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

Daf Yomi

September 3, 2020 | 讬状讚 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's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 25

Sponsored in honor of Deborah Dickson’s 40th birthday by Audrey Levant. Deborah: You enrich the lives of people around you by approaching life with passion. You are motivated, and decisive, and committed to your endeavors and I am so happy we are learning daf yomi together.聽 Happy Birthday!

What methods can be used to fix an enclosure larger than beit saatayim (5,000 square cubits) that was not enclosed for living purposes in order to allow one to carry within the space? If done in a particular manner, one can either put up a new wall (debate regarding how far it needs to be from the new wall or if it can even be put up on top of the existing wall) or make the space smaller than or equal to beit saatayim. Is the issue regarding how a wall can or cannot be built the same as building a wall in property in order to acquire property that a convert without inheritors left after dying (that is considered ownerless property)? There is a case of a woman who tried to acquire ownerless property of a convert after his death but since it was done incorrectly and someone else acquired it in the correct manner after her, she was not granted the land. In exasperation, she started screaming but there was nothing to do to help her as she hadn’t done it in the proper manner. What is the law regarding an enclosure that was a beit saatayim with a wall separating it from a courtyard, in the case where the wall was breached? Can one carry in the enclosure or in the courtyard?

Pictures Eruvin 25

诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讚讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讛讜讬 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讜讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬


The Sage who permits doing so holds that it is permitted since in the yard itself there are no residents, and a place without residents cannot prohibit carrying in another, adjacent domain. And the Sage who prohibits doing so holds that it is prohibited because sometimes there are residents in it who can prohibit carrying in the other domain, and people might unwittingly come to carry from the yard to the town in their usual manner, even though it is prohibited.


拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讜 诪讬注讟讜 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


With regard to a karpef that measures more than two beit se鈥檃 and that had not been fenced in from the outset for the purpose of residence, and one came to reduce its size, if he reduced it by planting trees in a section of the space, it is not a valid reduction, because trees are commonly found in a karpef designed for dwelling; therefore, they are not considered something out of the ordinary that would reduce its size.


讘谞讛 讘讜 注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


But if he built up a column ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is an effective reduction, i.e., if the karpef is thereby reduced to the area of two beit se鈥檃, one is permitted to carry within it. However, if the column is less than three handbreadths wide, it is not an effective reduction. And if it is between three to four handbreadths wide, there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m. Rabba said: It constitutes an effective reduction, and Rava said: It does not constitute an effective reduction.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讚讛讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪转讜专转 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba said that it constitutes an effective reduction because it is large enough to be excluded from the principle of lavud, namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them less than three handbreadths are considered joined. Since the column stands independently, it reduces the size of the karpef. Rava said that it does not constitute a valid reduction because as it is not a place of at least four handbreadths, it is not significant. An area of less than four handbreadths is not considered independent.


讛专讞讬拽 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛 讜注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讜注讬诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇


It was further stated: If one distanced himself four handbreadths from the wall of the karpef and erected an additional partition for the sake of dwelling, it is effective in permitting one to carry in the fenced-off inner area. But if the distance is less than three handbreadths, it is not effective, as the new wall is considered attached to the first by means of the principle of lavud, and it is like one partition built on top of another. And if the distance is between three to four handbreadths, that is the topic of the dispute among the amora鈥檌m, in which Rabba said: It is effective, and Rava said: It is not effective.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讚讛讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪转讜专转 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba said: It is effective, as it is far enough away to be removed from the principle of lavud. Rava disagreed and said: It is not effective, because as it is not a place of at least four handbreadths, it is not significant.


专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪转谞讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讟讞 讘讜 讟讬讟 讜讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


Rav Simi would teach a more lenient version of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. If one plastered the walls of a karpef larger than two beit se鈥檃 with plaster, and the plaster can stand on its own, all agree that it is an effective reduction, as it is considered as if he has made a new partition. But if the plaster cannot stand on its own, and it only stays in place because it is attached to the existing wall, there is an amoraic dispute in which Rabba said: It is an effective reduction, and Rava said: It is not an effective reduction.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽讗讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬拽诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba says: It is an effective reduction, because for now, in any case, it stands. Rava says: It is not an effective reduction, because as it cannot stand on its own, it is nothing, i.e., it is insignificant.


讛专讞讬拽 诪谉 讛转诇 讗专讘注讛 讜注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讜注讬诇


If one distanced himself four handbreadths from a mound ten handbreadths high that stands in a karpef larger than two beit se鈥檃, and he erected a partition for the sake of dwelling, it is effective to permit one to carry.


驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注诇 砖驻转 讛转诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇


But if he erected the partition less than three handbreadths from the mound or on the edge of the mound itself, so that it is like a partition built on top of another partition, this is a dispute between Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna. One of them said: It is effective, and the other one said: It is not effective.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讚讗转诪专 讛注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘砖讘转 讛讜注讬诇


The Gemara seeks to clarify which of the Sages held which opinion. Conclude that it was Rav 岣sda who said it is effective, for it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following: If one erected a partition on top of an existing partition, Rav 岣sda said: With regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, e.g., if the first partition was not erected for the purpose of residence, the second partition is effective.


讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛


However, with regard to the property of a convert, he does not acquire it. The property of a convert who dies without heirs is regarded as ownerless unless he had transferred it to someone as a gift during his lifetime. Whoever first implements a valid mode of acquisition upon such property acquires it. For example, one may acquire property by performing an act of taking possession, such as construction of a partition around it. But if one erects a partition around the property of a deceased convert on top of an existing partition, he does not acquire the property in this manner.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇 转住转讬讬诐


And Rav Sheshet said: Even with regard to Shabbat it is not effective. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude that it is Rav 岣sda who maintains that one partition built on top of another is effective for Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 专讘 砖砖转 砖讗诐 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讛转诇 砖讛讜注讬诇


Rav 岣sda said: Rav Sheshet agrees with me that if one erected a partition on the mound, rather than merely adjacent to it, that it is effective to permit one to carry on the mound itself, even though, according to him, it is prohibited to carry in the rest of the karpef.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讛讜讗 讚专


What is the reason for this? Since he dwells in the space between the upper partitions, he utilizes these new partitions and they serve a function. Although in relation to one positioned below the mound these are partitions built on top of the pre-existing partitions of the mound, and therefore they do not allow him to carry in the karpef, they are nonetheless effective in allowing him to carry on the mound itself.


讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 谞讘诇注讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 讜讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 拽讬讬诪讜转 诪讛讜


Rabba bar bar 岣na raised a dilemma: If the lower partitions were swallowed up, e.g., if they sank in boggy ground, and the upper partitions that he had erected still stand, what is the law?


诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讚讗诪专 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 诇讬驻转讗 讗驻讬诇讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讙专 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬谞讗 专驻拽 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讘转专讗 拽谞讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? If it was raised with regard to acquiring the property of a convert, this is precisely the same as the ruling cited by Yirmeya Bira鈥檃, as Yirmeya Bira鈥檃 said that Rav Yehuda said: If one sowed turnip seeds in cracks which he found in land that had belonged to a convert, and another Jew came and plowed the ground a little, the latter one, the one who plowed, acquires the property, and the first one does not acquire it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讚讗 诇讗 拽讗 砖讘讞 讻讬 拽讗 砖讘讞讗 诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讘讞讗


What is the reason that the first one who sowed the seeds does not acquire the property? At the time that he sowed, the land was not improved by his sowing. When it did improve, with the growth of the turnips, it improved on its own. That is to say, the act of sowing alone is not a sufficiently noticeable action that changes and improves the property at the time. Although the sowing later proves to have been beneficial, this is seen as an improvement of the land that comes on its own. Therefore, an action that will only provide benefit in the future cannot serve as an act of acquisition.


讜讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讛谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转


Rather, you must say that the dilemma was raised with respect to Shabbat, in which case it is a partition that was made on Shabbat; beforehand it was not a valid partition, and the upper ones acquired the status of a partition only after the lower partitions sank into the ground.


讜转谞讬讗 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 讛谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 砖诪讛 诪讞讬爪讛


And it was already taught in a baraita: Any partition made on Shabbat, whether unwittingly or intentionally, is called a valid partition. Consequently, the upper partitions should be regarded as valid partitions that allow one to carry in the karpef.


诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗住讜专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it stated about this law that Rav Na岣an said: They taught that such a partition is called a partition only as a stringency, in that it is prohibited to throw from an area enclosed by such a partition into the public domain and vice versa; but to carry within it as a full-fledged private domain is prohibited. This implies that these are not proper partitions.


讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讝讬讚 讗讬转诪专


The Gemara refutes this objection: When that statement of Rav Na岣an was stated, it was stated with regard to a case where one erected the partition intentionally. Since one intentionally violated Shabbat when he erected the partition, the Sages imposed a penalty that he is prohibited to carry within the enclosed area. But if the partition was made unwittingly or came about by itself, no such penalty was imposed, and one is permitted to carry.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讘讚讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 专驻拽 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转转 讗讬讛讬 讜拽讗 爪讜讜讞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讱 讚诇讗 诪讞讝拽转 讻讚诪讞讝拽讬 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain woman erected a partition on top of another partition in the property of a deceased convert. A certain man then came and plowed the ground a little. The man came before Rav Na岣an, who established the property in his possession. The woman then came and cried out before Rav Na岣an. He said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession.


拽专驻祝 讘讬转 砖诇砖 讜拽讬专讛 讘讜 讘讬转 住讗讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讬专 拽讬专讜讬讜 诪讬讬转专讜 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专 拽讬专讜讬讜 诪讬讬转专讜


With regard to a karpef the size of three beit se鈥檃, and one roofed one beit se鈥檃 of it, the amora鈥檌m disputed whether or not the area of karpef is two beit se鈥檃, in which case it is permitted to carry there, or three beit se鈥檃, in which case it would be prohibited. Rava said: Its roofed space renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃, meaning that the roofed area is not considered separate from the rest, and so it is prohibited to carry in the karpef. And Rabbi Zeira said: Its roofed space does not render it in excess of two beit se鈥檃, and it is permitted to carry there.


诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rava and Rabbi Zeira dispute the same point that was the subject of dispute between Rav and Shmuel. These amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following, as it was stated: With regard to an enclosed veranda [akhsadra], which is a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, in a field that has the status of a karmelit, Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, as it is considered a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits.


专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, since we say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the enclosed veranda on all sides; consequently, it is considered a separate private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and closes up the enclosed veranda.


讗讬 讚注讘讬讚讗 讻讬 讗讻住讚专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚注讘讚讛 讻讬 讗讜专讝讬诇讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If the roof in the covered section of the karpef were made like an enclosed veranda whose roof is level, indeed, both Rava and Rabbi Zeira would agree that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the area. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the roof is made like a hammock, i.e., slanted, and therefore one cannot say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and encloses the area.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 讘拽专驻祝 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 砖讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讜讬专 讞爪专 诪讬讬转专讜


Rabbi Zeira said: I agree with Rava with regard to a karpef that is fully breached into a courtyard, meaning the entire wall between them is breached, that it is prohibited to carry in it. What is the reason for this? Because the additional space of the courtyard joins to the karpef and renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃. Consequently, it is prohibited to carry in it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 讗讜讬专 讛诪讜转专 诇讜 讗讜住专讜


Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: Does a space in which it is permitted to carry, the courtyard, render the karpef, prohibited? Given that it had been permitted beforehand to carry from the courtyard to the karpef, why say that now that the partition between them is breached, the additional space, which was itself permitted, should render it prohibited to carry in the karpef?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜讬专 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讜转


Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you say this? Apparently, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is permitted to carry from a courtyard to a karpef. But even according to Rabbi Shimon, there is the space where the walls that are now breached had once stood. This space had not been fit for carrying from the outset, even according to Rabbi Shimon; therefore, if the karpef had been at first exactly the area of two beit se鈥檃, it would be prohibited to carry in the entire karpef due to the additional space of the fallen walls.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽专驻祝 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜拽专驻祝 讗住讜专


This is as Rav 岣sda said with regard to a karpef that is fully breached into a courtyard: In the courtyard one is permitted to carry and in the karpef he is prohibited to carry.


讞爪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬驻讻讗


The Gemara asks: As for the courtyard, what is the reason that this is permitted? Is it because it has the remnants of the original walls on either side of the breach, which allow the breach to be treated like an entrance? But at times you find just the opposite; if the courtyard was narrower than the karpef and the partition between them was fully breached, it is the karpef that retains the remnants of the original walls on either side of the breach, while the courtyard is breached in its entirety.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讛 讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讬讬转专讜 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讬讬转专讜


Rather, it is because we say that with regard to this one, the karpef, which was not enclosed for the purpose of residence and where one is permitted to carry only if it is no more than two beit se鈥檃, the space of the fallen walls renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃. However, with regard to that one, the courtyard, which was enclosed for the purpose of residence and where there is no size limit above which it is prohibited to carry, the space of the fallen walls does not render it in excess of any limit.


讛讛讜讗 讘讜住转谞讗 讚讛讜讛 住诪讬讱 诇讙讜讚讗 讚讗驻讚谞讗 谞驻诇 讗砖讬转讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讚讗驻讚谞讗 住讘专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬住诪讜讱 讗讙讜讚讗 讙讜讜讬讗转讗


The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain orchard [bustana] was adjacent to the wall of a mansion [apadna]. The orchard was larger than two beit se鈥檃 and was enclosed for the purpose of residence by a wall, part of which was the wall of the mansion. One day the outer wall of the mansion, which also served as a wall for the orchard, collapsed. Rav Beivai thought to say that we can rely upon one of the mansion鈥檚 inner walls to serve as a partition for the orchard and thereby permit one to carry there in the future as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬讗转讗 讛谞讱 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讙讜讗讬 注讘讬讚谉 诇讘专讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚谉


Rav Pappi said to him: Because you come from truncated [mula鈥檈i] people, as Rav Beivai鈥檚 family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see i Samuel 2:31), you speak truncated [mulayata] matters, as the inner wall cannot be relied upon at all. That is because these walls were made for the inside of the mansion, and they were not made for the outside; that is, they were not designed from the outset to serve as partitions for the orchard.


讛讛讬讗 讗讘讜讜专谞拽讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讘讜住转谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 诪专 转拽谞转讗 讚诇诪讞专 谞讗讻讜诇 谞讛诪讗 讛转诐


The Gemara relates: The Exilarch had a banqueting pavilion [abvarneka] in his orchard that was larger than two beit se鈥檃 and that had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. The Exilarch said to Rav Huna bar 岣nnana: Let the Master make some arrangement so that tomorrow, on Shabbat, we may eat bread there, i.e., so that we may be permitted to carry food and utensils from the house to the pavilion via the orchard.


讗讝诇 注讘讚 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讝诇 专讘讗


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana went and erected a fence of reeds, each reed separated from the next by less than three handbreadths. That is to say, he erected two such partitions between the house and the pavilion with a passageway between them, through which the Exilarch and his men could carry whatever they needed, as the partitions were constructed in the proper manner for the purpose of residence. Rava, however, went


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's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 24-30 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Print
https://youtu.be/IcISBexmEP0?showinfo=0

Eruvin 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 25

诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 讚讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗住专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讛讜讬 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讜讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬


The Sage who permits doing so holds that it is permitted since in the yard itself there are no residents, and a place without residents cannot prohibit carrying in another, adjacent domain. And the Sage who prohibits doing so holds that it is prohibited because sometimes there are residents in it who can prohibit carrying in the other domain, and people might unwittingly come to carry from the yard to the town in their usual manner, even though it is prohibited.


拽专驻祝 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讜拽祝 诇讚讬专讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讜 诪讬注讟讜 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


With regard to a karpef that measures more than two beit se鈥檃 and that had not been fenced in from the outset for the purpose of residence, and one came to reduce its size, if he reduced it by planting trees in a section of the space, it is not a valid reduction, because trees are commonly found in a karpef designed for dwelling; therefore, they are not considered something out of the ordinary that would reduce its size.


讘谞讛 讘讜 注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


But if he built up a column ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is an effective reduction, i.e., if the karpef is thereby reduced to the area of two beit se鈥檃, one is permitted to carry within it. However, if the column is less than three handbreadths wide, it is not an effective reduction. And if it is between three to four handbreadths wide, there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m. Rabba said: It constitutes an effective reduction, and Rava said: It does not constitute an effective reduction.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讚讛讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪转讜专转 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba said that it constitutes an effective reduction because it is large enough to be excluded from the principle of lavud, namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them less than three handbreadths are considered joined. Since the column stands independently, it reduces the size of the karpef. Rava said that it does not constitute a valid reduction because as it is not a place of at least four handbreadths, it is not significant. An area of less than four handbreadths is not considered independent.


讛专讞讬拽 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛 讜注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讜注讬诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇


It was further stated: If one distanced himself four handbreadths from the wall of the karpef and erected an additional partition for the sake of dwelling, it is effective in permitting one to carry in the fenced-off inner area. But if the distance is less than three handbreadths, it is not effective, as the new wall is considered attached to the first by means of the principle of lavud, and it is like one partition built on top of another. And if the distance is between three to four handbreadths, that is the topic of the dispute among the amora鈥檌m, in which Rabba said: It is effective, and Rava said: It is not effective.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讚讛讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诪转讜专转 诇讘讜讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba said: It is effective, as it is far enough away to be removed from the principle of lavud. Rava disagreed and said: It is not effective, because as it is not a place of at least four handbreadths, it is not significant.


专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪转谞讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讟讞 讘讜 讟讬讟 讜讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟


Rav Simi would teach a more lenient version of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. If one plastered the walls of a karpef larger than two beit se鈥檃 with plaster, and the plaster can stand on its own, all agree that it is an effective reduction, as it is considered as if he has made a new partition. But if the plaster cannot stand on its own, and it only stays in place because it is attached to the existing wall, there is an amoraic dispute in which Rabba said: It is an effective reduction, and Rava said: It is not an effective reduction.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 拽讗讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬拽诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains the two opinions. Rabba says: It is an effective reduction, because for now, in any case, it stands. Rava says: It is not an effective reduction, because as it cannot stand on its own, it is nothing, i.e., it is insignificant.


讛专讞讬拽 诪谉 讛转诇 讗专讘注讛 讜注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讜注讬诇


If one distanced himself four handbreadths from a mound ten handbreadths high that stands in a karpef larger than two beit se鈥檃, and he erected a partition for the sake of dwelling, it is effective to permit one to carry.


驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注诇 砖驻转 讛转诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇


But if he erected the partition less than three handbreadths from the mound or on the edge of the mound itself, so that it is like a partition built on top of another partition, this is a dispute between Rav 岣sda and Rav Hamnuna. One of them said: It is effective, and the other one said: It is not effective.


转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讛讜注讬诇 讚讗转诪专 讛注讜砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘砖讘转 讛讜注讬诇


The Gemara seeks to clarify which of the Sages held which opinion. Conclude that it was Rav 岣sda who said it is effective, for it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following: If one erected a partition on top of an existing partition, Rav 岣sda said: With regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, e.g., if the first partition was not erected for the purpose of residence, the second partition is effective.


讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛


However, with regard to the property of a convert, he does not acquire it. The property of a convert who dies without heirs is regarded as ownerless unless he had transferred it to someone as a gift during his lifetime. Whoever first implements a valid mode of acquisition upon such property acquires it. For example, one may acquire property by performing an act of taking possession, such as construction of a partition around it. But if one erects a partition around the property of a deceased convert on top of an existing partition, he does not acquire the property in this manner.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖讘转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜注讬诇 转住转讬讬诐


And Rav Sheshet said: Even with regard to Shabbat it is not effective. The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude that it is Rav 岣sda who maintains that one partition built on top of another is effective for Shabbat.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诪讜讚讛 诇讬 专讘 砖砖转 砖讗诐 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讛转诇 砖讛讜注讬诇


Rav 岣sda said: Rav Sheshet agrees with me that if one erected a partition on the mound, rather than merely adjacent to it, that it is effective to permit one to carry on the mound itself, even though, according to him, it is prohibited to carry in the rest of the karpef.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讛讜讗 讚专


What is the reason for this? Since he dwells in the space between the upper partitions, he utilizes these new partitions and they serve a function. Although in relation to one positioned below the mound these are partitions built on top of the pre-existing partitions of the mound, and therefore they do not allow him to carry in the karpef, they are nonetheless effective in allowing him to carry on the mound itself.


讘注讬 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 谞讘诇注讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛转讞转讜谞讜转 讜讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 拽讬讬诪讜转 诪讛讜


Rabba bar bar 岣na raised a dilemma: If the lower partitions were swallowed up, e.g., if they sank in boggy ground, and the upper partitions that he had erected still stand, what is the law?


诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讚讗诪专 讬专诪讬讛 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 诇讬驻转讗 讗驻讬诇讗 讚讗专注讗 讚讙专 讜讗转讗 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞专讬谞讗 专驻拽 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讘转专讗 拽谞讬 拽诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? If it was raised with regard to acquiring the property of a convert, this is precisely the same as the ruling cited by Yirmeya Bira鈥檃, as Yirmeya Bira鈥檃 said that Rav Yehuda said: If one sowed turnip seeds in cracks which he found in land that had belonged to a convert, and another Jew came and plowed the ground a little, the latter one, the one who plowed, acquires the property, and the first one does not acquire it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讚讗 诇讗 拽讗 砖讘讞 讻讬 拽讗 砖讘讞讗 诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 诪砖讘讞讗


What is the reason that the first one who sowed the seeds does not acquire the property? At the time that he sowed, the land was not improved by his sowing. When it did improve, with the growth of the turnips, it improved on its own. That is to say, the act of sowing alone is not a sufficiently noticeable action that changes and improves the property at the time. Although the sowing later proves to have been beneficial, this is seen as an improvement of the land that comes on its own. Therefore, an action that will only provide benefit in the future cannot serve as an act of acquisition.


讜讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讛谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转


Rather, you must say that the dilemma was raised with respect to Shabbat, in which case it is a partition that was made on Shabbat; beforehand it was not a valid partition, and the upper ones acquired the status of a partition only after the lower partitions sank into the ground.


讜转谞讬讗 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 讛谞注砖讛 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 砖诪讛 诪讞讬爪讛


And it was already taught in a baraita: Any partition made on Shabbat, whether unwittingly or intentionally, is called a valid partition. Consequently, the upper partitions should be regarded as valid partitions that allow one to carry in the karpef.


诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗住讜专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it stated about this law that Rav Na岣an said: They taught that such a partition is called a partition only as a stringency, in that it is prohibited to throw from an area enclosed by such a partition into the public domain and vice versa; but to carry within it as a full-fledged private domain is prohibited. This implies that these are not proper partitions.


讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讝讬讚 讗讬转诪专


The Gemara refutes this objection: When that statement of Rav Na岣an was stated, it was stated with regard to a case where one erected the partition intentionally. Since one intentionally violated Shabbat when he erected the partition, the Sages imposed a penalty that he is prohibited to carry within the enclosed area. But if the partition was made unwittingly or came about by itself, no such penalty was imposed, and one is permitted to carry.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注讘讚讛 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 专驻拽 讘讛 驻讜专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转转 讗讬讛讬 讜拽讗 爪讜讜讞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讱 讚诇讗 诪讞讝拽转 讻讚诪讞讝拽讬 讗讬谞砖讬


The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain woman erected a partition on top of another partition in the property of a deceased convert. A certain man then came and plowed the ground a little. The man came before Rav Na岣an, who established the property in his possession. The woman then came and cried out before Rav Na岣an. He said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession.


拽专驻祝 讘讬转 砖诇砖 讜拽讬专讛 讘讜 讘讬转 住讗讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讜讬专 拽讬专讜讬讜 诪讬讬转专讜 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专 拽讬专讜讬讜 诪讬讬转专讜


With regard to a karpef the size of three beit se鈥檃, and one roofed one beit se鈥檃 of it, the amora鈥檌m disputed whether or not the area of karpef is two beit se鈥檃, in which case it is permitted to carry there, or three beit se鈥檃, in which case it would be prohibited. Rava said: Its roofed space renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃, meaning that the roofed area is not considered separate from the rest, and so it is prohibited to carry in the karpef. And Rabbi Zeira said: Its roofed space does not render it in excess of two beit se鈥檃, and it is permitted to carry there.


诇讬诪讗 专讘讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rava and Rabbi Zeira dispute the same point that was the subject of dispute between Rav and Shmuel. These amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following, as it was stated: With regard to an enclosed veranda [akhsadra], which is a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, in a field that has the status of a karmelit, Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, as it is considered a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits.


专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐


The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, since we say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the enclosed veranda on all sides; consequently, it is considered a separate private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits, as we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and closes up the enclosed veranda.


讗讬 讚注讘讬讚讗 讻讬 讗讻住讚专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚注讘讚讛 讻讬 讗讜专讝讬诇讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If the roof in the covered section of the karpef were made like an enclosed veranda whose roof is level, indeed, both Rava and Rabbi Zeira would agree that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the area. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the roof is made like a hammock, i.e., slanted, and therefore one cannot say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and encloses the area.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 讘拽专驻祝 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 砖讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讜讬专 讞爪专 诪讬讬转专讜


Rabbi Zeira said: I agree with Rava with regard to a karpef that is fully breached into a courtyard, meaning the entire wall between them is breached, that it is prohibited to carry in it. What is the reason for this? Because the additional space of the courtyard joins to the karpef and renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃. Consequently, it is prohibited to carry in it.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 讗讜讬专 讛诪讜转专 诇讜 讗讜住专讜


Rav Yosef strongly objects to this explanation: Does a space in which it is permitted to carry, the courtyard, render the karpef, prohibited? Given that it had been permitted beforehand to carry from the courtyard to the karpef, why say that now that the partition between them is breached, the additional space, which was itself permitted, should render it prohibited to carry in the karpef?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜讬专 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讜转


Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you say this? Apparently, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one is permitted to carry from a courtyard to a karpef. But even according to Rabbi Shimon, there is the space where the walls that are now breached had once stood. This space had not been fit for carrying from the outset, even according to Rabbi Shimon; therefore, if the karpef had been at first exactly the area of two beit se鈥檃, it would be prohibited to carry in the entire karpef due to the additional space of the fallen walls.


讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽专驻祝 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜拽专驻祝 讗住讜专


This is as Rav 岣sda said with regard to a karpef that is fully breached into a courtyard: In the courtyard one is permitted to carry and in the karpef he is prohibited to carry.


讞爪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜讛讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬驻讻讗


The Gemara asks: As for the courtyard, what is the reason that this is permitted? Is it because it has the remnants of the original walls on either side of the breach, which allow the breach to be treated like an entrance? But at times you find just the opposite; if the courtyard was narrower than the karpef and the partition between them was fully breached, it is the karpef that retains the remnants of the original walls on either side of the breach, while the courtyard is breached in its entirety.


讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讛 讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讬讬转专讜 讜讝讛 讗讬谉 讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讬讬转专讜


Rather, it is because we say that with regard to this one, the karpef, which was not enclosed for the purpose of residence and where one is permitted to carry only if it is no more than two beit se鈥檃, the space of the fallen walls renders it in excess of two beit se鈥檃. However, with regard to that one, the courtyard, which was enclosed for the purpose of residence and where there is no size limit above which it is prohibited to carry, the space of the fallen walls does not render it in excess of any limit.


讛讛讜讗 讘讜住转谞讗 讚讛讜讛 住诪讬讱 诇讙讜讚讗 讚讗驻讚谞讗 谞驻诇 讗砖讬转讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讚讗驻讚谞讗 住讘专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬住诪讜讱 讗讙讜讚讗 讙讜讜讬讗转讗


The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain orchard [bustana] was adjacent to the wall of a mansion [apadna]. The orchard was larger than two beit se鈥檃 and was enclosed for the purpose of residence by a wall, part of which was the wall of the mansion. One day the outer wall of the mansion, which also served as a wall for the orchard, collapsed. Rav Beivai thought to say that we can rely upon one of the mansion鈥檚 inner walls to serve as a partition for the orchard and thereby permit one to carry there in the future as well.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬讗转讗 讛谞讱 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讙讜讗讬 注讘讬讚谉 诇讘专讗讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚谉


Rav Pappi said to him: Because you come from truncated [mula鈥檈i] people, as Rav Beivai鈥檚 family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see i Samuel 2:31), you speak truncated [mulayata] matters, as the inner wall cannot be relied upon at all. That is because these walls were made for the inside of the mansion, and they were not made for the outside; that is, they were not designed from the outset to serve as partitions for the orchard.


讛讛讬讗 讗讘讜讜专谞拽讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘讘讜住转谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诇讬注讘讬讚 诪专 转拽谞转讗 讚诇诪讞专 谞讗讻讜诇 谞讛诪讗 讛转诐


The Gemara relates: The Exilarch had a banqueting pavilion [abvarneka] in his orchard that was larger than two beit se鈥檃 and that had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. The Exilarch said to Rav Huna bar 岣nnana: Let the Master make some arrangement so that tomorrow, on Shabbat, we may eat bread there, i.e., so that we may be permitted to carry food and utensils from the house to the pavilion via the orchard.


讗讝诇 注讘讚 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讝诇 专讘讗


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana went and erected a fence of reeds, each reed separated from the next by less than three handbreadths. That is to say, he erected two such partitions between the house and the pavilion with a passageway between them, through which the Exilarch and his men could carry whatever they needed, as the partitions were constructed in the proper manner for the purpose of residence. Rava, however, went


Scroll To Top