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

Daf Yomi

September 1, 2020 | 讬状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

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

Eruvin 23

Pictures for Eruvin 23

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of her dear mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toiba, z”l, on her 20th Yahrzeit. She loved to learn Torah and connect with people and would have loved the incredible work Hadran is doing in promoting both of those values. And in honor of all the teachers and students who are starting school in these uniquely complicated circumstances.

We hold like Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and only permit posts around a well if it is a well with fresh running water and communal. The mishna beings many different opinions regarding under what circumstances one could carry in an enclosure that is beit saatayim – is it only if it is used for living purposes and if so, what constitutes living purposes? Does it need to be square shaped or can it be rectangular and if a rectangle, only if its length is not more than double its width. If a square, the measurement if 70 and 2/3. From where is this measurement and the square shape derived? If an enclusure is surrounded with walls and then part of it is planted, what are the laws regarding carrying in this space? Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits this law – how and according to who?

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讘诇讘讚


GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. And Rav Yosef also said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Upright boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well containing potable, running spring water.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讜谞住讬谉


The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite both of these statements, even though their content appears to be the same. As had he taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava that upright boards may only be set arranged for a well, I would have said that with regard to water belonging to the public, upright boards are permitted not only in the case of spring water, but even in the case of water collected in a cistern.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讗专 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讛讜转专讜 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐


And that which was taught: One may only arrange boards for a public well, that was to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that upright boards may be arranged even for a private well, but not to allow us to infer that boards may not be arranged for a public cistern filled with collected water. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well of spring water.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讬讞讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗:


And in the opposite direction, had he taught us that upright boards may only be arranged for a well containing potable, running spring water, I would have said that there is no difference whether it is a public well and there is no difference whether it is a private well. Shmuel therefore teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who says that upright boards may be arranged only for a public well, but not for one that belongs to an individual.


诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛讙讬谞讛 讜讛拽专驻祝 砖讛谉 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 讛诪讜拽驻讜转 讙讚专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 砖讜诪讬专讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗讜 砖转讛讗 住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专


MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a karpef, an enclosed courtyard used for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a remainder, a little more, as will be explained below, by seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is provided that it contains a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讜专 讜砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐


Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not necessary, for even if it contains only a water cistern, an elongated water ditch, or a cave, i.e., a covered pit containing water, one may carry inside it, as the water bestows upon it the status of a dwelling. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if it has none of these one may carry inside it, provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讻讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛


Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it, even though its total area does not exceed an area of two beit se鈥檃, because in an area that was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, carrying is only permitted if the area is perfectly square. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it, and there is no need to be particular about a square shape.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讻讘讬转 讻讜专


Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is an area of a beit kor, i.e., thirty times larger than the area of a beit se鈥檃.


讜讻谉 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 砖砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 讘讬转讜 讗住讜专 诪诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讛诐 诪讜转专


Incidentally, he adds: And I also heard from him another halakha: If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents when they established an eiruv, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his part in the courtyard to the other residents, then it is prohibited for him, the one who forgot to establish an eiruv, to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard; however, it is permitted to them, the other residents, to bring objects from their houses to that person鈥檚 house via the courtyard, and vice versa. We do not say that the failure of one resident to join in the eiruv nullifies the validity of the eiruv for the entire courtyard.


讜讻谉 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 砖讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘注专拽讘诇讬谉 讘驻住讞 讜讞讝专转讬 注诇 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讬 讞讘专 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬:


And I also heard from him another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. With regard to all three rulings, I circulated among all of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 disciples, seeking a colleague who had also heard these matters from him, but I could not find one.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


GEMARA: The Gemara first analyzes the wording of this mishna: What was taught previously, that the tanna teaches in this mishna: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said, which implies a continuation of the previous mishna?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


If you say that because he first taught one stringency concerning the upright boards surrounding a well, and then he teaches another stringency about an enclosure, and for that reason the tanna of the mishna teaches: And furthermore, then there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda also teach one stringency and then teach another stringency, and yet the tanna of the mishna does not teach: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said?


讛转诐 讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers that the cases are different: There, the Rabbis interrupted Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements in order to disagree with him, and hence it is not possible to say: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said. Here, however, the Rabbis did not interrupt him, as the two statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava immediately follow one another.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚住讜讻讛 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Does this mean that wherever the disputing Rabbis interrupt their colleague, the tanna teaches: And furthermore? But with regard to Rabbi Eliezer in a mishna in tractate Sukka (27a), where the Rabbis interrupted his statements, nonetheless the tanna teaches: And furthermore.


讛转诐 讘诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗驻住拽讜讛:


The Gemara answers: It is not the same; there, they interrupted Rabbi Eliezer with a ruling with regard to his own topic; here, however, they interrupted Rabbi Yehuda with a ruling with regard to an altogether different matter. Consequently, his first statement had already been forgotten, and it is not the Mishna鈥檚 style to join together statements where the sequential link between them has already been severed.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛:


We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva said: Even if the courtyard has none of these elements that indicate dwelling stipulated by the other Rabbis, one may carry inside it, provided that it measures no more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗


The Gemara asks: But the view of Rabbi Akiva is the same as that of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who maintains that in the case of a garden that was not enclosed for the purpose of residence, one is only permitted to carry if the area of the enclosed area is no more than two beit se鈥檃. Rabbi Akiva disagrees only about whether we require a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place as well, but the two agree with regard to the size of the garden. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 stipulation: Provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder, is superfluous.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讬砖 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讜 砖讬注讜专


The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a tiny amount. And what is this tiny amount? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is by a tiny amount that one of the sides of a square measuring two beit se鈥檃 exceeds seventy cubits and a remainder, but the Sages did not give its exact measurement, owing to its small size and because it is impossible to be absolutely precise about the matter.


讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 住讗转讬诐 讻讞爪专 讛诪砖讻谉


And what is the measure of the area of two beit se鈥檃? It is as large as the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was fifty cubits by one hundred cubits. The first tanna and Rabbi Akiva dispute this issue: The first tanna maintains that the garden may have an area as large as two beit se鈥檃, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that it must not exceed seventy and two-thirds cubits squared.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The matters referred to are that we must square the courtyard of the Tabernacle in order to reach the size of garden or similar enclosure in which one is permitted to carry on Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗专讱 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讟讜诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讜住讘讘 讞诪砖讬诐


The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is learned from the verse that stated: 鈥淭he length of the courtyard shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty by fifty, and the height, five cubits of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass鈥 (Exodus 27:18). The Torah said: Take a square of fifty cubits by fifty cubits, and surround it with the remaining fifty cubits until they form a square, each side of which measures seventy cubits and a remainder.


驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛注诪讚 诪砖讻谉 注诇 砖驻转 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞:


The Gemara asks: But to what does the plain meaning of the verse refer? The plain sense of the text cannot be coming to teach us the laws of carrying. Abaye said that it means as follows: The Tabernacle was thirty cubits long and ten cubits wide. The courtyard was a hundred cubits long and fifty cubits wide. Position the Tabernacle in the middle of the courtyard at the edge of fifty cubits, so that there is a space of fifty cubits in front of it, and a space of twenty cubits in every direction, on each of the two sides and behind it.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讻讜壮: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is more than double its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it?


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 [讬转专 注诇] 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 转谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: When we learned this in the mishna, we also learned that it refers to a case where the length of the enclosure is more than double its breadth. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who stated that one is permitted to carry in the garden or karpef even if its length is double its width.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讬讘讜注讗 讚专讬讘注讜讛 专讘谞谉:


The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the square that the Sages squared it, because the Sages calculated squares with the diagonal. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if the diagonal is more than double the breadth, even though the length may not be more than double the breadth, it is prohibited to carry within the enclosure. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, it is permitted (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed on the following matter: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And Rav Beivai said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讜诪讬专讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


The Gemara explains that both rulings are stated leniently, and that both were necessary. As had the Gemara taught only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, I would have said that one is not permitted to carry unless the place contains a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place, for Rabbi Yosei did not specify that these are not required. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who is particular only about the courtyard鈥檚 size, but not that it be enclosed for the purpose of residence.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And, on the other hand, had the Gemara taught only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that if the courtyard is long and narrow, one is not permitted to carry. Therefore, the Gemara teaches that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who clearly states that the courtyard need not be square.


拽专驻祝 砖讛讜讗 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讬谞讛 讜讗住讜专


The Sages taught: Within a karpef that is greater than two beit se鈥檃, but which was enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, carrying is permitted regardless of its size; however, if subsequently the greater part of it was sown with seed crops, it is considered like a garden, which is not a place of dwelling, and it is prohibited to carry anything within it.


谞讟注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞爪专 讜诪讜转专


However, if the greater part of it was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, which is a place of dwelling, and one is permitted to carry. The reason for this distinction is that the presence of trees does not nullify the status of the karpef as a place of residence, because people normally plant trees even in their courtyards. However, people ordinarily plant seed crops only in gardens at some distance from their houses, in places they do not use for dwelling; therefore, the presence of seed crops does nullify the residential status of the karpef.


谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讜转专


It was stated above that if the greater part of the karpef was sown with seed crops, it is prohibited to carry in it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We only said this in a case where the sown section is greater than two beit se鈥檃, but if it is no more than two beit se鈥檃, it is permitted.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and karpeifot are all one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in them, even if the utensils belong to different people. Since these are not proper dwelling places, setting an eiruv is unnecessary, and objects may be carried from place to place within them. But they are not one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in the house and that were later taken outside. This shows that the unsown part of a karpef and the sown part, which has the status of a garden, are considered a single domain, in which one is permitted to carry, as the garden section does not prohibit the karpef section.


诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 诪注讜讟讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since the greater part of the karpef is sown, the minor part


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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Eruvin 17-23

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

Eruvin 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 23

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讘诇讘讚


GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. And Rav Yosef also said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Upright boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well containing potable, running spring water.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讜谞住讬谉


The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite both of these statements, even though their content appears to be the same. As had he taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava that upright boards may only be set arranged for a well, I would have said that with regard to water belonging to the public, upright boards are permitted not only in the case of spring water, but even in the case of water collected in a cistern.


讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讗专 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗 讛讜转专讜 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讗诇讗 诇讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐


And that which was taught: One may only arrange boards for a public well, that was to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that upright boards may be arranged even for a private well, but not to allow us to infer that boards may not be arranged for a public cistern filled with collected water. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well of spring water.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讗专 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讬讞讬讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗:


And in the opposite direction, had he taught us that upright boards may only be arranged for a well containing potable, running spring water, I would have said that there is no difference whether it is a public well and there is no difference whether it is a private well. Shmuel therefore teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who says that upright boards may be arranged only for a public well, but not for one that belongs to an individual.


诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讛讙讬谞讛 讜讛拽专驻祝 砖讛谉 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 讛诪讜拽驻讜转 讙讚专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 砖讜诪讬专讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讗讜 砖转讛讗 住诪讜讻讛 诇注讬专


MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a karpef, an enclosed courtyard used for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a remainder, a little more, as will be explained below, by seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is provided that it contains a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讜专 讜砖讬讞 讜诪注专讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬讬诐


Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not necessary, for even if it contains only a water cistern, an elongated water ditch, or a cave, i.e., a covered pit containing water, one may carry inside it, as the water bestows upon it the status of a dwelling. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if it has none of these one may carry inside it, provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讻讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛


Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it, even though its total area does not exceed an area of two beit se鈥檃, because in an area that was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, carrying is only permitted if the area is perfectly square. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it, and there is no need to be particular about a square shape.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖诪注转讬 诪专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讻讘讬转 讻讜专


Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is an area of a beit kor, i.e., thirty times larger than the area of a beit se鈥檃.


讜讻谉 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 砖砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 讘讬转讜 讗住讜专 诪诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讛诐 诪讜转专


Incidentally, he adds: And I also heard from him another halakha: If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents when they established an eiruv, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his part in the courtyard to the other residents, then it is prohibited for him, the one who forgot to establish an eiruv, to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard; however, it is permitted to them, the other residents, to bring objects from their houses to that person鈥檚 house via the courtyard, and vice versa. We do not say that the failure of one resident to join in the eiruv nullifies the validity of the eiruv for the entire courtyard.


讜讻谉 砖诪注转讬 诪诪谞讜 砖讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘注专拽讘诇讬谉 讘驻住讞 讜讞讝专转讬 注诇 讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 讜讘拽砖转讬 诇讬 讞讘专 讜诇讗 诪爪讗转讬:


And I also heard from him another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. With regard to all three rulings, I circulated among all of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 disciples, seeking a colleague who had also heard these matters from him, but I could not find one.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


GEMARA: The Gemara first analyzes the wording of this mishna: What was taught previously, that the tanna teaches in this mishna: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said, which implies a continuation of the previous mishna?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


If you say that because he first taught one stringency concerning the upright boards surrounding a well, and then he teaches another stringency about an enclosure, and for that reason the tanna of the mishna teaches: And furthermore, then there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda also teach one stringency and then teach another stringency, and yet the tanna of the mishna does not teach: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said?


讛转诐 讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers that the cases are different: There, the Rabbis interrupted Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statements in order to disagree with him, and hence it is not possible to say: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said. Here, however, the Rabbis did not interrupt him, as the two statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava immediately follow one another.


讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚住讜讻讛 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 专讘谞谉 讜拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Does this mean that wherever the disputing Rabbis interrupt their colleague, the tanna teaches: And furthermore? But with regard to Rabbi Eliezer in a mishna in tractate Sukka (27a), where the Rabbis interrupted his statements, nonetheless the tanna teaches: And furthermore.


讛转诐 讘诪讬诇转讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住拽讜讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗驻住拽讜讛:


The Gemara answers: It is not the same; there, they interrupted Rabbi Eliezer with a ruling with regard to his own topic; here, however, they interrupted Rabbi Yehuda with a ruling with regard to an altogether different matter. Consequently, his first statement had already been forgotten, and it is not the Mishna鈥檚 style to join together statements where the sequential link between them has already been severed.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛:


We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva said: Even if the courtyard has none of these elements that indicate dwelling stipulated by the other Rabbis, one may carry inside it, provided that it measures no more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗


The Gemara asks: But the view of Rabbi Akiva is the same as that of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who maintains that in the case of a garden that was not enclosed for the purpose of residence, one is only permitted to carry if the area of the enclosed area is no more than two beit se鈥檃. Rabbi Akiva disagrees only about whether we require a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place as well, but the two agree with regard to the size of the garden. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 stipulation: Provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder, is superfluous.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讬砖 注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讜 砖讬注讜专


The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a tiny amount. And what is this tiny amount? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is by a tiny amount that one of the sides of a square measuring two beit se鈥檃 exceeds seventy cubits and a remainder, but the Sages did not give its exact measurement, owing to its small size and because it is impossible to be absolutely precise about the matter.


讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 住讗转讬诐 讻讞爪专 讛诪砖讻谉


And what is the measure of the area of two beit se鈥檃? It is as large as the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was fifty cubits by one hundred cubits. The first tanna and Rabbi Akiva dispute this issue: The first tanna maintains that the garden may have an area as large as two beit se鈥檃, whereas Rabbi Akiva says that it must not exceed seventy and two-thirds cubits squared.


诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬


The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The matters referred to are that we must square the courtyard of the Tabernacle in order to reach the size of garden or similar enclosure in which one is permitted to carry on Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗专讱 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讟讜诇 讞诪砖讬诐 讜住讘讘 讞诪砖讬诐


The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is learned from the verse that stated: 鈥淭he length of the courtyard shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty by fifty, and the height, five cubits of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass鈥 (Exodus 27:18). The Torah said: Take a square of fifty cubits by fifty cubits, and surround it with the remaining fifty cubits until they form a square, each side of which measures seventy cubits and a remainder.


驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛注诪讚 诪砖讻谉 注诇 砖驻转 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讜注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜专讜讞:


The Gemara asks: But to what does the plain meaning of the verse refer? The plain sense of the text cannot be coming to teach us the laws of carrying. Abaye said that it means as follows: The Tabernacle was thirty cubits long and ten cubits wide. The courtyard was a hundred cubits long and fifty cubits wide. Position the Tabernacle in the middle of the courtyard at the edge of fifty cubits, so that there is a space of fifty cubits in front of it, and a space of twenty cubits in every direction, on each of the two sides and behind it.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讻讜壮: 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is more than double its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it?


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 [讬转专 注诇] 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 转谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬


Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: When we learned this in the mishna, we also learned that it refers to a case where the length of the enclosure is more than double its breadth. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who stated that one is permitted to carry in the garden or karpef even if its length is double its width.


讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讬讘讜注讗 讚专讬讘注讜讛 专讘谞谉:


The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to the square that the Sages squared it, because the Sages calculated squares with the diagonal. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if the diagonal is more than double the breadth, even though the length may not be more than double the breadth, it is prohibited to carry within the enclosure. According to Rabbi Yosei, however, it is permitted (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).


专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮: 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed on the following matter: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And Rav Beivai said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.


讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讜诪讬专讛 讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗


The Gemara explains that both rulings are stated leniently, and that both were necessary. As had the Gemara taught only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, I would have said that one is not permitted to carry unless the place contains a watchman鈥檚 booth or a dwelling place, for Rabbi Yosei did not specify that these are not required. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who is particular only about the courtyard鈥檚 size, but not that it be enclosed for the purpose of residence.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And, on the other hand, had the Gemara taught only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that if the courtyard is long and narrow, one is not permitted to carry. Therefore, the Gemara teaches that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who clearly states that the courtyard need not be square.


拽专驻祝 砖讛讜讗 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讬谞讛 讜讗住讜专


The Sages taught: Within a karpef that is greater than two beit se鈥檃, but which was enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, carrying is permitted regardless of its size; however, if subsequently the greater part of it was sown with seed crops, it is considered like a garden, which is not a place of dwelling, and it is prohibited to carry anything within it.


谞讟注 专讜讘讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讞爪专 讜诪讜转专


However, if the greater part of it was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, which is a place of dwelling, and one is permitted to carry. The reason for this distinction is that the presence of trees does not nullify the status of the karpef as a place of residence, because people normally plant trees even in their courtyards. However, people ordinarily plant seed crops only in gardens at some distance from their houses, in places they do not use for dwelling; therefore, the presence of seed crops does nullify the residential status of the karpef.


谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讜转专


It was stated above that if the greater part of the karpef was sown with seed crops, it is prohibited to carry in it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We only said this in a case where the sown section is greater than two beit se鈥檃, but if it is no more than two beit se鈥檃, it is permitted.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It was stated in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and karpeifot are all one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in them, even if the utensils belong to different people. Since these are not proper dwelling places, setting an eiruv is unnecessary, and objects may be carried from place to place within them. But they are not one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in the house and that were later taken outside. This shows that the unsown part of a karpef and the sown part, which has the status of a garden, are considered a single domain, in which one is permitted to carry, as the garden section does not prohibit the karpef section.


诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞讝专注 专讜讘讜 讛讜讬 讛讛讜讗 诪注讜讟讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since the greater part of the karpef is sown, the minor part


Scroll To Top