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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2020 | 讬状讟 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

Eruvin 30

This week’s learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha in honor of Judge Norman Krivosha. My father, Judge Norman Krivosha, has encouraged my sister and me, since we were young girls growing up in the sixties, that girls could do anything to which we set our minds. Who would have ever thought that could mean reading the entire talmud from beginning to end? He has been and still is my mentor, father, friend and advisor and I love him very much.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mindy and Eric Hecht and family in honor of their niece Talya Agus who is drafting today. We are so proud of you and wish you much success over the next two years of your service to Medinat Yisrael.

Do we determine the amount of food one needs to use for the eruv based on the average person or based on the specific person making the eruv. Is it objective or subjective? If one vows not to eat a certain food, can one use it for the eruv? Does it depend on the wording used for the vow – whether or not it included not benefiting from the bread? Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not an Israelite can use an eruv with truma or a nazir with wine. What does Sumchus hold that an Israelite cannot use truma for an eruv but a nazir can use wine? Why can a priest put his eruv in a beit hapras where there may be bones from a dead body? What it the root of the debate in the mishna regarding a priest putting an eruv in a cemetery?

讗讘诇 讘讙讚讬 注砖讬专讬诐 诇注谞讬讬诐 诇讗

But the clothing of the wealthy does not need to be three by three handbreadths in order to become ritually impure for the poor because even smaller pieces of cloth are significant for the poor. Therefore, the law with regard to the poor is not determined by the customary practice of the rich. So too, the law of eiruv pertaining to the rest of the world should not be determined by the customary practice of the Persians to eat roasted meat as a food in itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讻讚讬 诪讝讜谞讜 讜诇专注讘转谉 讘住注讜讚讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 拽砖讬讗

And if you say: Both here the ruling is stringent, and there the ruling is stringent, i.e., with regard to ritual impurity the halakha is stringent with respect to the poor and declares scraps of cloth that are only three by three fingerbreadths impure, but with regard to eiruv the halakha requires enough roasted meat to suffice for two meals as a food in its own right, in accordance with the practice of the Persians, then there is a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals, and if he eats less than the average person due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is required in order to establish an eiruv on his behalf; however, for a glutton, we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him but merely enough food for two meals measured according to an average meal for the typical person? This indicates that the halakha with respect to an eiruv is lenient and not stringent. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讬转讞讜 讻诪诇讜讗讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the aforementioned baraita: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar really say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita pertaining to the laws of ritual impurity that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Og, king of the Bashan, or any similar giant, requires an opening as big as his full size? If a person dies in a house and it is not clear how his corpse will be removed, all of the openings in the house are considered ritually impure, as the corpse might be carried out through any one of them. If the corpse can fit through some of the openings but not through others, only the larger openings are ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that in the case of a giant the size of Og, king of the Bashan, one opening can only prevent the others from contracting impurity if it is large enough for Og鈥檚 corpse to fit through. This indicates that the law is determined by the measure of each particular person and not by some general measure.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 讛讚讜诪讬 谞讛讚诪讬讛 [讜谞驻拽讬讛]

The Gemara asks: And what does Abaye say? How does he reconcile his position with regard to an eiruv, which maintains that we follow the customary practice of most of the world and not that of particular locales, with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 ruling with regard to the corpse of a giant? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a giant, what should we do? Should we cut the corpse into pieces and carry it out? We have no choice but to carry it out through an opening large enough for the corpse to pass through. However, in the case of the food for the two meals of an eiruv, there is no such logistical constraint, and the law should be determined in accordance with the usual practice.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讬转讞讜 讘讗专讘注讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or not? Come and hear a proof from that which Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Og, king of the Bashan, requires an opening of four handbreadths in order to save the other openings in the house from becoming ritually impure. This indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讟讜讘讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚讛讜讬 讗专讘注讛 讚讜讚讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪专讜讞 讘讛讛讜讗 拽讗 诪专讜讞

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, we are dealing with a case where there are many small openings, and there is only one that is four handbreadths wide. Therefore, it may be assumed with certainty that when one widens one of the openings in order to remove the corpse from the house, he will widen that opening. Consequently, that opening is ritually impure while the others are not. However, if all the openings in the house are equal in size, they are all ritually impure, as we cannot know through which opening the corpse will be carried out.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘砖专 讞讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讞讬讜转 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞转 住讬谞讬 讗诪专 砖转讬诐:

Returning to the laws of eiruv, Rav 岣yya bar Rav Ashi said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with raw meat because it can be eaten when necessary, even though it is not ordinarily regarded as food. Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said: One may also establish an eiruv with raw eggs. The Gemara asks: How many eggs are required for an eiruv? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One. Sinai, a nickname of Rav Yosef, said: Two.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讬诐 讻讜壮: 诪诇讞 讜诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讬拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚

We learned in the mishna: One who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is permitted to eat water and salt. The Gemara infers from this: It is only salt and water that are not considered nourishment, but all other food items are considered nourishment. Let us say that this is a refutation of the position of Rav and Shmuel. As it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One only recites the blessing: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, but not over other types of food.

讜诇讗 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讛讗

The Gemara asks a question: Did we not already refute their position on one occasion from a different source? The Gemara answers: Indeed, we already refuted their view, but let us say that there is a refutation of their position from here as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讝谉 注诇讬 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讝讬讬谞讬 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讝讬讬谞讬

Rav Huna said: We can resolve the difficulty from the mishna by saying that it is referring to someone who vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. In that case, it is water and salt that are permitted to him, as they do not nourish, but all other food items are prohibited, as they do nourish. This inclusive formulation includes anything that provides even a small degree of nourishment; but the particular term mazon, nourishment or sustenance, used in the blessing over food, is reserved only for the five species of grain.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬讻诇 驻讬专讬 讚讙讬谞讜住专 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 诪讗讛 讛讜讛 诪谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 注砖专讛 注砖专讛 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 注砖专讛 讛讜讛 诪谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 讜讻诇 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 (诇讗) 讛讜讬 诪讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜 爪谞讗 讘转 转诇转讗 住讗讜讬 讜讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜谉 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注转讗 讚诇讗 讟注讬诐 诇讬 讝讬讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讝讜谞讗

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say: When we were following Rabbi Yo岣nan to eat of the fruits of Genosar, very sweet fruits that grow in the region of the Sea of Galilee, when we were a group of a hundred people, each and every person would take ten fruits; and when we were a group of ten, each and every person would take a hundred fruits for him. And each hundred of these fruits could not fit into a three-se鈥檃 basket. And Rabbi Yo岣nan would eat them all and then say: I swear that I have not yet tasted something that nourishes. Didn鈥檛 we say that only water and salt are excluded from the category of things that nourish? The Gemara corrects the rendition of the story: Say that he said as follows: I have not tasted sustaining food, but fruit is certainly considered something that nourishes.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it because the food used for an eiruv does not have to be edible for the particular individual the eiruv services. However, if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as this formulation indicates that he is prohibiting himself to use or benefit from the loaf in any manner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 讚讗诪专 讝讜

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: With regard to one who vows not to benefit from a loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it. What, is it not referring to one who said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is only is referring to a case where he said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讟注诪谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in this fashion, as it was taught in the latter clause: When do we apply this halakha? Only when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 注诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛拽讚砖讜转 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: But if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, what is the halakha? So too, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. But if so, there is a difficulty. Instead of teaching in the continuation of the baraita that if one said: This loaf is consecrated property, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as one may not establish an eiruv with consecrated objects, let him make an internal distinction in the case of a non-sacred loaf itself and state: In what case is this statement said? Only where one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf. But if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. This indicates that Rav Huna鈥檚 understanding of the baraita is incorrect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诪注专讘讬谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗

Rav Huna could have said to you: Rather, what would you say, that wherever one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may establish an eiruv for him with it? If so, there is a difficulty from the first clause of the baraita, which states: When do we say this? Only when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it. That indicates that if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 注诇讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讟注诪谞讛

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete, and it teaches the following: With regard to one who vows not to benefit from a loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it. And even if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, it is as though he said: I swear that I shall not taste it. Therefore, the loaf itself is only forbidden to him as food, but he can use it for the purpose of an eiruv.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, the difficulty remains according to the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: He stated his view in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may establish an eiruv for him with it; but if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讗讜讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讗讜讻诇 讛谞讗住专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜转

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Eliezer really say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: With regard to a person who prohibits himself from eating a particular food, e.g., if one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may establish an eiruv for him with that loaf. However, if the food was prohibited to a person, e.g., if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may establish an eiruv for him with it. However, if he said: This loaf is consecrated property, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as one may not establish an eiruv for him with consecrated objects. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between the two differently worded types of vows, but between a vow and consecration.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专:

The Gemara answers: It must be explained that these are two tanna鈥檌m who both held according to Rabbi Eliezer. Two later tanna鈥檌m disagreed with each other in reporting Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion.

诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma, even though they themselves may not partake of these foods. The Gemara comments: The mishna was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma. Beit Hillel disagree and say: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede

砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

that one may establish an eiruv for an adult even on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that he may not eat on Yom Kippur? It must be because eating is permitted to a minor.

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛

Beit Shammai said to them: Indeed [aval], it is so. Beit Hillel said to them: Just as one may establish an eiruv for an adult on Yom Kippur, so too, one may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

And how do Beit Shammai explain the difference between these cases? The Gemara explains: There, with regard to Yom Kippur, there is at least a meal that was fit to be eaten by that person while it was still day, on the eve of Yom Kippur. Here, in the cases of wine for a nazirite and teruma for an Israelite, there is no meal that was fit to be eaten by them while it was still day, on Friday.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讟转讜 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 诇砖诐

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was that entire baraita stated? It was not taught in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, as it was taught in another baraita that 岣nanya says: The whole view of Beit Shammai, i.e., their fundamental position, was that they did not concede to the very possibility of joining Shabbat borders [eiruv te岣min] by simply placing food in a particular location. Rather, they hold that one鈥檚 Shabbat residence remains the same until he literally moves his residence, such as if he carries out his bed and his utensils to there, to a new location.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讬专讘 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讘诇讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: If one established an eiruv in black clothing, and Shabbat commenced while he was still dressed those clothes, he may not go out in white clothing. If one established the eiruv while dressed in white, he may not go out in black. According to whose opinion is this halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of 岣nanya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜诇讞谞谞讬讛 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讬爪讗 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讟转讜 讜讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 诇砖诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讬专讘 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇砖讞讜专讬诐 讗祝 讘诇讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of 岣nanya, is it with black clothing that he may not go out, but in white clothing he may go out? Didn鈥檛 岣nanya say that according to Beit Shammai an eiruv is not effective at all until one carries out his bed and his utensils to the place he wishes to establish as his residence? The Gemara answers: The wording of the baraita must be emended and this is what it said: If one established an eiruv while dressed in white clothing, and he needed black clothing but did not have it with him, he may not go out even in white clothing. In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of 岣nanya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇讬谉: 讜讗讬诇讜 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪转砖讬诇 讗谞讝讬专讜转讬讛

We learned in the mishna: Summakhos disagrees and says: One may not establish an eiruv for an Israelite with teruma, but only with regular, non-sacred food items. The Gemara notes: But with regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that an eiruv may be established for a nazirite with wine, Summakhos does not appear to disagree. What is the reason for the distinction? The Gemara explains: A nazirite can ask a Sage to annul his vow and release him from his nazirite status, and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚诪讬转砖讬诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬 诪转砖讬诇 注诇讛 讛讚专讗 诇讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma as well, one can ask a Sage to annul its status. Teruma is consecrated through a verbal declaration by the one separating it, and that declaration, like other consecrations and vows, can be nullified by a Sage. The Gemara answers: Such a course of action would not help. If one asks a Sage to annul his declaration that turned the produce into teruma, the produce will return to its status as tevel, produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated, and he will still be prohibited to consume it.

讜诇讬驻专讜砖 注诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘讬专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma for that produce from produce located somewhere else and thus permit it to be eaten. The Gemara answers: 岣verim, members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce it comes to exempt, as this is prohibited ab initio.

讜诇驻专讜砖 注诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讬注讜专讗

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma from the produce used for the eiruv itself and consequently permit the rest of the produce to be eaten. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a case where, after removing teruma, it would not contain the amount required for an eiruv, i.e., one would be left with less than the quantity of food sufficient for two meals.

讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讗诇讗 住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara asks: What makes it necessary to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case? Rather, we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: Summakhos agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself. Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well. Therefore, during twilight, when the eiruv would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讬砖 砖讗诪专讜 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讛讜讗 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 诪谞讞讛 讜诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 拽讟专转 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇注讬专讜讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara now asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that we learned in the following mishna: There are halakhot with regard to which they stated that measures are all in accordance with the particular person involved, e.g., the handful of flour that a priest scoops out from a meal-offering, and the handfuls of incense the High Priest would offer on Yom Kippur, and one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the measure of two meals鈥 worth of nourishment for an eiruv. All these measures are determined by the particular individual involved. In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Rabbi Zeira said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Summakhos, who said: We require that which is fit for him, the particular individual, and we do not follow a standard measure.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讻讚讬 诪讝讜谞讜 讜诇专注讘转谉 讘住注讜讚讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the aforementioned mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals; and if he eats less than the average amount due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is sufficient. But for a glutton we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him; we measure on the basis of an average meal for the typical person.

转专讙讜诪讗 讗讞讜诇讛 讜讝拽谉 讗讘诇 专注讘转谉 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐:

The Gemara answers: When the mishna says that the measure of food for two meals is determined by the particular person involved, interpret that as referring to an ill or elderly person. But with regard to a glutton, we do not determine the measure of food by his standard for a different reason, namely because his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. Therefore, there is no reason to be stringent with him and determine the measure according to his particular needs.

讜诇讻讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住: 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专:

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a priest in a beit haperas, an area in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave or a corpse. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a time of need a person may blow on the dust in a beit haperas before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it, and he may thus walk across the area. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, as we assume that it no longer contains any bones as large as a kernel of barley. Both of these statements indicate that the ritual impurity of a beit haperas is a stringency decreed by the Sages. Therefore, since there is a way to avoid becoming ritually impure there, even a priest may place his eiruv in a beit haperas.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转: 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讞讜抓 讜诇讬诇讱 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 拽讗 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv may be established for a priest even in a cemetery, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law. It was taught: This is permitted because the priest can interpose and walk between the graves inside a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard. These containers do not contract impurity because of their large size, and anything found inside of them remains pure. From here we see that he holds the following: A moving tent is called a tent, and therefore the carriage, box, or cupboard are also considered tents. They shield a person carried in them from the impurity imparted by the graves in a cemetery.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专

The Gemara notes that this matter is the subject of a dispute between the following tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside Eretz Yisrael, not on foot, but in a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, renders him pure.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent. The principle is that only something fixed can shield against ritual impurity, but if one is situated inside a portable vessel, the vessel contracts impurity and he becomes impure along with it. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent is called a tent, and it shields the person inside from contracting ritual impurity.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

And with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 30

讗讘诇 讘讙讚讬 注砖讬专讬诐 诇注谞讬讬诐 诇讗

But the clothing of the wealthy does not need to be three by three handbreadths in order to become ritually impure for the poor because even smaller pieces of cloth are significant for the poor. Therefore, the law with regard to the poor is not determined by the customary practice of the rich. So too, the law of eiruv pertaining to the rest of the world should not be determined by the customary practice of the Persians to eat roasted meat as a food in itself.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讻讚讬 诪讝讜谞讜 讜诇专注讘转谉 讘住注讜讚讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 拽砖讬讗

And if you say: Both here the ruling is stringent, and there the ruling is stringent, i.e., with regard to ritual impurity the halakha is stringent with respect to the poor and declares scraps of cloth that are only three by three fingerbreadths impure, but with regard to eiruv the halakha requires enough roasted meat to suffice for two meals as a food in its own right, in accordance with the practice of the Persians, then there is a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals, and if he eats less than the average person due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is required in order to establish an eiruv on his behalf; however, for a glutton, we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him but merely enough food for two meals measured according to an average meal for the typical person? This indicates that the halakha with respect to an eiruv is lenient and not stringent. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讬转讞讜 讻诪诇讜讗讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the aforementioned baraita: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar really say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita pertaining to the laws of ritual impurity that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Og, king of the Bashan, or any similar giant, requires an opening as big as his full size? If a person dies in a house and it is not clear how his corpse will be removed, all of the openings in the house are considered ritually impure, as the corpse might be carried out through any one of them. If the corpse can fit through some of the openings but not through others, only the larger openings are ritually impure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that in the case of a giant the size of Og, king of the Bashan, one opening can only prevent the others from contracting impurity if it is large enough for Og鈥檚 corpse to fit through. This indicates that the law is determined by the measure of each particular person and not by some general measure.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 讛讚讜诪讬 谞讛讚诪讬讛 [讜谞驻拽讬讛]

The Gemara asks: And what does Abaye say? How does he reconcile his position with regard to an eiruv, which maintains that we follow the customary practice of most of the world and not that of particular locales, with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 ruling with regard to the corpse of a giant? The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a giant, what should we do? Should we cut the corpse into pieces and carry it out? We have no choice but to carry it out through an opening large enough for the corpse to pass through. However, in the case of the food for the two meals of an eiruv, there is no such logistical constraint, and the law should be determined in accordance with the usual practice.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜讙 诪诇讱 讛讘砖谉 驻讬转讞讜 讘讗专讘注讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or not? Come and hear a proof from that which Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Og, king of the Bashan, requires an opening of four handbreadths in order to save the other openings in the house from becoming ritually impure. This indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻转讞讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讟讜讘讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讞讚 讚讛讜讬 讗专讘注讛 讚讜讚讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪专讜讞 讘讛讛讜讗 拽讗 诪专讜讞

The Gemara rejects this proof: There, we are dealing with a case where there are many small openings, and there is only one that is four handbreadths wide. Therefore, it may be assumed with certainty that when one widens one of the openings in order to remove the corpse from the house, he will widen that opening. Consequently, that opening is ritually impure while the others are not. However, if all the openings in the house are equal in size, they are all ritually impure, as we cannot know through which opening the corpse will be carried out.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘砖专 讞讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘讬爪讬诐 讞讬讜转 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞转 住讬谞讬 讗诪专 砖转讬诐:

Returning to the laws of eiruv, Rav 岣yya bar Rav Ashi said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with raw meat because it can be eaten when necessary, even though it is not ordinarily regarded as food. Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said: One may also establish an eiruv with raw eggs. The Gemara asks: How many eggs are required for an eiruv? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: One. Sinai, a nickname of Rav Yosef, said: Two.

讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谉 诪讜转专 讘诪讬诐 讻讜壮: 诪诇讞 讜诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讬拽专讬 诪讝讜谉 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘讜专讗 诪讬谞讬 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 讞诪砖转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讘诇讘讚

We learned in the mishna: One who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is permitted to eat water and salt. The Gemara infers from this: It is only salt and water that are not considered nourishment, but all other food items are considered nourishment. Let us say that this is a refutation of the position of Rav and Shmuel. As it was Rav and Shmuel who both said: One only recites the blessing: Who creates the various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, but not over other types of food.

讜诇讗 讗讜转讘讬谞讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讛讗

The Gemara asks a question: Did we not already refute their position on one occasion from a different source? The Gemara answers: Indeed, we already refuted their view, but let us say that there is a refutation of their position from here as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讝谉 注诇讬 诪讬诐 讜诪诇讞 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讝讬讬谞讬 讛讗 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讝讬讬谞讬

Rav Huna said: We can resolve the difficulty from the mishna by saying that it is referring to someone who vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. In that case, it is water and salt that are permitted to him, as they do not nourish, but all other food items are prohibited, as they do nourish. This inclusive formulation includes anything that provides even a small degree of nourishment; but the particular term mazon, nourishment or sustenance, used in the blessing over food, is reserved only for the five species of grain.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讬讻诇 驻讬专讬 讚讙讬谞讜住专 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 诪讗讛 讛讜讛 诪谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 注砖专讛 注砖专讛 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 注砖专讛 讛讜讛 诪谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪讗讛 诪讗讛 讜讻诇 诪讗讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 (诇讗) 讛讜讬 诪讞讝讬拽 诇讛讜 爪谞讗 讘转 转诇转讗 住讗讜讬 讜讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜谉 讜讗诪专 砖讘讜注转讗 讚诇讗 讟注讬诐 诇讬 讝讬讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讝讜谞讗

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say: When we were following Rabbi Yo岣nan to eat of the fruits of Genosar, very sweet fruits that grow in the region of the Sea of Galilee, when we were a group of a hundred people, each and every person would take ten fruits; and when we were a group of ten, each and every person would take a hundred fruits for him. And each hundred of these fruits could not fit into a three-se鈥檃 basket. And Rabbi Yo岣nan would eat them all and then say: I swear that I have not yet tasted something that nourishes. Didn鈥檛 we say that only water and salt are excluded from the category of things that nourish? The Gemara corrects the rendition of the story: Say that he said as follows: I have not tasted sustaining food, but fruit is certainly considered something that nourishes.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

Rav Huna said that Rav said: If one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it because the food used for an eiruv does not have to be edible for the particular individual the eiruv services. However, if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as this formulation indicates that he is prohibiting himself to use or benefit from the loaf in any manner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 讚讗诪专 讝讜

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita: With regard to one who vows not to benefit from a loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it. What, is it not referring to one who said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is only is referring to a case where he said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讟注诪谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand the baraita in this fashion, as it was taught in the latter clause: When do we apply this halakha? Only when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 注诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛拽讚砖讜转 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讗诪专 讝讜 讗讘诇 讗诪专 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara asks: But if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, what is the halakha? So too, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. But if so, there is a difficulty. Instead of teaching in the continuation of the baraita that if one said: This loaf is consecrated property, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as one may not establish an eiruv with consecrated objects, let him make an internal distinction in the case of a non-sacred loaf itself and state: In what case is this statement said? Only where one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf. But if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. This indicates that Rav Huna鈥檚 understanding of the baraita is incorrect.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诪注专讘讬谉 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗

Rav Huna could have said to you: Rather, what would you say, that wherever one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may establish an eiruv for him with it? If so, there is a difficulty from the first clause of the baraita, which states: When do we say this? Only when one said: I swear that I shall not taste it. That indicates that if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛谞讜讚专 诪谉 讛讻讻专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专 注诇讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讟注诪谞讛

The Gemara answers that the baraita is incomplete, and it teaches the following: With regard to one who vows not to benefit from a loaf, one may nonetheless establish an eiruv for him with it. And even if one said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, it is as though he said: I swear that I shall not taste it. Therefore, the loaf itself is only forbidden to him as food, but he can use it for the purpose of an eiruv.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讜 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: Nevertheless, the difficulty remains according to the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: He stated his view in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may establish an eiruv for him with it; but if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注爪诪讜 讘讗讜讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讗讜讻诇 讛谞讗住专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讝讜 注诇讬 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讻专 讝讜 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜转

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Eliezer really say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: With regard to a person who prohibits himself from eating a particular food, e.g., if one said: I swear that I shall not eat this loaf, one may establish an eiruv for him with that loaf. However, if the food was prohibited to a person, e.g., if he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he said: This loaf shall be forbidden to me, one may establish an eiruv for him with it. However, if he said: This loaf is consecrated property, one may not establish an eiruv for him with it, as one may not establish an eiruv for him with consecrated objects. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between the two differently worded types of vows, but between a vow and consecration.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专:

The Gemara answers: It must be explained that these are two tanna鈥檌m who both held according to Rabbi Eliezer. Two later tanna鈥檌m disagreed with each other in reporting Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion.

诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讻讜壮: 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma, even though they themselves may not partake of these foods. The Gemara comments: The mishna was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma. Beit Hillel disagree and say: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Do you not concede

砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

that one may establish an eiruv for an adult even on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that he may not eat on Yom Kippur? It must be because eating is permitted to a minor.

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讻砖诐 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讘转专讜诪讛

Beit Shammai said to them: Indeed [aval], it is so. Beit Hillel said to them: Just as one may establish an eiruv for an adult on Yom Kippur, so too, one may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讛讻讗 诇讬讻讗 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

And how do Beit Shammai explain the difference between these cases? The Gemara explains: There, with regard to Yom Kippur, there is at least a meal that was fit to be eaten by that person while it was still day, on the eve of Yom Kippur. Here, in the cases of wine for a nazirite and teruma for an Israelite, there is no meal that was fit to be eaten by them while it was still day, on Friday.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注爪诪谉 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讬讜 诪讜讚讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讟转讜 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 诇砖诐

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was that entire baraita stated? It was not taught in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya, as it was taught in another baraita that 岣nanya says: The whole view of Beit Shammai, i.e., their fundamental position, was that they did not concede to the very possibility of joining Shabbat borders [eiruv te岣min] by simply placing food in a particular location. Rather, they hold that one鈥檚 Shabbat residence remains the same until he literally moves his residence, such as if he carries out his bed and his utensils to there, to a new location.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讬专讘 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讘诇讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: If one established an eiruv in black clothing, and Shabbat commenced while he was still dressed those clothes, he may not go out in white clothing. If one established the eiruv while dressed in white, he may not go out in black. According to whose opinion is this halakha? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of 岣nanya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

讜诇讞谞谞讬讛 讘砖讞讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讗 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讬爪讗 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讟转讜 讜讻诇讬 转砖诪讬砖讬讜 诇砖诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讬专讘 讘诇讘谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪专讱 诇砖讞讜专讬诐 讗祝 讘诇讘谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讞谞谞讬讛 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬:

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of 岣nanya, is it with black clothing that he may not go out, but in white clothing he may go out? Didn鈥檛 岣nanya say that according to Beit Shammai an eiruv is not effective at all until one carries out his bed and his utensils to the place he wishes to establish as his residence? The Gemara answers: The wording of the baraita must be emended and this is what it said: If one established an eiruv while dressed in white clothing, and he needed black clothing but did not have it with him, he may not go out even in white clothing. In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is the opinion of 岣nanya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 讘讞讜诇讬谉: 讜讗讬诇讜 诇谞讝讬专 讘讬讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪转砖讬诇 讗谞讝讬专讜转讬讛

We learned in the mishna: Summakhos disagrees and says: One may not establish an eiruv for an Israelite with teruma, but only with regular, non-sacred food items. The Gemara notes: But with regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that an eiruv may be established for a nazirite with wine, Summakhos does not appear to disagree. What is the reason for the distinction? The Gemara explains: A nazirite can ask a Sage to annul his vow and release him from his nazirite status, and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚诪讬转砖讬诇 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讬 诪转砖讬诇 注诇讛 讛讚专讗 诇讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma as well, one can ask a Sage to annul its status. Teruma is consecrated through a verbal declaration by the one separating it, and that declaration, like other consecrations and vows, can be nullified by a Sage. The Gemara answers: Such a course of action would not help. If one asks a Sage to annul his declaration that turned the produce into teruma, the produce will return to its status as tevel, produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated, and he will still be prohibited to consume it.

讜诇讬驻专讜砖 注诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘讬专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma for that produce from produce located somewhere else and thus permit it to be eaten. The Gemara answers: 岣verim, members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce it comes to exempt, as this is prohibited ab initio.

讜诇驻专讜砖 注诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讘讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讬注讜专讗

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma from the produce used for the eiruv itself and consequently permit the rest of the produce to be eaten. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a case where, after removing teruma, it would not contain the amount required for an eiruv, i.e., one would be left with less than the quantity of food sufficient for two meals.

讜诪讗讬 驻住拽讗 讗诇讗 住讜诪讻讜住 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara asks: What makes it necessary to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case? Rather, we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: Summakhos agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself. Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well. Therefore, during twilight, when the eiruv would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讬砖 砖讗诪专讜 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 诪讛 砖讛讜讗 讗讚诐 诪诇讗 拽讜诪爪讜 诪谞讞讛 讜诪诇讗 讞驻谞讬讜 拽讟专转 讜讛砖讜转讛 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇注讬专讜讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara now asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that we learned in the following mishna: There are halakhot with regard to which they stated that measures are all in accordance with the particular person involved, e.g., the handful of flour that a priest scoops out from a meal-offering, and the handfuls of incense the High Priest would offer on Yom Kippur, and one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the measure of two meals鈥 worth of nourishment for an eiruv. All these measures are determined by the particular individual involved. In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? Rabbi Zeira said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Summakhos, who said: We require that which is fit for him, the particular individual, and we do not follow a standard measure.

诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讗讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇讝拽谉 讻讚讬 诪讝讜谞讜 讜诇专注讘转谉 讘住注讜讚讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the aforementioned mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals; and if he eats less than the average amount due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is sufficient. But for a glutton we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him; we measure on the basis of an average meal for the typical person.

转专讙讜诪讗 讗讞讜诇讛 讜讝拽谉 讗讘诇 专注讘转谉 讘讟诇讛 讚注转讜 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐:

The Gemara answers: When the mishna says that the measure of food for two meals is determined by the particular person involved, interpret that as referring to an ill or elderly person. But with regard to a glutton, we do not determine the measure of food by his standard for a different reason, namely because his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. Therefore, there is no reason to be stringent with him and determine the measure according to his particular needs.

讜诇讻讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住: 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞驻讞 讗讚诐 讘讬转 讛驻专住 讜讛讜诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讬转 讛驻专住 砖谞讬讚砖 讟讛讜专:

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a priest in a beit haperas, an area in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave or a corpse. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a time of need a person may blow on the dust in a beit haperas before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it, and he may thus walk across the area. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, as we assume that it no longer contains any bones as large as a kernel of barley. Both of these statements indicate that the ritual impurity of a beit haperas is a stringency decreed by the Sages. Therefore, since there is a way to avoid becoming ritually impure there, even a priest may place his eiruv in a beit haperas.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转: 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讞讜抓 讜诇讬诇讱 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 拽讗 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv may be established for a priest even in a cemetery, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law. It was taught: This is permitted because the priest can interpose and walk between the graves inside a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard. These containers do not contract impurity because of their large size, and anything found inside of them remains pure. From here we see that he holds the following: A moving tent is called a tent, and therefore the carriage, box, or cupboard are also considered tents. They shield a person carried in them from the impurity imparted by the graves in a cemetery.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专

The Gemara notes that this matter is the subject of a dispute between the following tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside Eretz Yisrael, not on foot, but in a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, renders him pure.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讝专讜拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讛诇

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent. The principle is that only something fixed can shield against ritual impurity, but if one is situated inside a portable vessel, the vessel contracts impurity and he becomes impure along with it. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent is called a tent, and it shields the person inside from contracting ritual impurity.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

And with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

Scroll To Top