not measure precisely. Rather they position the boundary mark within the two-thousand-cubit limit, because of those who err.

ื“ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื™ื›ื ืก:

With regard to that which the first tanna said, i.e., that he may not enter, Rabbi Shimon said to the tanna: He may enter. His reason, as stated, is that the limit does in fact extend that far, as any area the Sages granted to a person was actually permitted to him by Torah law.

ืฉืœื ื”ืชื™ืจื• ืœืš ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื‘ื•ืช: ื”ื™ื›ื ืงืื™ ื”ืชื ืงืื™ ื“ืงืืžืจ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืงื•ืฉืจื” ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ื ื‘ื”

Rabbi Shimon further said: As they permitted to you only activities prohibited due to rabbinic decree, but not actions prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: On the basis of what teaching did he formulate this principle? The Gemara answers: He taught it on the basis of the mishna there, where the first tanna said with regard to a harp string in the Temple that broke on Shabbat, that one may tie it with a knot, and Rabbi Shimon said: He may form only a bow.

ืขื ื™ื‘ื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืจื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื•ื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ืœื ืฉืจื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ:

The reason why only forming a bow is permitted, is that it cannot lead to liability for a sin-offering, as forming a bow cannot constitute a violation of the category of the prohibited labor of tying. Consequently, the Sages permitted it. However, with regard to tying a knot, which can lead to liability for a sin-offering when performed outside the Temple, the Sages did not permit it, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Sages permitted only activities whose prohibition involves a rabbinic decree.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืžื•ืฆื ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืกืœื™ืงื ืœื” ืžืกื›ืช ืขื™ืจื•ื‘ื™ืŸ

 

Scroll To Top