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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 26, 2020 | 讜壮 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.

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Eruvin 17

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in memory of her husband Leonard Cheifetz z”l on his yahrzeit.

What are the different opinions regarding “walls” that can be used to surround an encampment of a group of people or individuals? Can they be a few horizontal ropes that work using levud? Is there a difference if it’s a group or individuals (one or two people)? Is it dependent on space per person or what their particular needs are (i.e. if they have a lot/little equipment/items). What if the number of people changes over Shabbat, i.e. someone dies – do we follow what was permitted when Shabbat started or do we go by the present status? There is a debate regarding this – is it the same debate as the one regarding a post or beam of an alleyway or walls of a courtyard or house that fall over the course of Shabbat? What dispensations were made for soldiers in a voluntary war?聽 They can take wood from anywhere, do not need to wash their hands before eating bread, do not need to separate tithes from questionable produce, do not need to make an eruv and some say can camp wherever they want and get buried wherever they die. Why is this not considered a met mitzva (one who died with no relative to bury him/her)? The gemara delves into each of this cases. The second chapter begins with a discussion on boards that are put up to allow drawing water from wells in public domains. How many boards? What is the space in between the boards? What side do the boards need to be?

 

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?


讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, because his father, Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to areas enclosed for the sake of an individual. This being the case, their opinion on this matter is that of the many.


讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 讘讞诪砖 讗住讜专讬谉 讘砖讘注 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讘讬讗讬 讜讻转讬讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬


Rav Giddel said that Rav said: At times, for three people it is prohibited to carry even in an area of five beit se鈥檃; at times, it is permitted for them to carry even in an area of seven beit se鈥檃. These statements appear irreconcilable, and his colleagues said to him: Did Rav actually say that? He said to them: I swear by the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, that Rav said so.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇砖砖 讜讛拽讬驻讜 讘砖讘注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘注 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 讗诇讗 诇讞诪砖 讜讛拽讬驻讜 讘砖讘注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞诪砖 讗住讜专讬谉


Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps this is what he is saying: If they needed six beit se鈥檃, and they enclosed seven, they are permitted to carry even in all seven, as one empty beit se鈥檃 does not render it prohibited for one to carry in the rest of the area. If, however, they needed only five beit se鈥檃, and they enclosed seven, carrying even in five is prohibited, as there is an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 驻谞讜讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻谞讜讬 诪讗讚诐 诇讗 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which the baraita is teaching, that the partition renders the area fit for one to carry within it provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃, what, is it not in fact referring to space unoccupied by people? In other words, isn鈥檛 the baraita teaching that the enclosed area may not be two beit se鈥檃 larger than a measure of two beit se鈥檃 per person? Accordingly, if three people enclosed an area of seven beit se鈥檃, it should always be permitted for them to carry there, as they are entitled to six beit se鈥檃 and only one beit se鈥檃 is unoccupied. The Gemara answers: No, it means unoccupied by utensils. Although they would be entitled to six beit se鈥檃 if needed, since they need only five in practice and a space of two beit se鈥檃 remains unoccupied, the effectiveness of the partitions is negated and carrying therein is prohibited.


讗讬转诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖谞讬诐 讜谞转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讘转 讙讜专诪转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚讬讜专讬谉 讙讜专诪讬谉


It is stated: If there were three people in a caravan and one of them died on Shabbat, or if there were two people, and others were added to them on Shabbat, Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitz岣k disagree with regard to the area in which they are permitted to carry on Shabbat. One said: Shabbat determines the status of the area. The halakha is determined in accordance with the prevailing situation at the onset of Shabbat. And one said that the residents, i.e., the actual number of people present at any given moment, determine the status.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘转 讙讜专诪转 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘注讗讬 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘注讗讬 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讛驻转讞 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讞 讚专讱 讛讞诇讜谉 讜谞住转诐 讛讞诇讜谉 诪讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讜转专讛 转住转讬讬诐


The Gemara comments: Conclude that it is Rav Huna who said that Shabbat determines the status, as Rabba said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to the following case: If one established an eiruv to join one courtyard to another via a certain opening and that opening was sealed on Shabbat, or if one established an eiruv via a certain window and that window was sealed on Shabbat, what is the halakha? Can one continue to rely on this eiruv and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? And he said to me: Since it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until Shabbat鈥檚 conclusion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude that it is Rav Huna who maintains the determining factor is Shabbat, not the residents.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitz岣k are disagreeing in the earlier dispute of the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: If during Shabbat a courtyard was breached from two of its sides, or if a house was breached from two of its sides, or if an alleyway鈥檚 cross beams or side posts were removed, it is permitted to carry within them on that Shabbat, but it is prohibited to do so in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转


Rabbi Yosei says: If it is permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, it is also permitted to do so in the future. However, if it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to do so on that Shabbat. Since it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to carry there on that Shabbat. This opinion disputes the principle that since it is permitted at the onset of Shabbat it remains permitted.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Let us say that it is Rav Huna who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he held that the situation at the onset of Shabbat determines the halakhic status. And it is Rabbi Yitz岣k who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara rejects this explanation. Rav Huna could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are no longer partitions intact; however, here there are partitions intact. Since the status of the area is dependent upon the existence of partitions, he would also agree that carrying is permitted in this case.


讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讚讬讜专讬谉:


And Rabbi Yitz岣k could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are residents. However, here, there are no remaining residents that are alive, so he too would prohibit carrying.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐: 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗


We learned in the mishna: However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements, either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. What did the Rabbis add?


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讬讞讬讚 讘讬讬砖讜讘:


The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them with regard to an individual in a settlement. The first tanna does not allow one to rely on a partition of this type ab initio, whereas the Rabbis permit doing so in all cases.


诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟专讜 讘诪讞谞讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜诪讚诪讗讬 讜诪诇注专讘:


MISHNA: The Sages exempted a soldier in a military camp in four matters: One may bring wood for kindling from any place with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; and one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands before eating; and one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; and one is exempt from establishing an eiruv.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞谞讛 讛讬讜爪讗转 诇诪诇讞诪转 讛专砖讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛专讙讜 砖诐 谞拽讘专讬谉:


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta: With regard to a military camp that goes out to wage an optional war, it is permitted for the soldiers to steal dry wood. Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any location, even if they damage the field in which they are encamped. And in the place where they were killed, there they are buried and the owner of the site cannot object, as moving the corpse for burial elsewhere dishonors the dead.


诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐: 讛讗讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 注砖专讛 转谞讗讬诐 讛转谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 砖讬讛讜 诪专注讬谉 讘讞讜专砖讬谉 讜诪诇拽讟讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪砖讚讜转讬讛谉


The Gemara analyzes this Tosefta. What is the novelty in the following statement: They are permitted to steal dry wood? This was an ordinance enacted by Joshua, as the Master said in a baraita: There is a tradition that Joshua stipulated ten conditions with the Jewish people as they entered Eretz Yisrael, among them that one may graze his animals in woods belonging to others without objection, and one may gather wood for his own use from their fields.


讛转诐 讘讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讛讻讗 讘砖讗专 注爪讬诐


The Gemara answers: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance permitted gathering various types of shrubs [hizmei] and thorns [higei], with regard to which people are not particular; here, the ordinance in the mishna pertaining to a military camp is referring to other types of wood.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讛讻讗 讘转诇讜砖讬谉


Alternatively: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance referred to gathering thorns still attached to the ground, as removing those thorns benefits the field鈥檚 owner. Here, however, the mishna is referring to gathering thorns that are already detached.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘诇讞讬谉 讛讻讗 讘讬讘砖讬诐:


Alternatively: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance referred to gathering moist thorns. Owners are not particular about them because they are not immediately suitable for kindling. Here, the mishna is referring even to dry thorns.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛专讙讬诐 砖诐 谞拽讘专讬诐: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽讜谞讛 诪拽讜诪讜


It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any place, and in the place where they were killed, there they are buried. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is obvious, as a body of a dead soldier is considered to be a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and the principle is that a met mitzva acquires its place. In other words, the body must be interred where it is found, and the owner of the field cannot prevent burial.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘


The Gemara answers: No, this ostensibly obvious statement is indeed necessary to teach that this principle applies in the case of a military camp, even though


讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讜讘专讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 拽讜专讗 讜讗讞专讬诐 注讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪转 诪爪讜讛


there are people available to bury it. As it was taught in a baraita: Which is the corpse that is considered a met mitzva?Any corpse that has no one available to bury it. If, however, the deceased has friends or relatives to tend to his burial, his corpse is not considered a met mitzva. Likewise, if the body is in a place where if one calls out, others can answer him, this is not a met mitzva. The Tosefta teaches a novel ruling applicable to the case of a military camp: A solider is buried where he was killed, even if the conditions for met mitzva are not met there.


讜诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽谞讛 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜讟诇 讘住专讟讬讗 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇讬诪讬谉 讗住专讟讬讗 讗讜 诇砖诪讗诇 讗住专讟讬讗


With regard to the halakha itself, the Gemara asks: And does a met mitzva actually acquire its place? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street evacuates it for burial either to the right of the street or to the left of the street, but it may not be buried under the main street itself?


砖讚讛 讘讜专 讜砖讚讛 谞讬专 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇砖讚讛 讘讜专 砖讚讛 谞讬专 讜砖讚讛 讝专注 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇砖讚讛 谞讬专 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 谞讬专讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讝专讜注讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讘讜专讜转 诪驻谞讛讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛


If one can move the corpse either to an uncultivated field or to a plowed field, he evacuates it to the uncultivated field. If the choice is between a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. If both fields are plowed, or if both are sown, or if both are uncultivated, he evacuates it to any side that he wishes to move it. Apparently, a met mitzva is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讻讗 讘诪转 诪讜讟诇 注诇 讛诪讬爪专 注住拽讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖谞讬转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇驻谞讜转讜 诪谉 讛诪讬爪专 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛:


Rav Beivai said: Here we are dealing with a corpse laid out across on the side of a public path, and it stretches across the path and reaches the other side. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. Since permission was already granted to evacuate it from the side of a public path, one may evacuate it to any side he wishes. If, however, the corpse was in a field, moving it would be prohibited.


讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛


We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters, i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, is an obligation even in a military camp.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇讞 住讚讜诪讬转 讬砖 砖诪住诪讗 讗转 讛注讬谞讬诐


Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one鈥檚 hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪砖转讻讞讗 讻拽讜专讟讗 讘讻讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬讬诇 诪讬诇讞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 [讛讗] 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗:


Abaye said: And this type of dangerous salt is present in the proportion of a single grain [korta] in an entire kor of innocuous salt. Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one measured salt and came into contact with Sodomite salt not during mealtime, what is the halakha? Is there an obligation to wash his hands afterward? He said to him: It was unnecessary to say this, as he is certainly obligated to do so.


讜诪讚诪讗讬: 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬:


The mishna continues: And in a military camp, one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai, and one may also feed quartered soldiers [akhsanya] demai. Rav Huna said: A tanna taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say that one may neither feed the poor demai, nor may one feed quartered soldiers demai. And Beit Hillel say that one may feed the poor demai, and one may also feed quartered soldiers demai.


讜诪诇注专讘: 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉


We learned in the mishna: And in a military camp, one is exempt from establishing an eiruv. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that this exemption applies only with regard to the joining of houses in courtyards. However, even those in a military encampment are obligated to establish an eiruv if they desire to effect a joining of Shabbat boundaries, whereby one extends the Shabbat limits beyond which one may not walk on Shabbat.


讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛


As Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: One is flogged by Torah law for going beyond the Shabbat limit if there is no joining of Shabbat boundaries. The Torah states: 鈥淣o man shall go out [al yetze] of his place on the seventh day鈥 (Exodus 16:29). Since this is a Torah prohibition, leniency is possible only in life-threatening circumstances.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讻讬 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讗诇 诪转拽讬祝 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 讛讗讜讘讜转 讜讗诇 讛讬讚注讜谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讬


Rabbi Yonatan strongly objects: Is one flogged for violating a prohibition that is expressed in the Torah with the negative al, rather than the negative lo? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov strongly objects to the question: If what you say is so, with regard to that which is written: 鈥淭urn you not [al] unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits鈥 (Leviticus 19:31), is the halakha there too that one is not flogged?


专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜


Rather, this is the difficulty for Rabbi Yonatan: The prohibition against overstepping the Shabbat limits is a prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, i.e., a prohibition which, under certain conditions, is punishable by the death and not merely by lashes, as is the case with most prohibitions. In fact, the prohibition against carrying objects out to the public domain is derived from that same verse, and one who violates that prohibition is liable for execution by the court. And this principle applies: Any prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment one is not flogged, even if the death penalty does not apply in that particular case.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇 讬爪讗 讻转讬讘:


Rav Ashi said: Is it written in the Torah: No man shall carry out [yotzi], indicating a prohibition against carrying objects from one domain to another on Shabbat? 鈥淣o man shall go out [yetze]鈥 is written. Indeed, according to its plain meaning, the verse deals exclusively with the prohibition of going beyond the Shabbat limits and not with the prohibition of carrying out. Everyone agrees that there is no death penalty administered by the court in overstepping the Shabbat limit.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讘讜讬



诪转谞讬壮 注讜砖讬谉 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转


MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [passin] around a well in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area.


讗专讘注讛 讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖诪讜谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗专讘注讛 讚讬讜诪讚讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 驻砖讜讟讬谉


In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are four double posts [deyomadin] that look like eight single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: There must be eight posts that look like twelve. How so? There must be four double posts, one in each corner, with four plain posts, one between each pair of double posts.


讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讜讞讘谉 砖砖讛 讜注讜讘讬讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪诇讗 砖转讬 专讘拽讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讘拽专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The height of the double posts must be at least ten handbreadths, their width must be six handbreadths, and their thickness may be even a minimal amount. And between them, i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams [revakot] of three oxen each; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗专讘注 拽砖讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讜转专讜转 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗转


Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams of four oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being tied together and not untied, and with the minimal space necessary for one team to be entering while the other one is leaving.


诪讜转专 诇讛拽专讬讘 诇讘讗专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 驻专讛 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜转讛


It is permitted to bring the posts closer to the well, provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand with its head and the majority of its body inside the partitioned space while it drinks.


诪讜转专


It is permitted


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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

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 17-23

We will review key concepts in Daf 17-23 including the maximum area for a campsite, the mechanism by which we...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 17: A Permit to Carry on Shabbat

What happens if the terms by which you established your eruv change over that Shabbat? Also: The mishnah that closes...

Eruvin 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 17

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause of Rav Na岣an鈥檚 ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?


讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗讬 讗讘讜讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, because his father, Rabbi Yehuda, holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to areas enclosed for the sake of an individual. This being the case, their opinion on this matter is that of the many.


讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 讘讞诪砖 讗住讜专讬谉 讘砖讘注 诪讜转专讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讘讬讗讬 讜讻转讬讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬


Rav Giddel said that Rav said: At times, for three people it is prohibited to carry even in an area of five beit se鈥檃; at times, it is permitted for them to carry even in an area of seven beit se鈥檃. These statements appear irreconcilable, and his colleagues said to him: Did Rav actually say that? He said to them: I swear by the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, that Rav said so.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇砖砖 讜讛拽讬驻讜 讘砖讘注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘注 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗 讛讜爪专讻讜 讗诇讗 诇讞诪砖 讜讛拽讬驻讜 讘砖讘注 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞诪砖 讗住讜专讬谉


Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps this is what he is saying: If they needed six beit se鈥檃, and they enclosed seven, they are permitted to carry even in all seven, as one empty beit se鈥檃 does not render it prohibited for one to carry in the rest of the area. If, however, they needed only five beit se鈥檃, and they enclosed seven, carrying even in five is prohibited, as there is an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 驻谞讜讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻谞讜讬 诪讗讚诐 诇讗 驻谞讜讬 诪讻诇讬诐


The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which the baraita is teaching, that the partition renders the area fit for one to carry within it provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃, what, is it not in fact referring to space unoccupied by people? In other words, isn鈥檛 the baraita teaching that the enclosed area may not be two beit se鈥檃 larger than a measure of two beit se鈥檃 per person? Accordingly, if three people enclosed an area of seven beit se鈥檃, it should always be permitted for them to carry there, as they are entitled to six beit se鈥檃 and only one beit se鈥檃 is unoccupied. The Gemara answers: No, it means unoccupied by utensils. Although they would be entitled to six beit se鈥檃 if needed, since they need only five in practice and a space of two beit se鈥檃 remains unoccupied, the effectiveness of the partitions is negated and carrying therein is prohibited.


讗讬转诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖谞讬诐 讜谞转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讞讚 讗诪专 砖讘转 讙讜专诪转 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚讬讜专讬谉 讙讜专诪讬谉


It is stated: If there were three people in a caravan and one of them died on Shabbat, or if there were two people, and others were added to them on Shabbat, Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitz岣k disagree with regard to the area in which they are permitted to carry on Shabbat. One said: Shabbat determines the status of the area. The halakha is determined in accordance with the prevailing situation at the onset of Shabbat. And one said that the residents, i.e., the actual number of people present at any given moment, determine the status.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘转 讙讜专诪转 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘注讗讬 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘注讗讬 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讛驻转讞 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讞 讚专讱 讛讞诇讜谉 讜谞住转诐 讛讞诇讜谉 诪讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专讛 讛讜转专讛 转住转讬讬诐


The Gemara comments: Conclude that it is Rav Huna who said that Shabbat determines the status, as Rabba said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda with regard to the following case: If one established an eiruv to join one courtyard to another via a certain opening and that opening was sealed on Shabbat, or if one established an eiruv via a certain window and that window was sealed on Shabbat, what is the halakha? Can one continue to rely on this eiruv and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? And he said to me: Since it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until Shabbat鈥檚 conclusion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude that it is Rav Huna who maintains the determining factor is Shabbat, not the residents.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitz岣k are disagreeing in the earlier dispute of the tanna鈥檌m Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna: If during Shabbat a courtyard was breached from two of its sides, or if a house was breached from two of its sides, or if an alleyway鈥檚 cross beams or side posts were removed, it is permitted to carry within them on that Shabbat, but it is prohibited to do so in the future; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 砖讘转


Rabbi Yosei says: If it is permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, it is also permitted to do so in the future. However, if it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to do so on that Shabbat. Since it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to carry there on that Shabbat. This opinion disputes the principle that since it is permitted at the onset of Shabbat it remains permitted.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Let us say that it is Rav Huna who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he held that the situation at the onset of Shabbat determines the halakhic status. And it is Rabbi Yitz岣k who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻讗 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara rejects this explanation. Rav Huna could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are no longer partitions intact; however, here there are partitions intact. Since the status of the area is dependent upon the existence of partitions, he would also agree that carrying is permitted in this case.


讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讚讬讜专讬谉:


And Rabbi Yitz岣k could have said to you: It is I who stated my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion only there, in a case where there are residents. However, here, there are no remaining residents that are alive, so he too would prohibit carrying.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐: 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗


We learned in the mishna: However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements, either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. What did the Rabbis add?


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讬讞讬讚 讘讬讬砖讜讘:


The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them with regard to an individual in a settlement. The first tanna does not allow one to rely on a partition of this type ab initio, whereas the Rabbis permit doing so in all cases.


诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟专讜 讘诪讞谞讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐 讜诪讚诪讗讬 讜诪诇注专讘:


MISHNA: The Sages exempted a soldier in a military camp in four matters: One may bring wood for kindling from any place with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; and one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands before eating; and one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; and one is exempt from establishing an eiruv.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讞谞讛 讛讬讜爪讗转 诇诪诇讞诪转 讛专砖讜转 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛专讙讜 砖诐 谞拽讘专讬谉:


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a Tosefta: With regard to a military camp that goes out to wage an optional war, it is permitted for the soldiers to steal dry wood. Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any location, even if they damage the field in which they are encamped. And in the place where they were killed, there they are buried and the owner of the site cannot object, as moving the corpse for burial elsewhere dishonors the dead.


诪讜转专讬谉 讘讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讬讘砖讬诐: 讛讗讬 转拽谞转讗 讚讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 注砖专讛 转谞讗讬诐 讛转谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 砖讬讛讜 诪专注讬谉 讘讞讜专砖讬谉 讜诪诇拽讟讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪砖讚讜转讬讛谉


The Gemara analyzes this Tosefta. What is the novelty in the following statement: They are permitted to steal dry wood? This was an ordinance enacted by Joshua, as the Master said in a baraita: There is a tradition that Joshua stipulated ten conditions with the Jewish people as they entered Eretz Yisrael, among them that one may graze his animals in woods belonging to others without objection, and one may gather wood for his own use from their fields.


讛转诐 讘讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 讛讻讗 讘砖讗专 注爪讬诐


The Gemara answers: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance permitted gathering various types of shrubs [hizmei] and thorns [higei], with regard to which people are not particular; here, the ordinance in the mishna pertaining to a military camp is referring to other types of wood.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讛讻讗 讘转诇讜砖讬谉


Alternatively: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance referred to gathering thorns still attached to the ground, as removing those thorns benefits the field鈥檚 owner. Here, however, the mishna is referring to gathering thorns that are already detached.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讘诇讞讬谉 讛讻讗 讘讬讘砖讬诐:


Alternatively: There, Joshua鈥檚 ordinance referred to gathering moist thorns. Owners are not particular about them because they are not immediately suitable for kindling. Here, the mishna is referring even to dry thorns.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 转讬诪讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜谞讬谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛专讙讬诐 砖诐 谞拽讘专讬诐: 驻砖讬讟讗 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽讜谞讛 诪拽讜诪讜


It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any place, and in the place where they were killed, there they are buried. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is obvious, as a body of a dead soldier is considered to be a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], and the principle is that a met mitzva acquires its place. In other words, the body must be interred where it is found, and the owner of the field cannot prevent burial.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘


The Gemara answers: No, this ostensibly obvious statement is indeed necessary to teach that this principle applies in the case of a military camp, even though


讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽讜讘专讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽讜讘专讬谉 拽讜专讗 讜讗讞专讬诐 注讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 诪转 诪爪讜讛


there are people available to bury it. As it was taught in a baraita: Which is the corpse that is considered a met mitzva?Any corpse that has no one available to bury it. If, however, the deceased has friends or relatives to tend to his burial, his corpse is not considered a met mitzva. Likewise, if the body is in a place where if one calls out, others can answer him, this is not a met mitzva. The Tosefta teaches a novel ruling applicable to the case of a military camp: A solider is buried where he was killed, even if the conditions for met mitzva are not met there.


讜诪转 诪爪讜讛 拽谞讛 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪讜爪讗 诪转 诪讜讟诇 讘住专讟讬讗 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇讬诪讬谉 讗住专讟讬讗 讗讜 诇砖诪讗诇 讗住专讟讬讗


With regard to the halakha itself, the Gemara asks: And does a met mitzva actually acquire its place? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street evacuates it for burial either to the right of the street or to the left of the street, but it may not be buried under the main street itself?


砖讚讛 讘讜专 讜砖讚讛 谞讬专 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇砖讚讛 讘讜专 砖讚讛 谞讬专 讜砖讚讛 讝专注 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇砖讚讛 谞讬专 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 谞讬专讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讝专讜注讜转 砖转讬讛谉 讘讜专讜转 诪驻谞讛讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛


If one can move the corpse either to an uncultivated field or to a plowed field, he evacuates it to the uncultivated field. If the choice is between a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. If both fields are plowed, or if both are sown, or if both are uncultivated, he evacuates it to any side that he wishes to move it. Apparently, a met mitzva is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讛讻讗 讘诪转 诪讜讟诇 注诇 讛诪讬爪专 注住拽讬谞谉 诪转讜讱 砖谞讬转谞讛 专砖讜转 诇驻谞讜转讜 诪谉 讛诪讬爪专 诪驻谞讬讛讜 诇讻诇 专讜讞 砖讬专爪讛:


Rav Beivai said: Here we are dealing with a corpse laid out across on the side of a public path, and it stretches across the path and reaches the other side. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. Since permission was already granted to evacuate it from the side of a public path, one may evacuate it to any side he wishes. If, however, the corpse was in a field, moving it would be prohibited.


讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪专讞讬爪转 讬讚讬诐: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛


We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters, i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, is an obligation even in a military camp.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪讬诐 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诇讞 住讚讜诪讬转 讬砖 砖诪住诪讗 讗转 讛注讬谞讬诐


Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one鈥檚 hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪砖转讻讞讗 讻拽讜专讟讗 讘讻讜专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬讬诇 诪讬诇讞讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 [讛讗] 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗:


Abaye said: And this type of dangerous salt is present in the proportion of a single grain [korta] in an entire kor of innocuous salt. Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one measured salt and came into contact with Sodomite salt not during mealtime, what is the halakha? Is there an obligation to wash his hands afterward? He said to him: It was unnecessary to say this, as he is certainly obligated to do so.


讜诪讚诪讗讬: 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬:


The mishna continues: And in a military camp, one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai, and one may also feed quartered soldiers [akhsanya] demai. Rav Huna said: A tanna taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say that one may neither feed the poor demai, nor may one feed quartered soldiers demai. And Beit Hillel say that one may feed the poor demai, and one may also feed quartered soldiers demai.


讜诪诇注专讘: 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉


We learned in the mishna: And in a military camp, one is exempt from establishing an eiruv. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that this exemption applies only with regard to the joining of houses in courtyards. However, even those in a military encampment are obligated to establish an eiruv if they desire to effect a joining of Shabbat boundaries, whereby one extends the Shabbat limits beyond which one may not walk on Shabbat.


讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛


As Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: One is flogged by Torah law for going beyond the Shabbat limit if there is no joining of Shabbat boundaries. The Torah states: 鈥淣o man shall go out [al yetze] of his place on the seventh day鈥 (Exodus 16:29). Since this is a Torah prohibition, leniency is possible only in life-threatening circumstances.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讜讻讬 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讗诇 诪转拽讬祝 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 讛讗讜讘讜转 讜讗诇 讛讬讚注讜谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诇拽讬


Rabbi Yonatan strongly objects: Is one flogged for violating a prohibition that is expressed in the Torah with the negative al, rather than the negative lo? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov strongly objects to the question: If what you say is so, with regard to that which is written: 鈥淭urn you not [al] unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits鈥 (Leviticus 19:31), is the halakha there too that one is not flogged?


专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讗讝讛专转 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜


Rather, this is the difficulty for Rabbi Yonatan: The prohibition against overstepping the Shabbat limits is a prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, i.e., a prohibition which, under certain conditions, is punishable by the death and not merely by lashes, as is the case with most prohibitions. In fact, the prohibition against carrying objects out to the public domain is derived from that same verse, and one who violates that prohibition is liable for execution by the court. And this principle applies: Any prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment one is not flogged, even if the death penalty does not apply in that particular case.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬讜爪讬讗 讗诇 讬爪讗 讻转讬讘:


Rav Ashi said: Is it written in the Torah: No man shall carry out [yotzi], indicating a prohibition against carrying objects from one domain to another on Shabbat? 鈥淣o man shall go out [yetze]鈥 is written. Indeed, according to its plain meaning, the verse deals exclusively with the prohibition of going beyond the Shabbat limits and not with the prohibition of carrying out. Everyone agrees that there is no death penalty administered by the court in overstepping the Shabbat limit.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讘讜讬



诪转谞讬壮 注讜砖讬谉 驻住讬谉 诇讘讬专讗讜转


MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [passin] around a well in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area.


讗专讘注讛 讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖诪讜谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 谞专讗讬谉 讻砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讗专讘注讛 讚讬讜诪讚讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 驻砖讜讟讬谉


In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are four double posts [deyomadin] that look like eight single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: There must be eight posts that look like twelve. How so? There must be four double posts, one in each corner, with four plain posts, one between each pair of double posts.


讙讜讘讛谉 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜专讜讞讘谉 砖砖讛 讜注讜讘讬讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪诇讗 砖转讬 专讘拽讜转 砖诇 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 讘拽专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The height of the double posts must be at least ten handbreadths, their width must be six handbreadths, and their thickness may be even a minimal amount. And between them, i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams [revakot] of three oxen each; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讗专讘注 拽砖讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讜转专讜转 讗讞转 谞讻谞住转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗转


Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams of four oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being tied together and not untied, and with the minimal space necessary for one team to be entering while the other one is leaving.


诪讜转专 诇讛拽专讬讘 诇讘讗专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 驻专讛 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜转讛


It is permitted to bring the posts closer to the well, provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand with its head and the majority of its body inside the partitioned space while it drinks.


诪讜转专


It is permitted


Scroll To Top