Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 31, 2020 | י״א באלול תש״פ

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 22

Pictures for Eruvin 22

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ellie Gellman and Becky Portnoe, in memory of their father, Jerry Bach, Yosef Menachem ben Yaakov Yehuda and Leah z”l, on his 30th yahrtzeit. A father of daughters, he taught us that we could do anything we dreamed of. And by Tali and David Clements in honor of the birth of their daughter, Brielle Ava, whom they hope will grow up with a love of Torah, inspired by those who worked to empower women to become leaders in Jewish learning.

Every stroke in the Torah can be expounded upon. Who is worthy to do this? The gemara brings several explanations based on a verse in Shir HaShirim. How does God give reward differently to righteous people and evil people? There is a question asked regarding Rabbi Yehuda’s limitation of posts for a well to a space of beit sa’atayim. Does that include the space around the well or just the well itself. The gemara does not succeed in finding an answer. If many people pass through the space in between the posts, does that cancel the “walls” and the status of it being a private domain or not? Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree. In a different place, they seem to have opposite approaches but the gemara resolves that. Is Israel considered in its entirety not a public domain? Why would it (and is it in fact) different from other places? If there is a mound that goes up ten handbreadths over a space of four cubits in the public domain but people pass through there, is it still considered a private domain according to Rabbi Yehuda? Rava says no. The gemara brings several sources to question this but resolve each one. Is the law regarding posts around a well only applicable to a well and not a put with rainwater? Only those for public use and not private use?

שמשכים ומעריב עליהן לבית המדרש רבה אמר במי שמשחיר פניו עליהן כעורב

who, for the Torah’s sake, gets up early in the morning [shaḥar] and stays late in the evening [erev] in the study hall. Rabba said: In him who, for the Torah’s sake, blackens his face like a raven, i.e., who fasts and deprives himself for the sake of Torah study.

רבא אמר במי שמשים עצמו אכזרי על בניו ועל בני ביתו כעורב כי הא דרב אדא בר מתנא הוה קאזיל לבי רב אמרה ליה דביתהו ינוקי דידך מאי אעביד להו אמר לה מי שלימו קורמי באגמא

Rava said: In him who makes himself cruel to his sons and other members of his household like a raven for the sake of Torah. This was the case with Rav Adda bar Mattana, who was about to go to the study hall to learn Torah, and his wife said to him: What shall I do for your children? How shall I feed them in your absence? He said to her: Are all the rushes [kurmei] in the marsh already gone? If there is no other bread, let them eat food prepared from rushes.

ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו להאבידו אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אילמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו כביכול כאדם שנושא משוי על פניו ומבקש להשליכו ממנו

The Gemara proceeds to interpret a different verse homiletically: “And He repays them that hate Him to His face to destroy them; He will not be slack to him that hates Him, He will repay him to his face” (Deuteronomy 7:10). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Were the verse not written in this manner, it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God, for it could be understood, as it were, like a person who bears a burden on his face, and wishes to throw it off. Written slightly differently, the verse could have been understood as implying that God is unable, as it were, to bear the situation, but must punish the wicked immediately.

לא יאחר לשונאו אמר רבי אילא לשונאיו הוא דלא יאחר אבל יאחר לצדיקים גמורים

With regard to the words “He shall not be slack to him that hates Him,” Rabbi Ila said: He will not be slack in bringing punishment to him that hates Him, but He will be slack in rewarding those who are absolutely righteous, as the reward of the righteous does not arrive immediately, but only in the World-to-Come.

והיינו דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם למחר לקבל שכרם

And that is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? It means: Today is the time to do them, in this world, and tomorrow is not the time to do them, as there is no obligation or opportunity to fulfill mitzvot in the World-to-Come. Furthermore, it means: Today is the time to do them, but only tomorrow, in the ultimate future, is the time to receive reward for doing them.

אמר רבי חגי ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב ארך אפים ארך אף מבעי ליה

In a similar vein, Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form.

אלא ארך אפים לצדיקים ארך אפים לרשעים:

What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: He is long-suffering toward the righteous, i.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also long-suffering toward the wicked, i.e., He does not punish them immediately.

רבי יהודה אומר עד בית סאתים וכו׳: איבעיא להו בור ופסין קאמר או דילמא בור ולא פסין קאמר

The mishna stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: The area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, an area of five thousand square cubits. A dilemma was raised before the Sages in clarification of this statement: Did he speak of the area of the cistern itself and that enclosed by the upright boards, that the total area enclosed by the upright boards may be expanded up to, but may not exceed, an area of two beit se’a? Or perhaps he spoke of the area of the cistern without that enclosed by the upright boards, that the cistern itself may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a? In that case, the total area enclosed by the boards could exceed an area of two beit se’a.

אדם נותן עיניו בבורו ולא גזרינן דילמא אתי לטלטולי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף

The underlying rationale of each side of this dilemma is as follows: Does one fix his eyes on his cistern, keeping in mind that the partition is made because of it, and therefore, since the area of the cistern is not greater than an area of two beit se’a, we do not decree lest he come to carry also in an enclosure [karpef], an enclosed storage space behind the house that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even when it is more than an area of two beit se’a?

או דילמא אדם נותן עיניו במחיצתו וגזרינן דילמא אתי לאיחלופי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף

Or perhaps a person fixes his eyes on his partition, and does not pay attention to the cistern, but only to the area enclosed by the partition. And in this case we do decree, lest he come to confuse this case with that of a karpef that is larger than an area of two beit se’a, and come to carry there, because of the similarity between them.

תא שמע כמה הן מקורבין כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה וכמה הן מרוחקין אפילו כור אפילו כוריים רבי יהודה אומר בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור

In order to resolve this question, the Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: How close may the boards be to the well? They may be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow. And how far may they be from the well? The enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a beit kor and even two beit kor, provided that one adds more upright boards or increases their size so as to reduce the size of the gaps between them. Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se’a, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; more than an area of two beit se’a, it is prohibited.

אמרו לרבי יהודה אי אתה מודה בדיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים שמותר

The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not concede with regard to a pen, a stable, a backyard, and a courtyard, that even one the size of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?

אמר להם זו מחיצה ואלו פסין

Rabbi Yehuda said to them: A distinction can be made between the cases, for this, the wall surrounding the pen, the stable or the yard, is a proper partition, and hence it is permitted to carry in them even if they are more than an area of two beit se’a. However, these are only upright boards, and they only allow one to carry if the area they enclose is not more than an area of two beit se’a.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בור בית סאתים אבית סאתים מותר ולא אמרו להרחיק אלא כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A cistern the length of two beit se’a by the width of two beit se’a is permitted, and they only said to distance the upright boards from the cistern as much as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow.

הא מדקאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בור ולא פסין מכלל דרבי יהודה בור ופסין קאמר ולא היא רבי יהודה בור בלא פסין קאמר

The Gemara tries to draw an inference from this baraita: From the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar spoke only of the cistern itself and not of the upright boards, we can infer that Rabbi Yehuda spoke of both the cistern itself and the area enclosed by the upright boards. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is not so. When Rabbi Yehuda said that the area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, he was, in fact, speaking of the area of the cistern without that which is enclosed by the upright boards.

אי הכי היינו דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר איכא בינייהו אריך וקטין

The Gemara asks: If so, that is exactly what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said. The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them in a case where the enclosed area is long and narrow. Rabbi Yehuda permits using it, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar requires that the area be square.

כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל אויר שתשמישו לדירה כגון דיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים מותר

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: With regard to any enclosed space that is used as a dwelling, such as a pen, a stable, a backyard, or a courtyard, even if it lacks a roof and even if the structure has the area of five beit kor and even ten beit kor, it is permitted to carry in it.

וכל דירה שתשמישה לאויר כגון בורגנין שבשדות בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור:

And with regard to any dwelling that is used for the space outside it, i.e., whose partitions were arranged not so that it could be lived in, but for the sake of the field or yard outside, such as field huts, if its area was two beit se’a, it is permitted to carry in it; but if its area was more than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to do so.

מתני׳ רבי יהודה אומר אם היה דרך רשות הרבים מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך:

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the upright boards surrounding a well and obstructs it, one must divert the path to the sides, so that the public will circumvent the enclosed area; otherwise, the partition is invalid and the enclosed area cannot be regarded as a private domain. And the Rabbis say: One need not divert the path of the public domain, for the partition is valid even if many people pass through it.

גמ׳ רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר דאמרי תרווייהו כאן הודיעך כוחן של מחיצות

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions; although a path of the public domain passes through the partitions and the partitions do not constitute effective barriers, they are still strong enough to allow one to carry.

כאן וסבירא ליה והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים

The Gemara wishes to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Did he mean here that the Rabbis expressed this idea, and he agrees with them that a public thoroughfare does not invalidate a partition? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, even though it is walled, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat because its thoroughfares are regarded as the public domain? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that a partition is not strong enough to overcome the passage of many people.

אלא כאן ולא סבירא ליה

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be understood as follows: Here, the Rabbis expressed this idea, although he does not agree with them.

ורמי דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה ורמי דרבנן אדרבנן

The Gemara raised a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and raised a contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis.

דתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לו לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

The other statements are as it was taught in the Tosefta: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If one had two houses on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, perpendicular to the public domain, and an additional side post from here, on the other side of the public domain, or he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house to the end of the house opposite it, and another cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and carry objects and place them in the area between them because the two added partitions turn the area in the middle into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot make the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner, i.e., by means of a side post alone, when many people continue to walk through the public thoroughfare in the middle.

קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן

Consequently, there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and there is also a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis.

דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא התם דאיכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא הכא ליכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא

The Gemara answers: Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is no contradiction, because one can differentiate between them. There, in the case of the two houses, there are two proper partitions, for the houses are real partitions, and two partitions suffice to establish a separate domain. However, here, in the case of the upright boards, there are not two proper partitions, for the upright boards are not real partitions.

דרבנן אדרבנן [נמי] לא קשיא הכא איכא שם ארבע מחיצות התם ליכא שם ארבע מחיצות

Between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction, as here, with regard to the upright boards, there is a nominal set of four partitions; on all four sides side there are at least two cubits of some form of partition, so the cistern is regarded as enclosed by four partitions. However, there, with regard to the two houses, there is not a nominal set of four partitions.

אמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים יתיב רב דימי וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי מאי טעמא

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In Eretz Yisrael one is not liable for carrying in the public domain. Rav Dimi sat and recited this halakha. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is the reason underlying this ruling?

אילימא משום דמקיף לה סולמא דצור מהך גיסא ומחתנא דגדר מהך גיסא בבל נמי מקיף לה פרת מהך גיסא ודיגלת מהאי גיסא דכולא עלמא נמי מקיף אוקיינוס דילמא מעלות ומורדות קאמרת

If you say this law because Eretz Yisrael is surrounded by the Ladder of Tyre on one side and the slope of Gader on the other side, each formation being over ten handbreadths high and constituting a valid partition, then Babylonia, which is also surrounded by the Euphrates River on one side and the Tigris River on the other side, should not be considered a public domain either. Moreover, the entire world is also surrounded by the ocean, and therefore there should be no public domain anywhere in the world. Rather, perhaps you spoke of the ascents and descents of Eretz Yisrael, which are not easy to traverse and hence should not have the status of a public domain?

אמר ליה קרקפנא חזיתיה לרישך בי עמודי כי אמר רבי יוחנן להא שמעתא

Rav Dimi said to him: Man of great skull, i.e., man of distinction, I saw your head between the pillars of the study hall when Rabbi Yoḥanan taught this halakha, meaning you grasped the meaning as though you actually were present in the study hall and heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan himself.

איתמר נמי כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן מעלות ומורדות שבארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליהן משום רשות הרבים לפי שאינן כדגלי מדבר

It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say it was Rabbi Abbahu who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of the ascents and descents of Eretz Yisrael, one is not liable for carrying in the public domain, because they are not like the banners in the desert. To be regarded as a public domain, a place must be similar to the area in which the banners of the tribes of Israel passed in the desert, i.e., it must be level and suitable for the passage of large numbers of people.

בעא מיניה רחבה מרבא תל המתלקט עשרה מתוך ארבע ורבים בוקעין בו חייבין עליו רשות הרבים או אין חייבין עליו

Raḥava raised a dilemma before Rava: In the case of a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths within four cubits, thereby fulfilling the conditions that create a private domain, but many people traverse it, is one liable for carrying in the public domain or is one not liable?

אליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן

The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, this should not be a dilemma for you. Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public domain is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, where its use is inconvenient due to the slope, all the more so should the mound be considered partitioned off as a private domain, and the passage of the public should not invalidate it.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יהודה מאי התם הוא דניחא תשמישתיה הכא הוא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא או דילמא לא שנא אמר ליה חייבין

Where there should be a dilemma for you is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. What is the halakha? Does he maintain his position only there, because the use of the public domain is convenient, whereas here, where its use is inconvenient, he too would agree that the public does not come and invalidate the partition? Or perhaps there is no difference? Rava said to Raḥava: In such a case, one is liable for carrying in a public domain.

ואפילו עולין לו בחבל אמר ליה אין ואפילו במעלות בית מרון אמר ליה אין

Raḥava asked him: And do you issue this ruling even in the case of a slope that is so steep that in order to climb it one must ascend it by means of a rope? He said to him: Yes. He asked him further: And even in the case of the ascents of Beit Meron, which are exceedingly steep? He said to him: Yes.

איתיביה חצר שהרבים נכנסין לה בזו ויוצאין בזו רשות הרבים לטומאה ורשות היחיד לשבת

Raḥava raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from the Tosefta: A courtyard that was properly surrounded by partitions, into which many people enter on this side and exit on that other side, is treated like the public domain with regard to ritual impurity, so that in cases of doubt, the person is considered ritually pure, as uncertainty concerning ritual impurity only renders a person impure in an area defined as a private domain; however, it is still treated like the private domain with regard to Shabbat.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן

He proceeds to clarify the Tosefta: Who is the author of this statement? If you say it was the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public domain is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of the courtyard, where its use as a path for a public domain is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partition and therefore there would be no need to discuss this case.

אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This indicates that even Rabbi Yehuda differentiates between different paths in the public domain.

לא לעולם רבנן ורשות הרבים לטומאה איצטריכא ליה

Rava replied: No; actually, you can explain that this Tosefta was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As to the question raised with regard to the novelty of this case according to their approach, it was necessary for them to teach us that such a courtyard is treated like the public domain with regard to ritual impurity, even though it is considered a private domain with respect to Shabbat.

תא שמע מבואות המפולשות בבורות בשיחין ובמערות רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

Raḥava attempts to cite a proof again, this time from a mishna: Come and hear the following teaching: Alleyways that open in cisterns, ditches or caves constitute the private domain with regard to Shabbat and the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

בבורות סלקא דעתך אלא לבורות רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

The Gemara first clarifies the wording of the mishna: Should it enter your mind to say that the correct reading is in cisterns [baborot]; is it possible to speak of alleyways that open inside cisterns? Rather, it should be corrected as follows: Alleyways that open out into cisterns [laborot] constitute the private domain with regard to Shabbat and the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

Raḥava proceeds to clarify the matter: Who is the author of this mishna? Now, if you say it is the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public thoroughfare is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of an alleyway, where its use as a public thoroughfare is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partition, and so there was no need to discuss this case. Rather, isn’t it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

לא לעולם רבנן ורשות הרבים לטומאה איצטריכא ליה

Rava refutes this argument: No; actually, you can explain that this mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. It does present a novel teaching, as it was necessary for them to teach us that such an alleyway has the status of the public domain with regard to ritual impurity. Although it is not a convenient place to cross, it is considered a public domain with respect to impurity, since many people are found there.

תא שמע שבילי בית גילגול וכיוצא בהן רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

Once again Raḥava attempts to cite a proof from a mishna: Come and hear the following teaching: The paths of Beit Gilgul, which are difficult to traverse, and similar ones have the status of the private domain with regard to Shabbat, and that of the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

ואיזהו שבילי בית גילגול אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כל שאין העבד יכול ליטול סאה של חיטין וירוץ לפני סרדיוט

The Gemara asks: And what paths are like the paths of Beit Gilgul? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: This is any path in which a slave [eved] is unable to take up a se’a of wheat by hand and run before an officer [sardeyot], despite his fear of him.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתא אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתא לא כל שכן אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

RaḥavaHe proceeds to clarify the issue: Who is the author of this mishna? Now, if you say it is the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public thoroughfare is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of the paths of Beit Gilgul, where their use as a public pathway is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partitions. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

אמר ליה שבילי בית גילגול קאמרת יהושע אוהב ישראל היה עמד ותיקן להם דרכים וסרטיא כל היכא דניחא תשמישתא מסרה לרבים כל היכא דלא ניחא תשמישתא מסרה ליחיד:

Rava said to him: Did you say the paths of Beit Gilgul? Joshua, who conquered the land and divided it among the tribes, was a lover of Israel. He rose up and established roads and highways for them; any place that was convenient to use he handed over to the public, and any place that was inconvenient to use he handed over to an individual. Therefore, the roads of Eretz Yisrael, which like the paths of Beit Gilgul are not easy to use, have the status of a private domain. However, there is no general rule in other places that roads that are difficult to traverse do not have the status of a public domain.

מתני׳ אחד בור הרבים ובאר הרבים ובאר היחיד עושין להן פסין

MISHNA: In the case of a public cistern containing collected water, as well as a public well containing spring water, and even a private well, one may arrange upright boards around them in order to allow one to carry in the enclosed area, as delineated above.

אבל לבור היחיד עושין לו מחיצה גבוה עשרה טפחים דברי רבי עקיבא

But in the case of a private cistern, there are two deficiencies: It belongs to an individual, and it does not contain spring water. Consequently, it is impossible to permit drawing from it on Shabbat by means of boards set up in the corners; rather, one must construct for it a proper partition ten handbreadths high; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

רבי יהודה בן בבא אומר אין עושין פסין אלא לבאר הרבים בלבד ולשאר עושין חגורה גבוה עשרה טפחים:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may arrange upright boards only for a public well. But for the others, that is, a public cistern or a private well, one must set up a belt, i.e., a partition consisting of ropes, ten handbreadths high. Such an arrangement creates a proper partition based on the principle of lavud, namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them smaller than three handbreadths are considered joined.

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

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...
flashback (2)

Living Waters

Print
It's all about water this week. How we lead our animals to water on Shabbat (whether or not we can...

Eruvin 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 22

שמשכים ומעריב עליהן לבית המדרש רבה אמר במי שמשחיר פניו עליהן כעורב

who, for the Torah’s sake, gets up early in the morning [shaḥar] and stays late in the evening [erev] in the study hall. Rabba said: In him who, for the Torah’s sake, blackens his face like a raven, i.e., who fasts and deprives himself for the sake of Torah study.

רבא אמר במי שמשים עצמו אכזרי על בניו ועל בני ביתו כעורב כי הא דרב אדא בר מתנא הוה קאזיל לבי רב אמרה ליה דביתהו ינוקי דידך מאי אעביד להו אמר לה מי שלימו קורמי באגמא

Rava said: In him who makes himself cruel to his sons and other members of his household like a raven for the sake of Torah. This was the case with Rav Adda bar Mattana, who was about to go to the study hall to learn Torah, and his wife said to him: What shall I do for your children? How shall I feed them in your absence? He said to her: Are all the rushes [kurmei] in the marsh already gone? If there is no other bread, let them eat food prepared from rushes.

ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו להאבידו אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אילמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו כביכול כאדם שנושא משוי על פניו ומבקש להשליכו ממנו

The Gemara proceeds to interpret a different verse homiletically: “And He repays them that hate Him to His face to destroy them; He will not be slack to him that hates Him, He will repay him to his face” (Deuteronomy 7:10). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Were the verse not written in this manner, it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God, for it could be understood, as it were, like a person who bears a burden on his face, and wishes to throw it off. Written slightly differently, the verse could have been understood as implying that God is unable, as it were, to bear the situation, but must punish the wicked immediately.

לא יאחר לשונאו אמר רבי אילא לשונאיו הוא דלא יאחר אבל יאחר לצדיקים גמורים

With regard to the words “He shall not be slack to him that hates Him,” Rabbi Ila said: He will not be slack in bringing punishment to him that hates Him, but He will be slack in rewarding those who are absolutely righteous, as the reward of the righteous does not arrive immediately, but only in the World-to-Come.

והיינו דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם למחר לקבל שכרם

And that is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? It means: Today is the time to do them, in this world, and tomorrow is not the time to do them, as there is no obligation or opportunity to fulfill mitzvot in the World-to-Come. Furthermore, it means: Today is the time to do them, but only tomorrow, in the ultimate future, is the time to receive reward for doing them.

אמר רבי חגי ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב ארך אפים ארך אף מבעי ליה

In a similar vein, Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form.

אלא ארך אפים לצדיקים ארך אפים לרשעים:

What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: He is long-suffering toward the righteous, i.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also long-suffering toward the wicked, i.e., He does not punish them immediately.

רבי יהודה אומר עד בית סאתים וכו׳: איבעיא להו בור ופסין קאמר או דילמא בור ולא פסין קאמר

The mishna stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: The area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, an area of five thousand square cubits. A dilemma was raised before the Sages in clarification of this statement: Did he speak of the area of the cistern itself and that enclosed by the upright boards, that the total area enclosed by the upright boards may be expanded up to, but may not exceed, an area of two beit se’a? Or perhaps he spoke of the area of the cistern without that enclosed by the upright boards, that the cistern itself may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a? In that case, the total area enclosed by the boards could exceed an area of two beit se’a.

אדם נותן עיניו בבורו ולא גזרינן דילמא אתי לטלטולי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף

The underlying rationale of each side of this dilemma is as follows: Does one fix his eyes on his cistern, keeping in mind that the partition is made because of it, and therefore, since the area of the cistern is not greater than an area of two beit se’a, we do not decree lest he come to carry also in an enclosure [karpef], an enclosed storage space behind the house that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even when it is more than an area of two beit se’a?

או דילמא אדם נותן עיניו במחיצתו וגזרינן דילמא אתי לאיחלופי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף

Or perhaps a person fixes his eyes on his partition, and does not pay attention to the cistern, but only to the area enclosed by the partition. And in this case we do decree, lest he come to confuse this case with that of a karpef that is larger than an area of two beit se’a, and come to carry there, because of the similarity between them.

תא שמע כמה הן מקורבין כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה וכמה הן מרוחקין אפילו כור אפילו כוריים רבי יהודה אומר בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור

In order to resolve this question, the Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: How close may the boards be to the well? They may be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow. And how far may they be from the well? The enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a beit kor and even two beit kor, provided that one adds more upright boards or increases their size so as to reduce the size of the gaps between them. Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se’a, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; more than an area of two beit se’a, it is prohibited.

אמרו לרבי יהודה אי אתה מודה בדיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים שמותר

The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not concede with regard to a pen, a stable, a backyard, and a courtyard, that even one the size of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?

אמר להם זו מחיצה ואלו פסין

Rabbi Yehuda said to them: A distinction can be made between the cases, for this, the wall surrounding the pen, the stable or the yard, is a proper partition, and hence it is permitted to carry in them even if they are more than an area of two beit se’a. However, these are only upright boards, and they only allow one to carry if the area they enclose is not more than an area of two beit se’a.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בור בית סאתים אבית סאתים מותר ולא אמרו להרחיק אלא כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A cistern the length of two beit se’a by the width of two beit se’a is permitted, and they only said to distance the upright boards from the cistern as much as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow.

הא מדקאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בור ולא פסין מכלל דרבי יהודה בור ופסין קאמר ולא היא רבי יהודה בור בלא פסין קאמר

The Gemara tries to draw an inference from this baraita: From the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar spoke only of the cistern itself and not of the upright boards, we can infer that Rabbi Yehuda spoke of both the cistern itself and the area enclosed by the upright boards. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is not so. When Rabbi Yehuda said that the area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, he was, in fact, speaking of the area of the cistern without that which is enclosed by the upright boards.

אי הכי היינו דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר איכא בינייהו אריך וקטין

The Gemara asks: If so, that is exactly what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said. The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them in a case where the enclosed area is long and narrow. Rabbi Yehuda permits using it, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar requires that the area be square.

כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל אויר שתשמישו לדירה כגון דיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים מותר

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: With regard to any enclosed space that is used as a dwelling, such as a pen, a stable, a backyard, or a courtyard, even if it lacks a roof and even if the structure has the area of five beit kor and even ten beit kor, it is permitted to carry in it.

וכל דירה שתשמישה לאויר כגון בורגנין שבשדות בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור:

And with regard to any dwelling that is used for the space outside it, i.e., whose partitions were arranged not so that it could be lived in, but for the sake of the field or yard outside, such as field huts, if its area was two beit se’a, it is permitted to carry in it; but if its area was more than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to do so.

מתני׳ רבי יהודה אומר אם היה דרך רשות הרבים מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך:

MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the upright boards surrounding a well and obstructs it, one must divert the path to the sides, so that the public will circumvent the enclosed area; otherwise, the partition is invalid and the enclosed area cannot be regarded as a private domain. And the Rabbis say: One need not divert the path of the public domain, for the partition is valid even if many people pass through it.

גמ׳ רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר דאמרי תרווייהו כאן הודיעך כוחן של מחיצות

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions; although a path of the public domain passes through the partitions and the partitions do not constitute effective barriers, they are still strong enough to allow one to carry.

כאן וסבירא ליה והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים

The Gemara wishes to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Did he mean here that the Rabbis expressed this idea, and he agrees with them that a public thoroughfare does not invalidate a partition? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, even though it is walled, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat because its thoroughfares are regarded as the public domain? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that a partition is not strong enough to overcome the passage of many people.

אלא כאן ולא סבירא ליה

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be understood as follows: Here, the Rabbis expressed this idea, although he does not agree with them.

ורמי דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה ורמי דרבנן אדרבנן

The Gemara raised a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and raised a contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis.

דתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לו לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

The other statements are as it was taught in the Tosefta: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If one had two houses on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, perpendicular to the public domain, and an additional side post from here, on the other side of the public domain, or he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house to the end of the house opposite it, and another cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and carry objects and place them in the area between them because the two added partitions turn the area in the middle into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot make the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner, i.e., by means of a side post alone, when many people continue to walk through the public thoroughfare in the middle.

קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן

Consequently, there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and there is also a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis.

דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא התם דאיכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא הכא ליכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא

The Gemara answers: Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is no contradiction, because one can differentiate between them. There, in the case of the two houses, there are two proper partitions, for the houses are real partitions, and two partitions suffice to establish a separate domain. However, here, in the case of the upright boards, there are not two proper partitions, for the upright boards are not real partitions.

דרבנן אדרבנן [נמי] לא קשיא הכא איכא שם ארבע מחיצות התם ליכא שם ארבע מחיצות

Between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction, as here, with regard to the upright boards, there is a nominal set of four partitions; on all four sides side there are at least two cubits of some form of partition, so the cistern is regarded as enclosed by four partitions. However, there, with regard to the two houses, there is not a nominal set of four partitions.

אמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים יתיב רב דימי וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי מאי טעמא

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In Eretz Yisrael one is not liable for carrying in the public domain. Rav Dimi sat and recited this halakha. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is the reason underlying this ruling?

אילימא משום דמקיף לה סולמא דצור מהך גיסא ומחתנא דגדר מהך גיסא בבל נמי מקיף לה פרת מהך גיסא ודיגלת מהאי גיסא דכולא עלמא נמי מקיף אוקיינוס דילמא מעלות ומורדות קאמרת

If you say this law because Eretz Yisrael is surrounded by the Ladder of Tyre on one side and the slope of Gader on the other side, each formation being over ten handbreadths high and constituting a valid partition, then Babylonia, which is also surrounded by the Euphrates River on one side and the Tigris River on the other side, should not be considered a public domain either. Moreover, the entire world is also surrounded by the ocean, and therefore there should be no public domain anywhere in the world. Rather, perhaps you spoke of the ascents and descents of Eretz Yisrael, which are not easy to traverse and hence should not have the status of a public domain?

אמר ליה קרקפנא חזיתיה לרישך בי עמודי כי אמר רבי יוחנן להא שמעתא

Rav Dimi said to him: Man of great skull, i.e., man of distinction, I saw your head between the pillars of the study hall when Rabbi Yoḥanan taught this halakha, meaning you grasped the meaning as though you actually were present in the study hall and heard the statement from Rabbi Yoḥanan himself.

איתמר נמי כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן מעלות ומורדות שבארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליהן משום רשות הרבים לפי שאינן כדגלי מדבר

It was also stated that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say it was Rabbi Abbahu who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In the case of the ascents and descents of Eretz Yisrael, one is not liable for carrying in the public domain, because they are not like the banners in the desert. To be regarded as a public domain, a place must be similar to the area in which the banners of the tribes of Israel passed in the desert, i.e., it must be level and suitable for the passage of large numbers of people.

בעא מיניה רחבה מרבא תל המתלקט עשרה מתוך ארבע ורבים בוקעין בו חייבין עליו רשות הרבים או אין חייבין עליו

Raḥava raised a dilemma before Rava: In the case of a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths within four cubits, thereby fulfilling the conditions that create a private domain, but many people traverse it, is one liable for carrying in the public domain or is one not liable?

אליבא דרבנן לא תיבעי לך השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן

The Gemara explains: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, this should not be a dilemma for you. Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public domain is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, where its use is inconvenient due to the slope, all the more so should the mound be considered partitioned off as a private domain, and the passage of the public should not invalidate it.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבי יהודה מאי התם הוא דניחא תשמישתיה הכא הוא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא או דילמא לא שנא אמר ליה חייבין

Where there should be a dilemma for you is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. What is the halakha? Does he maintain his position only there, because the use of the public domain is convenient, whereas here, where its use is inconvenient, he too would agree that the public does not come and invalidate the partition? Or perhaps there is no difference? Rava said to Raḥava: In such a case, one is liable for carrying in a public domain.

ואפילו עולין לו בחבל אמר ליה אין ואפילו במעלות בית מרון אמר ליה אין

Raḥava asked him: And do you issue this ruling even in the case of a slope that is so steep that in order to climb it one must ascend it by means of a rope? He said to him: Yes. He asked him further: And even in the case of the ascents of Beit Meron, which are exceedingly steep? He said to him: Yes.

איתיביה חצר שהרבים נכנסין לה בזו ויוצאין בזו רשות הרבים לטומאה ורשות היחיד לשבת

Raḥava raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from the Tosefta: A courtyard that was properly surrounded by partitions, into which many people enter on this side and exit on that other side, is treated like the public domain with regard to ritual impurity, so that in cases of doubt, the person is considered ritually pure, as uncertainty concerning ritual impurity only renders a person impure in an area defined as a private domain; however, it is still treated like the private domain with regard to Shabbat.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן

He proceeds to clarify the Tosefta: Who is the author of this statement? If you say it was the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public domain is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of the courtyard, where its use as a path for a public domain is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partition and therefore there would be no need to discuss this case.

אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This indicates that even Rabbi Yehuda differentiates between different paths in the public domain.

לא לעולם רבנן ורשות הרבים לטומאה איצטריכא ליה

Rava replied: No; actually, you can explain that this Tosefta was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As to the question raised with regard to the novelty of this case according to their approach, it was necessary for them to teach us that such a courtyard is treated like the public domain with regard to ritual impurity, even though it is considered a private domain with respect to Shabbat.

תא שמע מבואות המפולשות בבורות בשיחין ובמערות רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

Raḥava attempts to cite a proof again, this time from a mishna: Come and hear the following teaching: Alleyways that open in cisterns, ditches or caves constitute the private domain with regard to Shabbat and the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

בבורות סלקא דעתך אלא לבורות רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

The Gemara first clarifies the wording of the mishna: Should it enter your mind to say that the correct reading is in cisterns [baborot]; is it possible to speak of alleyways that open inside cisterns? Rather, it should be corrected as follows: Alleyways that open out into cisterns [laborot] constitute the private domain with regard to Shabbat and the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתיה אמרי לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתיה לא כל שכן אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

Raḥava proceeds to clarify the matter: Who is the author of this mishna? Now, if you say it is the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public thoroughfare is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of an alleyway, where its use as a public thoroughfare is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partition, and so there was no need to discuss this case. Rather, isn’t it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

לא לעולם רבנן ורשות הרבים לטומאה איצטריכא ליה

Rava refutes this argument: No; actually, you can explain that this mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. It does present a novel teaching, as it was necessary for them to teach us that such an alleyway has the status of the public domain with regard to ritual impurity. Although it is not a convenient place to cross, it is considered a public domain with respect to impurity, since many people are found there.

תא שמע שבילי בית גילגול וכיוצא בהן רשות היחיד לשבת ורשות הרבים לטומאה

Once again Raḥava attempts to cite a proof from a mishna: Come and hear the following teaching: The paths of Beit Gilgul, which are difficult to traverse, and similar ones have the status of the private domain with regard to Shabbat, and that of the public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

ואיזהו שבילי בית גילגול אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כל שאין העבד יכול ליטול סאה של חיטין וירוץ לפני סרדיוט

The Gemara asks: And what paths are like the paths of Beit Gilgul? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: This is any path in which a slave [eved] is unable to take up a se’a of wheat by hand and run before an officer [sardeyot], despite his fear of him.

מני אילימא רבנן השתא ומה התם דניחא תשמישתא אמרי רבנן לא אתו רבים ומבטלי לה מחיצתא הכא דלא ניחא תשמישתא לא כל שכן אלא לאו רבי יהודה היא

RaḥavaHe proceeds to clarify the issue: Who is the author of this mishna? Now, if you say it is the Rabbis, there is a difficulty: Just as there, with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well, where the use of the public thoroughfare is convenient, the Rabbis say that the public does not come and invalidate the partition; here, in the case of the paths of Beit Gilgul, where their use as a public pathway is inconvenient, all the more so should they say that the passage of many people does not invalidate the partitions. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

אמר ליה שבילי בית גילגול קאמרת יהושע אוהב ישראל היה עמד ותיקן להם דרכים וסרטיא כל היכא דניחא תשמישתא מסרה לרבים כל היכא דלא ניחא תשמישתא מסרה ליחיד:

Rava said to him: Did you say the paths of Beit Gilgul? Joshua, who conquered the land and divided it among the tribes, was a lover of Israel. He rose up and established roads and highways for them; any place that was convenient to use he handed over to the public, and any place that was inconvenient to use he handed over to an individual. Therefore, the roads of Eretz Yisrael, which like the paths of Beit Gilgul are not easy to use, have the status of a private domain. However, there is no general rule in other places that roads that are difficult to traverse do not have the status of a public domain.

מתני׳ אחד בור הרבים ובאר הרבים ובאר היחיד עושין להן פסין

MISHNA: In the case of a public cistern containing collected water, as well as a public well containing spring water, and even a private well, one may arrange upright boards around them in order to allow one to carry in the enclosed area, as delineated above.

אבל לבור היחיד עושין לו מחיצה גבוה עשרה טפחים דברי רבי עקיבא

But in the case of a private cistern, there are two deficiencies: It belongs to an individual, and it does not contain spring water. Consequently, it is impossible to permit drawing from it on Shabbat by means of boards set up in the corners; rather, one must construct for it a proper partition ten handbreadths high; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

רבי יהודה בן בבא אומר אין עושין פסין אלא לבאר הרבים בלבד ולשאר עושין חגורה גבוה עשרה טפחים:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may arrange upright boards only for a public well. But for the others, that is, a public cistern or a private well, one must set up a belt, i.e., a partition consisting of ropes, ten handbreadths high. Such an arrangement creates a proper partition based on the principle of lavud, namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them smaller than three handbreadths are considered joined.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top