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

Daf Yomi

September 4, 2020 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืดืค

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.ย 

Eruvin 26

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Gary Zeitlin in memory of Dr. Alexander Glassman z”l, a dedicated family man and anesthesiologist, who recently passed away at the age of 107. And in memory of Lea Ziering, Leah bat Mazalta zโ€l on her yahrzeit.ย 

The Exilarch has a dining pavillion (like an enclosure, karpaf) in an orchard and wanted to be able to carry there so they erected a fence made of reeds/posts. Rava disagreed and thought there was no need to he took it down. On Shabbat, the rabbis, including those who had helped him, started to question Rava and indeed proved him wrong. The gemara delves into the three cases brought in the mishna where Rabbi Ilai brought the law of Rabbi Eliezer – regarding the size of an enclosure, the situation where one person didn’t join the eruv chatzerot before Shabbat and gives up his/her property to the others (can others carry into his house) and where one can eat a particular vegetable/plant called akrablin, on Pesach as the bitter herb. Should one put up a house of study near someone who is deathly ill to push off the angel of death? Or will this make it worse? The gemara particularly delves into the root of the debate regarding the eruv chatzerot. The approaches are based on assumptions about human behavior. What if the person indicates they are doing something different from what one would expect one would do – do we go by what they say or do we assume that human behavior is so obviously one way that the person must not have meant what they said? What types of foods can one use/not use for eruv, maaser sheni and one who vows not to eat? Can one make an eruv with food that one cannot eat for specific reasons even though other can like an Israelite with truma or a nazir with wine? Do they need to have access to the location of the eruv? Can a priest make an eruv in a cemetery or a beit hapras?

ืฉืœืคื™ื ื”ื• ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื‘ืชืจื™ื”


and removed the reeds, as he maintained that they were unnecessary; he regarded the entire orchard as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence, owing to the banqueting pavilion. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went after him and collected the reeds, so as to prevent Rav Huna bar แธคinnana from restoring the partitions, as they were Ravaโ€™s students and wanted to enforce his ruling.


ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืขื™ืจ ื—ื“ืฉื” ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื™ืฉื™ื‘ืชื” ื•ื™ืฉื ื” ืžื—ื•ืžืชื”


On the following day, on Shabbat, Ravina raised an objection to Ravaโ€™s opinion from a baraita which states: In the case of a new town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its settled area, from where it is actually inhabited; and in the case of an old town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its wall, even if it is not inhabited up to its wall.


ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื™ืฉื ื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืžื™


What is a new town, and what is an old town? A new town is one that was first surrounded by a wall, and only afterward settled, meaning that the townโ€™s residents arrived after the wall had already been erected; an old town is one that was first settled, and only afterward surrounded by a wall. Ravina raised his objection: And this orchard should also be considered like a town that was first surrounded by a wall and only afterward settled, as it had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. Even if a dwelling was later erected there, this should not turn it into a place that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ื™ืฆื•ืช ืื“ืจื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉืžื” ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ืืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื” ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื”


Seeing that an additional objection could be raised against his teacherโ€™s position, Rav Pappa said to Rava: Didnโ€™t Rav Asi say that the temporary screens erected by architects to serve as protection against the sun and the like are not deemed valid partitions? Apparently, since it was erected only for privacy, and not for the purpose of permanent dwelling, it is not considered a valid partition. Here too, then, with regard to the fence around the orchard, since it was erected only for privacy, it should not be considered a valid partition.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื ื—ืช ืœื ืฉืžื” ืžื—ื™ืฆื”


And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Didnโ€™t Rav Huna say that a partition made for resting objects alongside it and thereby providing them with protection is not considered a valid partition?


ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžืขืจื‘ ืœื” ืœื›ื•ืœื” ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืขืจืกื™ื™ืชื ืขืจืกื™ื™ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ืจื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ืคื™ืจื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื™ ื›ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื ื—ืช ื“ืžื™ื


This is as Rabba bar Avuh did, when he constructed an eiruv separately for each row of houses in the whole town of Meแธฅoza, due to the ditches from which the cattle would feed that separated the rows of houses from one another. Shouldnโ€™t such cattle ditches be considered like a partition made for resting objects alongside it? Such a partition is invalid. All these proofs indicate that Rava was wrong to remove the reed fences erected by Rav Huna bar แธคinnana, for those fences were indeed necessary.


ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื™ืฉ ื’ืœื•ืชื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ืžื” ืœื”ืจืข ื•ืœื”ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื“ืขื•:


With regard to the resolution of this incident, the Exilarch recited the following verse about these Rabbis: โ€œThey are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledgeโ€ (Jeremiah 4:22), as on Friday they ruined the arrangement that Rav Huna bar แธคinnana had made to permit carrying from the house to the pavilion, and the next day all they could do was prove that they had acted improperly the day before and that it was prohibited to carry in the orchard.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขืื™ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ: ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื ื ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื›ืืกื˜ืจื˜ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš


We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is the size of a beit kor, thirty times larger than a beit seโ€™a. The Gemara notes that all agree that what the mishna taught was not in accordance with the opinion of แธคananya, as it was taught in a baraita that แธคananya says: One is permitted to carry even if it is the size of forty beit seโ€™a, like the court of a king.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ืœื ื™ืฆื ืืœ ื—ืฆืจ ื”ืชื™ื›ื•ื ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื—ืฆืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืืกื˜ืจื˜ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš ืฉื”ื™ื• ื›ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both Rabbi Elai and แธคananya derived their opinion from the same verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out into the middle courtyard, that the word of the Lord came to him, sayingโ€ (ii Kings 20:4). In the biblical text, it is written: โ€œThe city [haโ€™ir],โ€ and we read it as: โ€œThe middle courtyard [แธฅatzer],โ€ as there is a difference in this verse between the written word and how it is spoken. From here it is derived that royal courts were as large as intermediate-sized cities. Consequently, there is no contradiction, as the central courtyard of the royal palace was itself like a small town.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Elai and แธคananya disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Elai, maintains: Intermediate-sized towns are the size of a field that had an area of a beit kor; and one Sage, แธคananya, maintains: They are the size of forty seโ€™a.


ื•ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื”ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ืœื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื•ื”ืœืš ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืคืชื—ื•


The Gemara asks about the Biblical narrative cited above: What did Isaiah need to do there in the middle court, i.e., why was he there? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: This teaches that Hezekiah took ill, and Isaiah went and established a Torah academy at his door, so that Torah scholars would sit and occupy themselves with Torah outside his room, the merit of which would help Hezekiah survive.


ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉื—ืœื” ืฉืžื•ืฉื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืคืชื—ื• ื•ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื’ืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืฉื˜ืŸ:


Based on this, it is derived, with regard to a Torah scholar who took ill, that one establishes an academy at the entrance to his home. The Gemara comments: This, however, is not a proper course of action, as perhaps they will come to provoke Satan against him. Challenging Satan might worsen the health of a sick person rather than improve it.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืื ืฉื™ ื—ืฆืจ ืฉืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืกื•ืจ:


The mishna cites another statement made by Rabbi Elai in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: 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, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his share in the courtyard to the other residents, 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; but it is permitted to the other residents to bring objects from their houses to that other personโ€™s house via the courtyard, and vice versa.


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ื•ืœื”ืŸ


The Gemara raises an objection: Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: It is prohibited for the one who forgot to establish an eiruv to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard, and for the other residents who did make an eiruv, to take out objects from the house to the courtyard or to bring them into the house from the courtyard.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult.


ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ


This, the mishna here, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while that, the other mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


ื›ืฉืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ


Rav Sheshet adds: When you examine the matter closely, you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard also renounces his authority over his own house. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents does not renounce his authority over his own house to them.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื


The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: But it is obvious that this is the point over which the tannaโ€™im disagree.


ืืžืจ ืจื—ื‘ื” ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘


The Gemara answers: Raแธฅava said: Both Rav Huna bar แธคinnana and I explained: Rav Sheshetโ€™s explanation was necessary only with regard to the case of five people who lived in the same courtyard, one of whom forgot to join in an eiruv with the others.


ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce it to each and every one of the residents, as we already know that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who renounces authority does so in a generous manner, renouncing authority not only of his share in the courtyard, but also of his own house. Consequently, if he is required to renounce authority to many people, we assume that he does so even if this is not explicitly stated.


ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


In contrast, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, when he renounces his authority, it does not suffice that he renounces it in favor of one person; rather, he must explicitly renounce it to each and every one, as we cannot presume that he renounces authority in a generous manner.


ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


The Gemara continues: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, as explained above.


ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ื ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


Rav Kahana taught the passage this way, as cited above, that it was Raแธฅava and Rav Huna bar แธคinnana who applied Rav Sheshetโ€™s explanation to the case of the five people living in the same courtyard. Rav Tavyomei, on the other hand, taught it as follows, that it was Rav Sheshet himself who applied it to that case: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. This statement is in accordance with whose opinion? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืžืื™


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, which presumes that one renounces his authority over his house as well, if one who forgot to join in an eiruv with the other residents of the courtyard explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, and likewise, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if he explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house, what is the halakha in such cases?


ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืืžืจ ืื ื ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื


The Gemara clarifies: Is Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s reason because he maintains in general that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents presumably also renounces to them authority over his own house, but that since this person explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, he therefore maintains his authority?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ื“ื™ื™ืจื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื™ืจื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ


Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s reason is because people do not generally live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore anyone who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard automatically renounces authority over his own house regardless of what he says. Therefore, when he says: I am not renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, as even though he says: I will continue to live in and retain authority over my house, he has said nothing.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื


And the question likewise arises according to the opinion of the Rabbis. If one explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house as well, what is the halakha? Is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis because they maintain that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents presumably does not renounce authority over his own house to them, but since this person explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority over my house, the other residents should be permitted to carry?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ืžืกืœืง ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื•ื—ืฆืจ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื™ ืื•ืจื— ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจ


Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis is because one does not usually remove himself entirely from a house and courtyard, making himself like a guest among his neighbors. And therefore, when he states: I am renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, and his statement is disregarded.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื’ืœื™ ื“ืขืชื™ื” ื’ืœื™:


Abaye said to Rav Pappa in answer to his question: Both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has revealed his wishes, he has revealed them, and everything follows his express wishes.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืžืžื ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื™ื ื‘ืขืจืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืกื—: ืžืื™ ืขืจืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืฆื•ื•ืชื ื—ืจื•ื–ื™ืืชื:


The mishna records yet another teaching handed down by Rabbi Elai: And I also heard from Rabbi Eliezer another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. The Gemara asks: What is arkablin? Reish Lakish said: It is Atzvata แธฅaruziyata, a type of fiber that wraps itself around a date palm.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคืกื™ืŸ



ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉืชืชืคื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืžืœื—


MISHNA: One may establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv แธฅatzerot] in order to permit carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or more houses, and one may establish a joining of Shabbat borders [eiruv teแธฅumin] in order to extend the distance one is permitted to walk on Shabbat; and similarly, one may merge courtyards in order to permit carrying in an alleyway shared by two or more courtyards. This may be done with all kinds of food except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods and therefore may not be used for these purposes.


ื•ื”ื›ืœ ื ื™ืงื— ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืžืœื— ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื–ื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžืœื— ื•ื‘ืžื™ื


The mishna continues with two similar principles: All types of food may be bought with second-tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy 14:26), except for water and salt. Similarly, one who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered sources of nourishment.


ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for a nazirite with wine, even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted to others. And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for an Israelite with teruma, even though he may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an eiruv teแธฅumin must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. Summakhos, however, says: One may only establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food.


ื•ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืคืจืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช


It was additionally stated that one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for a priest in a beit haperas, a field containing a grave that was plowed over. There is doubt as to the location of bone fragments in the entire area. A priest is prohibited to come into contact with a corpse, and therefore may not enter a beit haperas. Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv teแธฅumin may be established for a priest even between the graves in a graveyard, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law,


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.ย 

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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 26

ืฉืœืคื™ื ื”ื• ืื–ืœ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืงื˜ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื‘ืชืจื™ื”


and removed the reeds, as he maintained that they were unnecessary; he regarded the entire orchard as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence, owing to the banqueting pavilion. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went after him and collected the reeds, so as to prevent Rav Huna bar แธคinnana from restoring the partitions, as they were Ravaโ€™s students and wanted to enforce his ruling.


ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืขื™ืจ ื—ื“ืฉื” ืžื•ื“ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžื™ืฉื™ื‘ืชื” ื•ื™ืฉื ื” ืžื—ื•ืžืชื”


On the following day, on Shabbat, Ravina raised an objection to Ravaโ€™s opinion from a baraita which states: In the case of a new town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its settled area, from where it is actually inhabited; and in the case of an old town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its wall, even if it is not inhabited up to its wall.


ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ื•ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื™ืฉื ื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื™ืฉื ื” ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื›ื”ื•ืงืคื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื™ืฉื‘ื” ื“ืžื™


What is a new town, and what is an old town? A new town is one that was first surrounded by a wall, and only afterward settled, meaning that the townโ€™s residents arrived after the wall had already been erected; an old town is one that was first settled, and only afterward surrounded by a wall. Ravina raised his objection: And this orchard should also be considered like a town that was first surrounded by a wall and only afterward settled, as it had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. Even if a dwelling was later erected there, this should not turn it into a place that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžื—ื™ืฆื•ืช ืื“ืจื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ืฉืžื” ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ืืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื” ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืฆื ื™ืขื•ืชื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื”


Seeing that an additional objection could be raised against his teacherโ€™s position, Rav Pappa said to Rava: Didnโ€™t Rav Asi say that the temporary screens erected by architects to serve as protection against the sun and the like are not deemed valid partitions? Apparently, since it was erected only for privacy, and not for the purpose of permanent dwelling, it is not considered a valid partition. Here too, then, with regard to the fence around the orchard, since it was erected only for privacy, it should not be considered a valid partition.


ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœืจื‘ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื ื—ืช ืœื ืฉืžื” ืžื—ื™ืฆื”


And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Didnโ€™t Rav Huna say that a partition made for resting objects alongside it and thereby providing them with protection is not considered a valid partition?


ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžืขืจื‘ ืœื” ืœื›ื•ืœื” ืžื—ื•ื–ื ืขืจืกื™ื™ืชื ืขืจืกื™ื™ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืคื™ืจื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ืคื™ืจื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชื•ืจื™ ื›ืžื—ื™ืฆื” ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ื” ืœื ื—ืช ื“ืžื™ื


This is as Rabba bar Avuh did, when he constructed an eiruv separately for each row of houses in the whole town of Meแธฅoza, due to the ditches from which the cattle would feed that separated the rows of houses from one another. Shouldnโ€™t such cattle ditches be considered like a partition made for resting objects alongside it? Such a partition is invalid. All these proofs indicate that Rava was wrong to remove the reed fences erected by Rav Huna bar แธคinnana, for those fences were indeed necessary.


ืงืจื™ ืขืœื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื™ืฉ ื’ืœื•ืชื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื”ืžื” ืœื”ืจืข ื•ืœื”ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื“ืขื•:


With regard to the resolution of this incident, the Exilarch recited the following verse about these Rabbis: โ€œThey are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledgeโ€ (Jeremiah 4:22), as on Friday they ruined the arrangement that Rav Huna bar แธคinnana had made to permit carrying from the house to the pavilion, and the next day all they could do was prove that they had acted improperly the day before and that it was prohibited to carry in the orchard.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขืื™ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ: ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื ื ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื›ืืกื˜ืจื˜ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš


We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is the size of a beit kor, thirty times larger than a beit seโ€™a. The Gemara notes that all agree that what the mishna taught was not in accordance with the opinion of แธคananya, as it was taught in a baraita that แธคananya says: One is permitted to carry even if it is the size of forty beit seโ€™a, like the court of a king.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืžืงืจื ืื—ื“ ื“ืจืฉื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ืœื ื™ืฆื ืืœ ื—ืฆืจ ื”ืชื™ื›ื•ื ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื—ืฆืจ ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืืกื˜ืจื˜ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš ืฉื”ื™ื• ื›ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Both Rabbi Elai and แธคananya derived their opinion from the same verse, as it is stated: โ€œAnd it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out into the middle courtyard, that the word of the Lord came to him, sayingโ€ (ii Kings 20:4). In the biblical text, it is written: โ€œThe city [haโ€™ir],โ€ and we read it as: โ€œThe middle courtyard [แธฅatzer],โ€ as there is a difference in this verse between the written word and how it is spoken. From here it is derived that royal courts were as large as intermediate-sized cities. Consequently, there is no contradiction, as the central courtyard of the royal palace was itself like a small town.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Elai and แธคananya disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Elai, maintains: Intermediate-sized towns are the size of a field that had an area of a beit kor; and one Sage, แธคananya, maintains: They are the size of forty seโ€™a.


ื•ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื”ืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ืœื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื•ื”ืœืš ื™ืฉืขื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืคืชื—ื•


The Gemara asks about the Biblical narrative cited above: What did Isaiah need to do there in the middle court, i.e., why was he there? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar แธคana said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: This teaches that Hezekiah took ill, and Isaiah went and established a Torah academy at his door, so that Torah scholars would sit and occupy themselves with Torah outside his room, the merit of which would help Hezekiah survive.


ืžื›ืืŸ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ื—ื›ื ืฉื—ืœื” ืฉืžื•ืฉื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืคืชื—ื• ื•ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื™ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื’ืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืฉื˜ืŸ:


Based on this, it is derived, with regard to a Torah scholar who took ill, that one establishes an academy at the entrance to his home. The Gemara comments: This, however, is not a proper course of action, as perhaps they will come to provoke Satan against him. Challenging Satan might worsen the health of a sick person rather than improve it.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืื ืฉื™ ื—ืฆืจ ืฉืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืกื•ืจ:


The mishna cites another statement made by Rabbi Elai in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: 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, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his share in the courtyard to the other residents, 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; but it is permitted to the other residents to bring objects from their houses to that other personโ€™s house via the courtyard, and vice versa.


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื• ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืœื”ื›ื ื™ืก ืœื• ื•ืœื”ืŸ


The Gemara raises an objection: Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: It is prohibited for the one who forgot to establish an eiruv to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard, and for the other residents who did make an eiruv, to take out objects from the house to the courtyard or to bring them into the house from the courtyard.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื ืงืฉื™ื


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult.


ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ


This, the mishna here, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while that, the other mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


ื›ืฉืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ


Rav Sheshet adds: When you examine the matter closely, you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard also renounces his authority over his own house. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents does not renounce his authority over his own house to them.


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื


The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: But it is obvious that this is the point over which the tannaโ€™im disagree.


ืืžืจ ืจื—ื‘ื” ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘


The Gemara answers: Raแธฅava said: Both Rav Huna bar แธคinnana and I explained: Rav Sheshetโ€™s explanation was necessary only with regard to the case of five people who lived in the same courtyard, one of whom forgot to join in an eiruv with the others.


ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce it to each and every one of the residents, as we already know that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who renounces authority does so in a generous manner, renouncing authority not only of his share in the courtyard, but also of his own house. Consequently, if he is required to renounce authority to many people, we assume that he does so even if this is not explicitly stated.


ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“


In contrast, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, when he renounces his authority, it does not suffice that he renounces it in favor of one person; rather, he must explicitly renounce it to each and every one, as we cannot presume that he renounces authority in a generous manner.


ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


The Gemara continues: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, as explained above.


ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ืื–ืœื ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉืฉืจื•ื™ื ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื—ื“ ื•ืฉื›ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืจื‘ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ


Rav Kahana taught the passage this way, as cited above, that it was Raแธฅava and Rav Huna bar แธคinnana who applied Rav Sheshetโ€™s explanation to the case of the five people living in the same courtyard. Rav Tavyomei, on the other hand, taught it as follows, that it was Rav Sheshet himself who applied it to that case: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. This statement is in accordance with whose opinion? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืžืื™


Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, which presumes that one renounces his authority over his house as well, if one who forgot to join in an eiruv with the other residents of the courtyard explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, and likewise, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if he explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house, what is the halakha in such cases?


ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืืžืจ ืื ื ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื


The Gemara clarifies: Is Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s reason because he maintains in general that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents presumably also renounces to them authority over his own house, but that since this person explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, he therefore maintains his authority?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ื“ื“ื™ื™ืจื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื™ื™ืจื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ


Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s reason is because people do not generally live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore anyone who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard automatically renounces authority over his own house regardless of what he says. Therefore, when he says: I am not renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, as even though he says: I will continue to live in and retain authority over my house, he has said nothing.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืกื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื‘ื˜ืœ ืจืฉื•ืช ื—ืฆื™ืจื• ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื ื‘ื™ื˜ืœ ื•ื”ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื


And the question likewise arises according to the opinion of the Rabbis. If one explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house as well, what is the halakha? Is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis because they maintain that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents presumably does not renounce authority over his own house to them, but since this person explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority over my house, the other residents should be permitted to carry?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื“ืžืกืœืง ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื•ื—ืฆืจ ื•ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื™ ืื•ืจื— ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ืื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื˜ื™ืœื ื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจ


Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis is because one does not usually remove himself entirely from a house and courtyard, making himself like a guest among his neighbors. And therefore, when he states: I am renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, and his statement is disregarded.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื’ืœื™ ื“ืขืชื™ื” ื’ืœื™:


Abaye said to Rav Pappa in answer to his question: Both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has revealed his wishes, he has revealed them, and everything follows his express wishes.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืžืžื ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฆืื™ื ื‘ืขืจืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืคืกื—: ืžืื™ ืขืจืงื‘ืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืฆื•ื•ืชื ื—ืจื•ื–ื™ืืชื:


The mishna records yet another teaching handed down by Rabbi Elai: And I also heard from Rabbi Eliezer another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. The Gemara asks: What is arkablin? Reish Lakish said: It is Atzvata แธฅaruziyata, a type of fiber that wraps itself around a date palm.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืคืกื™ืŸ



ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉืชืชืคื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืžืœื—


MISHNA: One may establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv แธฅatzerot] in order to permit carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or more houses, and one may establish a joining of Shabbat borders [eiruv teแธฅumin] in order to extend the distance one is permitted to walk on Shabbat; and similarly, one may merge courtyards in order to permit carrying in an alleyway shared by two or more courtyards. This may be done with all kinds of food except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods and therefore may not be used for these purposes.


ื•ื”ื›ืœ ื ื™ืงื— ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžืขืฉืจ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืžืœื— ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื–ื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืžืœื— ื•ื‘ืžื™ื


The mishna continues with two similar principles: All types of food may be bought with second-tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy 14:26), except for water and salt. Similarly, one who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered sources of nourishment.


ืžืขืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for a nazirite with wine, even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted to others. And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for an Israelite with teruma, even though he may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an eiruv teแธฅumin must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. Summakhos, however, says: One may only establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food.


ื•ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืคืจืก ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช


It was additionally stated that one may establish an eiruv teแธฅumin for a priest in a beit haperas, a field containing a grave that was plowed over. There is doubt as to the location of bone fragments in the entire area. A priest is prohibited to come into contact with a corpse, and therefore may not enter a beit haperas. Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv teแธฅumin may be established for a priest even between the graves in a graveyard, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law,


Scroll To Top