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

Daf Yomi

August 24, 2020 | 讚壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

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.

Eruvin 15

Today’s daf is sponsored by Elisha Gordan in honor of his mother, Shifra Vega for her hospitality and chizuk learning the daf alongside him during corona.

A post that was already standing and not placed with the intent to be a post, does that work? Rava and Abaye disagree. The gemara assumes they would also disagree about the same issue regarding a mechitza but later reject this assumption. Sources are brought to support Abaye’s position. Can an animal function as a post? Can one write a get, bill of divorce, on an animal? What works as a mechitza?If the wall is more breached than standing, it does not. What if it is equal?

讗讬转诪专 诇讞讬 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about a side post that stands by itself, i.e., a side post at the entrance to an alleyway that was not put there for the express purpose of permitting one to carry on Shabbat. Abaye said: It is a valid side post. Rava said: It is not a valid side post.


讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讚讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


The Gemara first narrows the scope of the dispute: In a place where the inhabitants of the alleyway did not rely on it from yesterday, e.g., the alleyway had another side post that fell down on Shabbat, all agree that it is not a valid side post. Where they disagree is in a case where they relied on it from yesterday. Abaye said: It is a valid side post, as they relied on it from yesterday. Rava said: It is not a valid side post; since it was not originally erected for this purpose, it is not considered a valid side post.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛


The Gemara comments: It might enter your mind to say that just as they disagree with regard to a side post, they also disagree with regard to whether a partition that was not erected to serve that function is considered a valid partition.


转讗 砖诪注 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞讟注谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讗讬诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Come and hear a proof based upon what we learned in the following mishna: With regard to one who makes his sukka among the trees, and the trees serve as its walls, it is a valid sukka. This proves that the trees function as partitions even though they were not erected for this purpose. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here, in this mishna? To a case where he planted the trees from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that the trees constitute valid walls. The Gemara answers: Lest you say the Sages should issue a decree to prohibit using a sukka with trees as its walls, due to a concern that perhaps one will come to use the tree on the Festival and detach a branch or leaf in the process, the mishna therefore teaches us that no such decree was made and the sukka is permitted.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚


The Gemara tries to present another proof. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If there was a tree there, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds that are interconnected and form a hedge, it is judged to be a valid double post, i.e., it qualifies as a partition suitable to enclose a public well, as will be explained below. This indicates that a partition not constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 [拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉] 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: Here, too, with what are we dealing? With a case where one constructed them from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, what does it teach us; is it not obvious that it is a valid double post? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that a barrier of reeds is a valid partition if the distance between one reed and the next is less than three handbreadths, as Abaye raised this dilemma to Rabba, and the baraita teaches that it is valid.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 讛诪住讬讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱


The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from the following mishna: With regard to a tree whose branches hang over from a height of greater than ten handbreadths and reach almost to the ground, if the ends of its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it; the branches constitute partitions all around, and it is therefore permissible to carry in the enclosed area. The Gemara responds: Here, too, with what are we dealing? With a case where he planted the tree from the outset for this purpose.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


The Gemara asks: If so, it should be permitted to carry in all of it no matter how large the area. Why, then, did Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may only carry under the tree if its branches enclose an area no larger than two beit se鈥檃, i.e., five thousand square cubits? If the area is larger, it is not considered a courtyard, and carrying there is prohibited. This indicates that the branches are not considered full-fledged partitions.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讛 诇讗讜讬专 讜讻诇 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讛 诇讗讜讬专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


The Gemara answers: The reason that carrying is permitted only if the enclosed area is less than this size is because it is a dwelling whose use is for the open air beyond it, i.e., it is used by guards who are watching the fields beyond it, rather than as an independent dwelling place, and the halakha with regard to any dwelling whose use is for the open air beyond it is that one may carry in it only if its area is no larger than two beit se鈥檃.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 讘谞拽注 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜拽诪讛 拽爪讜专讛 讜砖讬讘讜诇讜转 诪拽讬驻讜转 讗讜转讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to one who established his Shabbat abode on a mound that was ten handbreadths high and its area was anywhere from four cubits to the two beit se鈥檃; and similarly, one who established his Shabbat abode in a natural cavity of a rock that is ten handbreadths deep and its area was anywhere from four cubits to two beit se鈥檃; and similarly, one who established his Shabbat abode in a field of reaped grain, and rows of stalks ten handbreadths high that have not been reaped surround it, serving as a partition enclosing the reaped area, he may walk in the entire enclosed area, and outside it an additional two thousand cubits. This indicates that a partition not specifically constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注砖讛 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讘砖诇诪讗 拽诪讛 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 转诇 讜谞拽注 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


And if you say that here, too, it is a case where he made it from the outset for this purpose, there is a difficulty. Granted, in the case of the grain, this answer is all right; but with regard to a mound and a cavity, what can be said? They were there from time immemorial and were not constructed to serve as partitions.


讗诇讗 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讗讬 注讘讬讚讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讜讬讗 讛讬讻专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讻专


Rather, the Gemara rejects its previous argument and explains: With regard to partitions, all agree that a partition that stands by itself is a partition, despite the fact that it was not erected for that purpose. Where they disagree is with regard to a side post. Abaye follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a partition, and a partition that stands by itself is a valid partition. And Rava follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a conspicuous marker. Therefore, if it was made with a person鈥檚 hands for that purpose, it is considered a conspicuous marker; and if not, it is not considered a conspicuous marker.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘谞讬 讙讚专 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专 诪讜讘讚诇讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专


The Gemara now attempts to prove which side is correct according to this version of the dispute. Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta: With regard to stones of a wall that protrude from the wall and are separated from each other by less than three handbreadths, there is no need for another side post in order to permit carrying in the alleyway; the protruding stones join together to form a side post. However, if they are separated by three handbreadths, there is a need for another side post. This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘谞讗谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇诪讬住专 讘谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: Here, too, we are dealing with a case where one built them from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara comments: If so, it is obvious that the side post is valid. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it was only in order to connect the building to another building that he built the wall with protruding stones, it teaches us that it is a valid side post. We are not concerned that onlookers might assume that the wall was not originally built as a side post.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜转诇 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻谞讜住 诪讞讘专讜 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the following Tosefta taught by Rabbi 岣yya: A wall, one side of which is more recessed than the other, whether the indentation is visible from the outside and the wall looks even from the inside, or it is visible from the inside and the wall looks even from the outside, it is considered a side post. This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注砖讗讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


The Gemara answers: Here, too, it is a case where one fashioned it from the outset for this purpose, to serve as a side post. The Gemara asks: If so, what does it teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that a side post that is visible from the outside and looks even with the wall from the inside is considered a side post, although this view is not universally accepted.


转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讗讛 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 注讚 讚讗转讗 谞驻诇 诇讞讬讗 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 拽诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇住诪讜讱 讗讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪专 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 诪讬 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the following story: Rav was sitting in a certain alleyway, and Rav Huna was sitting before him. He said to his attendant: Go, bring me a small pitcher of water. By the time he came back with the water, the side post at the entrance to the alleyway had fallen. Rav signaled to him with his hand that he should stop, and the attendant stood in his place. Rav Huna said to Rav: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold that it is permissible to rely on the palm tree located at the entrance to this alleyway as a side post? Rav said: This scholar, Rav Huna, is comparable to one who does not know the teachings of the Sages. Did we rely on the palm tree from yesterday? Since we did not, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


Based on Rav鈥檚 response, the Gemara argues as follows: The reason that the palm tree could not serve as a side post is because we did not rely on the palm tree from yesterday. This indicates that had we relied on it, it would be a valid side post, thus proving that a side post that was not erected for that purpose is nonetheless valid, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.


诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讞讬 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专拽讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 讘专 讞讘讜 讚讛讜讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讻讜诇讬 砖谞讬讬讛讜:


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree only in a case where they did not rely on it before Shabbat, but in a case where they did rely on it, all agree it is a valid side post? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as there was a certain balcony [barka] that was in the house of Bar 岣vu that Abaye and Rava disagreed about their entire lives. The residents of the alleyway began relying on a pillar upon which the balcony rested as their side post. Since Abaye and Rava disagreed about this case, it is clear that their disagreement applies even when the residents had relied on the item as a side post from before Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 注讜砖讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇


MISHNA: One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, and Rabbi Meir prohibits using a living creature as a side post. The mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity if it used as the covering of a grave.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讜住诇:


But Rabbi Meir deems it pure. Likewise, one may write women鈥檚 bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.


讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 诇讗 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转 讜诇讗 讙讜诇诇 诇拽讘专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐


GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: An animate object may neither be used as a wall for a sukka, nor as a side post for an alleyway, nor as one of the upright boards surrounding a well, nor as the covering of a grave. They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Nor may one write women鈥檚 bills of divorce on it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 住驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住驻专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住驻专 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 住驻专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1): From the word scroll, I have derived that only a scroll is valid. From where is it derived to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The Torah states: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. If so, why does the verse state 鈥渟croll鈥? To tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 住驻专 讻转讬讘 诇住驻讬专讜转 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: Is the verse written: 鈥淟et him write for her in the scroll [basefer],鈥 indicating the only type of surface on which the bill of divorce may be written? No, scroll [sefer] is written, which comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirot devarim] is required. In other words, sefer is referring not to the surface on which a bill of divorce must be written, but rather to the essence of the bill of divorce. The verse teaches that the bill of divorce must contain particular content.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讻转讬讘讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘讻住祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讜讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讬爪讬讗讛 讘讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase 鈥渢hat he write her鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then, just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: 鈥淭hat he write for her鈥; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning, that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: A scroll of severance, which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛讻讜专转 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转砖转讬 讬讬谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转诇讻讬 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转


The Gemara continues: And the Rabbis explain that this phrase: A scroll of severance, is required to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it was taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you will never drink wine, or on condition that you will never go to your father鈥檚 house, that is not severance; the bill of divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讻专转 讻专讬转讜转


And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches us two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.


讜专讘谞谉 讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讚专砖讬:


And as for the Rabbis, they do not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut.


诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讬专讗 砖讞谞转讛 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讻诇讬 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讙讚专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讬转专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉


MISHNA: If a caravan camped in a valley, i.e., an open space not enclosed by walls, and the travelers enclosed their camp with partitions made of the animals鈥 equipment, e.g., saddles and the like, one may carry inside the enclosed area, provided that the resultant partition will be a fence ten handbreadths high, and that there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment.


讻诇 驻讬专爪讛 砖讛讬讗 讻注砖专 讗诪讜转 诪讜转专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞 讬转专 诪讻讗谉 讗住讜专:


Any breach that is approximately ten cubits wide is permitted and does not invalidate the partition because it is considered like an entrance. However, if one of the breaches is greater than ten cubits, it is prohibited to carry anywhere in the enclosed area.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专


GEMARA: It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about the case where the breached segment of the partition equals the standing portion. Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within that enclosure. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 诇讗 转驻专讜抓 专讜讘讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讙讚讜专 专讜讘讛


The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa said: It is permitted. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Do not breach the majority of the partition; as long as the greater part is not breached, it is considered a partition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Circumscribe the greater part; if the greater part is not enclosed, it is not a partition.


转谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讬转专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专


We learned in the mishna: And there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment. Only then would carrying be permitted in the enclosed area. By inference, if the breaches equal the built segment, it is permitted. This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘谞讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讛驻讬专爪讛 诪讜转专


The Gemara responds: Do not say: By inference if they equal the built segment, it is permitted; rather, say: If the built segment is greater than the breach, it is permitted to carry in the enclosed area.


讗讘诇 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讻讘谞讬谉 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara continues: However, according to that way of understanding the mishna, if the breach equals the built segment, what is the halakha? Is carrying prohibited? If so, let the mishna teach that carrying is permitted, provided that the breaches do not equal the built segment. It can be inferred from this that if the breaches are greater than the built segment, it is certainly prohibited. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽专讛 住讜讻转讜 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪讜转谉 讻砖讬专讛


The Gemara cites a proof to support Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion. Come and hear that which the mishna taught about the halakhot of sukka: With regard to one who roofed his sukka with metal skewers or with bed posts, both of which are unfit for sukka roofing because they are susceptible to ritual impurity, if there is space between them, equal to their width, filled with materials valid for sukka roofing, the sukka is valid. Apparently, with regard to roofing, if the valid materials equal the invalid, the sukka is valid. Similarly, if the built segment of an enclosure equals the breached segment, it is a valid enclosure for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat. This supports Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion against that of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


The Gemara contests this conclusion. With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the skewers can be inserted and extracted easily. In other words, the case of the mishna in Sukka is not one where there are equal amounts of valid and invalid roofing. It is referring to a case where there is additional space between the skewers, which allows for their easy insertion and removal. Consequently, the space filled by the valid roofing is greater than that filled by the skewers.


讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it possible to be precise? Couldn鈥檛 the mishna in Sukka be understood as describing a case where the gaps between the skewers equal the width of the skewers? That understanding supports the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that when the valid segment precisely equals the invalid segment, the whole is valid.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪注讚讬祝


Rabbi Ami said: This mishna is referring to a case where one adds roofing, so that the area of the valid roofing is greater than that of the skewers.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞转讜谞讬谉 注专讘 谞讜转谞讜 砖转讬 砖转讬 谞讜转谞讜 注专讘


Rava said: This is referring to a case where if the skewers were placed crosswise to the sukka, he should place the valid roofing lengthwise, and similarly, if the skewers were placed lengthwise, he should place the valid roofing crosswise, ensuring that there is more valid than invalid roofing.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讬讬专讗 砖讞谞转讛 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讙诪诇讬谉 讘讗讜讻驻讜转


The Gemara seeks to adduce a proof in support of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If a caravan camped in a field, and the travelers surrounded their camp with camels that were made to crouch down, or with their saddles,


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.

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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 10-16

This week we will learn what the minimum and maximum dimensions of an alleyway and a courtyard are, understand the...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 15: Live Animals May Wander Away

What if the lechi was there, in the right spot, with the necessary dimensions, naturally? What if that naturally occurring...

Eruvin 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 15

讗讬转诪专 诇讞讬 讛注讜诪讚 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about a side post that stands by itself, i.e., a side post at the entrance to an alleyway that was not put there for the express purpose of permitting one to carry on Shabbat. Abaye said: It is a valid side post. Rava said: It is not a valid side post.


讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讚讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


The Gemara first narrows the scope of the dispute: In a place where the inhabitants of the alleyway did not rely on it from yesterday, e.g., the alleyway had another side post that fell down on Shabbat, all agree that it is not a valid side post. Where they disagree is in a case where they relied on it from yesterday. Abaye said: It is a valid side post, as they relied on it from yesterday. Rava said: It is not a valid side post; since it was not originally erected for this purpose, it is not considered a valid side post.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛


The Gemara comments: It might enter your mind to say that just as they disagree with regard to a side post, they also disagree with regard to whether a partition that was not erected to serve that function is considered a valid partition.


转讗 砖诪注 讛注讜砖讛 住讜讻转讜 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜讗讬诇谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻砖讬专讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞讟注谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬砖转诪讜砖讬 讘讗讬诇谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Come and hear a proof based upon what we learned in the following mishna: With regard to one who makes his sukka among the trees, and the trees serve as its walls, it is a valid sukka. This proves that the trees function as partitions even though they were not erected for this purpose. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here, in this mishna? To a case where he planted the trees from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, it is obvious that the trees constitute valid walls. The Gemara answers: Lest you say the Sages should issue a decree to prohibit using a sukka with trees as its walls, due to a concern that perhaps one will come to use the tree on the Festival and detach a branch or leaf in the process, the mishna therefore teaches us that no such decree was made and the sukka is permitted.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚


The Gemara tries to present another proof. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If there was a tree there, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds that are interconnected and form a hedge, it is judged to be a valid double post, i.e., it qualifies as a partition suitable to enclose a public well, as will be explained below. This indicates that a partition not constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖注砖讗谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 [拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉] 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: Here, too, with what are we dealing? With a case where one constructed them from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara asks: If so, what does it teach us; is it not obvious that it is a valid double post? The Gemara answers: It teaches us that a barrier of reeds is a valid partition if the distance between one reed and the next is less than three handbreadths, as Abaye raised this dilemma to Rabba, and the baraita teaches that it is valid.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诇谉 讛诪住讬讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖谞讟注讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱


The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear a proof from the following mishna: With regard to a tree whose branches hang over from a height of greater than ten handbreadths and reach almost to the ground, if the ends of its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it; the branches constitute partitions all around, and it is therefore permissible to carry in the enclosed area. The Gemara responds: Here, too, with what are we dealing? With a case where he planted the tree from the outset for this purpose.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


The Gemara asks: If so, it should be permitted to carry in all of it no matter how large the area. Why, then, did Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may only carry under the tree if its branches enclose an area no larger than two beit se鈥檃, i.e., five thousand square cubits? If the area is larger, it is not considered a courtyard, and carrying there is prohibited. This indicates that the branches are not considered full-fledged partitions.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讛 诇讗讜讬专 讜讻诇 讚讬专讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讛 诇讗讜讬专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


The Gemara answers: The reason that carrying is permitted only if the enclosed area is less than this size is because it is a dwelling whose use is for the open air beyond it, i.e., it is used by guards who are watching the fields beyond it, rather than as an independent dwelling place, and the halakha with regard to any dwelling whose use is for the open air beyond it is that one may carry in it only if its area is no larger than two beit se鈥檃.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜讻谉 讘谞拽注 砖讛讜讗 注诪讜拽 注砖专讛 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讜拽诪讛 拽爪讜专讛 讜砖讬讘讜诇讜转 诪拽讬驻讜转 讗讜转讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to one who established his Shabbat abode on a mound that was ten handbreadths high and its area was anywhere from four cubits to the two beit se鈥檃; and similarly, one who established his Shabbat abode in a natural cavity of a rock that is ten handbreadths deep and its area was anywhere from four cubits to two beit se鈥檃; and similarly, one who established his Shabbat abode in a field of reaped grain, and rows of stalks ten handbreadths high that have not been reaped surround it, serving as a partition enclosing the reaped area, he may walk in the entire enclosed area, and outside it an additional two thousand cubits. This indicates that a partition not specifically constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注砖讛 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讘砖诇诪讗 拽诪讛 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 转诇 讜谞拽注 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


And if you say that here, too, it is a case where he made it from the outset for this purpose, there is a difficulty. Granted, in the case of the grain, this answer is all right; but with regard to a mound and a cavity, what can be said? They were there from time immemorial and were not constructed to serve as partitions.


讗诇讗 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诇讞讬 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诪讗诇讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讗讬 注讘讬讚讗 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讜讬讗 讛讬讻专 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讻专


Rather, the Gemara rejects its previous argument and explains: With regard to partitions, all agree that a partition that stands by itself is a partition, despite the fact that it was not erected for that purpose. Where they disagree is with regard to a side post. Abaye follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a partition, and a partition that stands by itself is a valid partition. And Rava follows his usual line of reasoning, as he said that a side post serves as a conspicuous marker. Therefore, if it was made with a person鈥檚 hands for that purpose, it is considered a conspicuous marker; and if not, it is not considered a conspicuous marker.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘谞讬 讙讚专 讛讬讜爪讗讜转 诪谉 讛讙讚专 诪讜讘讚诇讜转 讝讜 诪讝讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专


The Gemara now attempts to prove which side is correct according to this version of the dispute. Come and hear a proof from the Tosefta: With regard to stones of a wall that protrude from the wall and are separated from each other by less than three handbreadths, there is no need for another side post in order to permit carrying in the alleyway; the protruding stones join together to form a side post. However, if they are separated by three handbreadths, there is a need for another side post. This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讘谞讗谉 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇诪讬住专 讘谞讬讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara rejects this proof: Here, too, we are dealing with a case where one built them from the outset for this purpose. The Gemara comments: If so, it is obvious that the side post is valid. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that it was only in order to connect the building to another building that he built the wall with protruding stones, it teaches us that it is a valid side post. We are not concerned that onlookers might assume that the wall was not originally built as a side post.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜转诇 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻谞讜住 诪讞讘专讜 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the following Tosefta taught by Rabbi 岣yya: A wall, one side of which is more recessed than the other, whether the indentation is visible from the outside and the wall looks even from the inside, or it is visible from the inside and the wall looks even from the outside, it is considered a side post. This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注砖讗讜 诪转讞讬诇讛 诇讻讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


The Gemara answers: Here, too, it is a case where one fashioned it from the outset for this purpose, to serve as a side post. The Gemara asks: If so, what does it teach us? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that a side post that is visible from the outside and looks even with the wall from the inside is considered a side post, although this view is not universally accepted.


转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讗讛 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讻讜讝讗 讚诪讬讗 注讚 讚讗转讗 谞驻诇 诇讞讬讗 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 拽诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 诇住诪讜讱 讗讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪专 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 驻专砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 诪讬 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the following story: Rav was sitting in a certain alleyway, and Rav Huna was sitting before him. He said to his attendant: Go, bring me a small pitcher of water. By the time he came back with the water, the side post at the entrance to the alleyway had fallen. Rav signaled to him with his hand that he should stop, and the attendant stood in his place. Rav Huna said to Rav: Doesn鈥檛 the Master hold that it is permissible to rely on the palm tree located at the entrance to this alleyway as a side post? Rav said: This scholar, Rav Huna, is comparable to one who does not know the teachings of the Sages. Did we rely on the palm tree from yesterday? Since we did not, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 讛讜讬 诇讞讬


Based on Rav鈥檚 response, the Gemara argues as follows: The reason that the palm tree could not serve as a side post is because we did not rely on the palm tree from yesterday. This indicates that had we relied on it, it would be a valid side post, thus proving that a side post that was not erected for that purpose is nonetheless valid, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.


诇讬诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讘讚诇讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 住诪讻讬谞谉 注诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讞讬 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专拽讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 讘专 讞讘讜 讚讛讜讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讻讜诇讬 砖谞讬讬讛讜:


The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree only in a case where they did not rely on it before Shabbat, but in a case where they did rely on it, all agree it is a valid side post? The Gemara answers: This should not enter your mind, as there was a certain balcony [barka] that was in the house of Bar 岣vu that Abaye and Rava disagreed about their entire lives. The residents of the alleyway began relying on a pillar upon which the balcony rested as their side post. Since Abaye and Rava disagreed about this case, it is clear that their disagreement applies even when the residents had relied on the item as a side post from before Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 注讜砖讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 讜诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讜诇诇


MISHNA: One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature, provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, and Rabbi Meir prohibits using a living creature as a side post. The mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature imparts ritual impurity if it used as the covering of a grave.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讜住诇:


But Rabbi Meir deems it pure. Likewise, one may write women鈥檚 bills of divorce on anything, even a living creature. But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living creature.


讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讗 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 讜诇讗 诇讞讬 诇诪讘讜讬 诇讗 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转 讜诇讗 讙讜诇诇 诇拽讘专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐


GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: An animate object may neither be used as a wall for a sukka, nor as a side post for an alleyway, nor as one of the upright boards surrounding a well, nor as the covering of a grave. They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Nor may one write women鈥檚 bills of divorce on it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 住驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 住驻专 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 住驻专 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 住驻专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇


The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 opinion? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1): From the word scroll, I have derived that only a scroll is valid. From where is it derived to include all objects as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? The Torah states: 鈥淭hat he write her,鈥 in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. If so, why does the verse state 鈥渟croll鈥? To tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food. That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 住驻专 讻转讬讘 诇住驻讬专讜转 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: Is the verse written: 鈥淟et him write for her in the scroll [basefer],鈥 indicating the only type of surface on which the bill of divorce may be written? No, scroll [sefer] is written, which comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirot devarim] is required. In other words, sefer is referring not to the surface on which a bill of divorce must be written, but rather to the essence of the bill of divorce. The verse teaches that the bill of divorce must contain particular content.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 讚专砖讬 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讻转讬讘讛 诪转讙专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讘讻住祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讜讬讛 诪讛 讛讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讗祝 讬爪讬讗讛 讘讻住祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase 鈥渢hat he write her鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then, just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money. Therefore, the Torah teaches us: 鈥淭hat he write for her鈥; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning, that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: A scroll of severance, which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him.


讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专 讛讻讜专转 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转砖转讬 讬讬谉 注诇 诪谞转 砖诇讗 转诇讻讬 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讻专讬转讜转


The Gemara continues: And the Rabbis explain that this phrase: A scroll of severance, is required to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it was taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you will never drink wine, or on condition that you will never go to your father鈥檚 house, that is not severance; the bill of divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.


讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讻专转 讻专讬转讜转


And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut. Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches us two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.


讜专讘谞谉 讻专转 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讚专砖讬:


And as for the Rabbis, they do not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut.


诪转谞讬壮 砖讬讬专讗 砖讞谞转讛 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讻诇讬 讘讛诪讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讙讚专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讬转专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉


MISHNA: If a caravan camped in a valley, i.e., an open space not enclosed by walls, and the travelers enclosed their camp with partitions made of the animals鈥 equipment, e.g., saddles and the like, one may carry inside the enclosed area, provided that the resultant partition will be a fence ten handbreadths high, and that there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment.


讻诇 驻讬专爪讛 砖讛讬讗 讻注砖专 讗诪讜转 诪讜转专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞 讬转专 诪讻讗谉 讗住讜专:


Any breach that is approximately ten cubits wide is permitted and does not invalidate the partition because it is considered like an entrance. However, if one of the breaches is greater than ten cubits, it is prohibited to carry anywhere in the enclosed area.


讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专


GEMARA: It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about the case where the breached segment of the partition equals the standing portion. Rav Pappa said: It is permitted to carry within that enclosure. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讜转专 讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 诇讗 转驻专讜抓 专讜讘讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗住讜专 讛讻讬 讗讙诪专讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖讛 讙讚讜专 专讜讘讛


The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa said: It is permitted. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Do not breach the majority of the partition; as long as the greater part is not breached, it is considered a partition. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Circumscribe the greater part; if the greater part is not enclosed, it is not a partition.


转谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讬转专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专


We learned in the mishna: And there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment. Only then would carrying be permitted in the enclosed area. By inference, if the breaches equal the built segment, it is permitted. This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘谞讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讛驻讬专爪讛 诪讜转专


The Gemara responds: Do not say: By inference if they equal the built segment, it is permitted; rather, say: If the built segment is greater than the breach, it is permitted to carry in the enclosed area.


讗讘诇 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗住讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诇讗 讬讛讜 驻讬专爪讜转 讻讘谞讬谉 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara continues: However, according to that way of understanding the mishna, if the breach equals the built segment, what is the halakha? Is carrying prohibited? If so, let the mishna teach that carrying is permitted, provided that the breaches do not equal the built segment. It can be inferred from this that if the breaches are greater than the built segment, it is certainly prohibited. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽专讛 住讜讻转讜 讘砖驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗诐 讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪讜转谉 讻砖讬专讛


The Gemara cites a proof to support Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion. Come and hear that which the mishna taught about the halakhot of sukka: With regard to one who roofed his sukka with metal skewers or with bed posts, both of which are unfit for sukka roofing because they are susceptible to ritual impurity, if there is space between them, equal to their width, filled with materials valid for sukka roofing, the sukka is valid. Apparently, with regard to roofing, if the valid materials equal the invalid, the sukka is valid. Similarly, if the built segment of an enclosure equals the breached segment, it is a valid enclosure for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat. This supports Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion against that of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


The Gemara contests this conclusion. With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where the skewers can be inserted and extracted easily. In other words, the case of the mishna in Sukka is not one where there are equal amounts of valid and invalid roofing. It is referring to a case where there is additional space between the skewers, which allows for their easy insertion and removal. Consequently, the space filled by the valid roofing is greater than that filled by the skewers.


讜讛讗 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it possible to be precise? Couldn鈥檛 the mishna in Sukka be understood as describing a case where the gaps between the skewers equal the width of the skewers? That understanding supports the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that when the valid segment precisely equals the invalid segment, the whole is valid.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘诪注讚讬祝


Rabbi Ami said: This mishna is referring to a case where one adds roofing, so that the area of the valid roofing is greater than that of the skewers.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞转讜谞讬谉 注专讘 谞讜转谞讜 砖转讬 砖转讬 谞讜转谞讜 注专讘


Rava said: This is referring to a case where if the skewers were placed crosswise to the sukka, he should place the valid roofing lengthwise, and similarly, if the skewers were placed lengthwise, he should place the valid roofing crosswise, ensuring that there is more valid than invalid roofing.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讬讬专讗 砖讞谞转讛 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 讘讙诪诇讬谉 讘讗讜讻驻讜转


The Gemara seeks to adduce a proof in support of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: If a caravan camped in a field, and the travelers surrounded their camp with camels that were made to crouch down, or with their saddles,


Scroll To Top