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

Daf Yomi

September 9, 2020 | 讻壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

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

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

Eruvin 31

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro for the 7th yahrzeit of her mother Deera Tychman z”l.

The gemara brings another law of Rabbi Yehuda regarding a priest setting up an eruv in a cemetery 鈥 this time by putting pure truma on a grave. How is this even possible 鈥 the gemara raises several potential problems and resolves them. The gemara raises three possible ways to understand the root of the debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis on this issue. How does the concept of 鈥渕itzvot were not given for benefit鈥 factor in? Can one use demai produce or other produce that was the maaser rishon that the levite did or did not separate truma from or maaser sheni or hekdesh that was or was not redeemed. What is the unique aspect of each of these and why were they mentioned in the mishna? Can one give one鈥檚 food to a minor, deaf-mute or cognitively limited person? What about someone who doesn鈥檛 believe in eruv? How do the laws differ from eruv chatzerot? One can send the eruv with one of those people to give to someone else to put down. How can we be sure it will get there?

诪注专讘讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讟讛讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘拽讘专 讛讬讻讬 讗讝讬诇 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇


One may establish an eiruv for a priest who is ritually pure with teruma that is ritually pure and resting on a grave, even though the location is impure and he cannot reach it. How does he go there? In a carriage, crate, or cupboard, which shield him from the ritual impurity.


讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讗 讗讬讟诪讬讗 诇讛 讘砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讗讜 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that once the eiruv was placed directly on the grave, the teruma became defiled, and ritually impure teruma is not fit to be eaten by anyone? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where the teruma had not yet been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, as it had not yet come into contact with a liquid. Produce that has yet to come into contact with a liquid does not contract impurity. Or we are dealing with bread that was kneaded with fruit juice, which is not one of the seven liquids that render a food susceptible to ritual impurity.


讜讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讘驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara now asks: How can he bring it from where it is resting on the grave in order to eat it? The Gemara answers: With flat wooden utensils that are not shaped as receptacles and therefore do not contract ritual impurity.


讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讗讛讬诇 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗讞讜专讬讛


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the utensil cover the grave? The Sages decreed that anyone who holds a utensil that is a handbreadth wide over a corpse or grave is ritually impure. The Gemara answers: He may bring it on the edge of the utensil while holding the utensil sideways so that it does not form a cover that is a handbreadth wide over the grave.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇拽谞讜转 讘讬转 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛


The Gemara asks: If that is so, and there is a way for the teruma to remain ritually pure and for the priest to access it, what is the reason the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda and did not allow an eiruv to be established for a priest on a grave? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited. It is prohibited to derive benefit from a grave. Since one acquires a place of residence for Shabbat by means of the eiruv, it would be as if the priest acquired a home for himself with something from which he may not derive benefit.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讜转专 拽住讘专 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜


The Gemara asks: If so, does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that mitzvot were not given for benefit. The fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. Since the acquisition of a place of residence by means of an eiruv is a mitzva, as one may establish an eiruv te岣min only for the sake of a mitzva, it is even permitted to establish one鈥檚 eiruv in a place from which it is prohibited to benefit.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪注专讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转


The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rava said: Mitzvot were not given for benefit, let us say that he stated his halakha only in accordance with the opinion of one side in a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: If they hold that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, all would agree that the eiruv may be placed on a grave because mitzvot were not given for benefit. However, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages centers on a different aspect of the issue. Here, they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva. Since mitzvot do not constitute forbidden benefit, it is therefore permitted to make use of the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: One may establish an eiruv even for a voluntary matter. Establishing a Shabbat residence on the site of a grave by means of an eiruv made for a voluntary matter is regarded as forbidden benefit, and therefore it is prohibited.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rav Yosef said as a general principle: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with one side in a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讛 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬谞讟专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬谞讟专讗 讚讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef could have said to you: In fact, all agree that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, and all agree that mitzvot were not given for benefit, and they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Once he acquired his Shabbat residence at twilight by means of the eiruv, he is indifferent to its safeguarding, as his main goal has already been achieved. He has no further need for the food used for the eiruv, and therefore, he receives no benefit from its placement on the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: It is pleasing to him that the eiruv is safeguarded, for if he needs it the next day, he can eat it. According to this opinion, he would be making prohibited use of the grave to preserve his meal for the following day, and therefore the Sages prohibited placing an eiruv on a grave.


诪转谞讬壮 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛


MISHNA: One may establish an eiruv with demai, produce purchased from one who may not have separated the required tithes, and similarly, one may establish an eiruv with the first tithe whose teruma has been taken in order to be given to a priest, and with the second tithe and consecrated articles that have been redeemed; and priests may establish an eiruv with 岣lla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜:


However, one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues [teruma] and other tithes have not been separated, nor with first tithe whose teruma, which must be given to a priest, has not been taken, nor with the second tithe or consecrated articles that have not been redeemed.


讙诪壮 讚诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How can one establish an eiruv with demai? Isn鈥檛 it unfit for him? Since it is prohibited to eat demai, how can it be used as an eiruv? The Gemara answers: Since if he wants, he could declare his property ownerless, and he would be a poor person, and the demai would then be fit for him, as a poor person is permitted to eat demai, now too, even though he has not renounced ownership of his property, it is considered fit for him to use as an eiruv. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai,


讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬


and one may also feed soldiers demai.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬:


Rav Huna said: It was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讜谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛


We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has been taken. The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why is it necessary to state it may be used for an eiruv? The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, i.e., the Levite took his tithe before the grain was threshed and before the priest took the teruma; and the teruma of the tithes was taken from it but teruma gedola was not taken from it. Therefore, since the teruma is generally separated first, a portion of the first tithe that the Levite took should have been separated as teruma.


讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪讜转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe, in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26), from which the following inference is made: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I told you, the Levite, to separate. And I did not tell you to separate teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专讜转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮


With regard to this matter, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should still not have to separate teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29). The inclusive phrase 鈥渇rom all鈥 indicates that teruma gedola must be separated even from the first tithe in the case where the Levite precedes the priest after the grain has been collected in a pile.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


Rav Pappa asks: And what did you see that led you to expound one verse as exempting the Levite from separating teruma gedola from first tithe that has been separated while the grain was on the stalks, and to expound another verse as requiring teruma gedola to be separated when the Levite took his first tithe after the grain was collected in a pile? Abaye answers: This produce, which has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that produce, which remained on the stalks, did not yet become grain. The wording of the biblical verses indicates that the requirement to separate teruma applies only to grain, whereas the produce is not considered grain until it has been threshed.


讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna also stated that one may establish an eiruv with the second tithe and consecrated food that have been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these foods may be used to establish an eiruv. The Gemara answers: This ruling was only needed for a case where one redeemed the second tithe or consecrated food and paid the principle but did not pay the additional fifth of their value, which must be paid when they are redeemed. And the mishna teaches us that the failure to pay the additional fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Once the principle is paid, even if payment of the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is regarded as redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讝专注讜 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


The mishna further states: But one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues and other tithes have not been separated. The Gemara asks: This too is obvious, as it is prohibited to eat or derive any benefit from tevel. The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed with regard to tevel that is considered tevel by rabbinic decree. What is included in this category? For example, if one planted seeds in an imperforated container, one is exempt by Torah law from separating teruma and tithes from the resulting produce because Torah law does not consider produce grown in such a container to have grown from the ground.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 讜谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛


The mishna stated that one may not establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has not been taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious, as such produce is tevel. The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where the Levite preceded the priest and took first tithe from the pile, and only teruma of the tithe was taken from it, but teruma gedola was not taken from it, and the produce is therefore still tevel.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


Lest you say the halakha in that case is as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and the Levite is exempt from separating teruma gedola, and therefore the food may be used for an eiruv, the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa: If the Levite takes grain after it had been gathered in a pile, he must separate teruma gedola. Until he does so the produce may not be eaten.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗


We also learned in the mishna that one may not establish an eiruv with the second tithe or consecrated food that have not been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these items may not be used.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖驻讚讗谉 讜诇讗 驻讚讗谉 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where he redeemed them, but did not redeem them properly, e.g., in the case of second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. And the Torah says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: And bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). This is expounded to mean that the second tithe may only be redeemed with money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it; however, unminted coins are not considered money for the purpose of redeeming the second tithe.


讛拽讚砖 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘 拽专拽注 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜:


With regard to consecrated property, the reference is to a case where one redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Torah states: 鈥淗e will give the money and it shall become his.鈥 Since the verse speaks of giving money, it may be inferred that consecrated property cannot be redeemed by giving the Temple treasury land of equivalent value.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讚 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗讜 讘讬讚 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘:


MISHNA: If one sends his eiruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv. But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific location and set it down in that spot, it is a valid eiruv. The critical point in the establishment of an eiruv is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the eiruv arrives there.


讙诪壮 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讟谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛注讬专讜讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is a minor not fit to set down an eiruv? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: A minor may collect the food for an eiruv from the residents of a courtyard and establish an eiruv on their behalf even ab initio? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here, where the mishna invalidates an eiruv placed by a minor, it is referring to an eiruv of Shabbat borders. These laws are relatively stringent, as they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do. There, where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an eiruv, he was referring to an eiruv of courtyards. This type of eiruv is more lenient and may be established even by a minor, as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.


讗讜 讘讬讚 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘: 诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讜转讗讬:


We learned in the mishna: Or if one sends his eiruv in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv. The Gemara asks: Who is this? Rav 岣sda said: A Samaritan [Kuti], who does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to eiruv.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘: 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜


The mishna also states: And if he told another person to receive the eiruv from him, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara challenges this statement: Let us be concerned that perhaps the minor or other incompetent person will not bring the eiruv to the other person. The Gemara responds: This may be answered as Rav 岣sda said with regard to a different statement, that it was referring to a case where he stands and watches him. Here, too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches him from afar until the eiruv reaches the person designated to receive it.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, let us be concerned that perhaps the other person will not take the eiruv from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place. From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening. He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination. The Gemara answers this question as follows: Rav Ye岣el said in a different context that there is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Here, too, there is a legal presumption that the agent appointed to accept the eiruv fulfills his agency.


讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讗讛讗 讗转诪专 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谞讜 诇驻讬诇 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 诇拽讜祝 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav 岣sda and Rav Ye岣el stated? The Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita: If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a valid eiruv. But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it? Rav 岣sda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv. The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept it from the elephant or monkey. Rav Ye岣el said: There is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖诇 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to Torah laws, we do not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency; rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission.


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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 31-37 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss the parameters of setting up an Eruv Techumin that allows you to travel an extra...

Eruvin 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 31

诪注专讘讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讟讛讜专 讘转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘拽讘专 讛讬讻讬 讗讝讬诇 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇


One may establish an eiruv for a priest who is ritually pure with teruma that is ritually pure and resting on a grave, even though the location is impure and he cannot reach it. How does he go there? In a carriage, crate, or cupboard, which shield him from the ritual impurity.


讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讗 讗讬讟诪讬讗 诇讛 讘砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讗讜 砖谞讬诇讜砖讛 讘诪讬 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that once the eiruv was placed directly on the grave, the teruma became defiled, and ritually impure teruma is not fit to be eaten by anyone? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where the teruma had not yet been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, as it had not yet come into contact with a liquid. Produce that has yet to come into contact with a liquid does not contract impurity. Or we are dealing with bread that was kneaded with fruit juice, which is not one of the seven liquids that render a food susceptible to ritual impurity.


讜讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讘驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛


The Gemara now asks: How can he bring it from where it is resting on the grave in order to eat it? The Gemara answers: With flat wooden utensils that are not shaped as receptacles and therefore do not contract ritual impurity.


讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讗讛讬诇 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗讞讜专讬讛


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the utensil cover the grave? The Sages decreed that anyone who holds a utensil that is a handbreadth wide over a corpse or grave is ritually impure. The Gemara answers: He may bring it on the edge of the utensil while holding the utensil sideways so that it does not form a cover that is a handbreadth wide over the grave.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽住讘专讬 讗住讜专 诇拽谞讜转 讘讬转 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛


The Gemara asks: If that is so, and there is a way for the teruma to remain ritually pure and for the priest to access it, what is the reason the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda and did not allow an eiruv to be established for a priest on a grave? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited. It is prohibited to derive benefit from a grave. Since one acquires a place of residence for Shabbat by means of the eiruv, it would be as if the priest acquired a home for himself with something from which he may not derive benefit.


诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪讜转专 拽住讘专 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜


The Gemara asks: If so, does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that mitzvot were not given for benefit. The fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. Since the acquisition of a place of residence by means of an eiruv is a mitzva, as one may establish an eiruv te岣min only for the sake of a mitzva, it is even permitted to establish one鈥檚 eiruv in a place from which it is prohibited to benefit.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诪注专讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转


The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rava said: Mitzvot were not given for benefit, let us say that he stated his halakha only in accordance with the opinion of one side in a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: If they hold that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, all would agree that the eiruv may be placed on a grave because mitzvot were not given for benefit. However, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages centers on a different aspect of the issue. Here, they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva. Since mitzvot do not constitute forbidden benefit, it is therefore permitted to make use of the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: One may establish an eiruv even for a voluntary matter. Establishing a Shabbat residence on the site of a grave by means of an eiruv made for a voluntary matter is regarded as forbidden benefit, and therefore it is prohibited.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rav Yosef said as a general principle: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with one side in a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 诇讗讜 诇讬讛谞讜转 谞讬转谞讜 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚拽谞讛 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬谞讟专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诪讬谞讟专讗 讚讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef could have said to you: In fact, all agree that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, and all agree that mitzvot were not given for benefit, and they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Once he acquired his Shabbat residence at twilight by means of the eiruv, he is indifferent to its safeguarding, as his main goal has already been achieved. He has no further need for the food used for the eiruv, and therefore, he receives no benefit from its placement on the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: It is pleasing to him that the eiruv is safeguarded, for if he needs it the next day, he can eat it. According to this opinion, he would be making prohibited use of the grave to preserve his meal for the following day, and therefore the Sages prohibited placing an eiruv on a grave.


诪转谞讬壮 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讚诪讗讬 讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜 讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞诇讛


MISHNA: One may establish an eiruv with demai, produce purchased from one who may not have separated the required tithes, and similarly, one may establish an eiruv with the first tithe whose teruma has been taken in order to be given to a priest, and with the second tithe and consecrated articles that have been redeemed; and priests may establish an eiruv with 岣lla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜:


However, one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues [teruma] and other tithes have not been separated, nor with first tithe whose teruma, which must be given to a priest, has not been taken, nor with the second tithe or consecrated articles that have not been redeemed.


讙诪壮 讚诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How can one establish an eiruv with demai? Isn鈥檛 it unfit for him? Since it is prohibited to eat demai, how can it be used as an eiruv? The Gemara answers: Since if he wants, he could declare his property ownerless, and he would be a poor person, and the demai would then be fit for him, as a poor person is permitted to eat demai, now too, even though he has not renounced ownership of his property, it is considered fit for him to use as an eiruv. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai,


讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬


and one may also feed soldiers demai.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬:


Rav Huna said: It was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讟诇讛 讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 讜谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛


We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has been taken. The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why is it necessary to state it may be used for an eiruv? The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, i.e., the Levite took his tithe before the grain was threshed and before the priest took the teruma; and the teruma of the tithes was taken from it but teruma gedola was not taken from it. Therefore, since the teruma is generally separated first, a portion of the first tithe that the Levite took should have been separated as teruma.


讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘砖讘诇讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛专诪讜转诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 讛壮 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe, in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe鈥 (Numbers 18:26), from which the following inference is made: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I told you, the Levite, to separate. And I did not tell you to separate teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻诇 诪注砖专讜转讬讻诐 转专讬诪讜 讗转 讻诇 转专讜诪转 讛壮


With regard to this matter, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should still not have to separate teruma gedola. Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淔rom all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord鈥檚 teruma (Numbers 18:29). The inclusive phrase 鈥渇rom all鈥 indicates that teruma gedola must be separated even from the first tithe in the case where the Levite precedes the priest after the grain has been collected in a pile.


讜诪讛 专讗讬转 讛讗讬 讗讬讚讙谉 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讚讙谉:


Rav Pappa asks: And what did you see that led you to expound one verse as exempting the Levite from separating teruma gedola from first tithe that has been separated while the grain was on the stalks, and to expound another verse as requiring teruma gedola to be separated when the Levite took his first tithe after the grain was collected in a pile? Abaye answers: This produce, which has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that produce, which remained on the stalks, did not yet become grain. The wording of the biblical verses indicates that the requirement to separate teruma applies only to grain, whereas the produce is not considered grain until it has been threshed.


讜讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘:


The mishna also stated that one may establish an eiruv with the second tithe and consecrated food that have been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these foods may be used to establish an eiruv. The Gemara answers: This ruling was only needed for a case where one redeemed the second tithe or consecrated food and paid the principle but did not pay the additional fifth of their value, which must be paid when they are redeemed. And the mishna teaches us that the failure to pay the additional fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Once the principle is paid, even if payment of the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is regarded as redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.


讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讟讘诇: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讟讘诇 讟讘讜诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讝专注讜 讘注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘:


The mishna further states: But one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues and other tithes have not been separated. The Gemara asks: This too is obvious, as it is prohibited to eat or derive any benefit from tevel. The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed with regard to tevel that is considered tevel by rabbinic decree. What is included in this category? For example, if one planted seeds in an imperforated container, one is exempt by Torah law from separating teruma and tithes from the resulting produce because Torah law does not consider produce grown in such a container to have grown from the ground.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讟诇讛 转专讜诪转讜: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖讛拽讚讬诪讜 讘讻专讬 讜谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜诇讗 谞讟诇讛 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛


The mishna stated that one may not establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has not been taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious, as such produce is tevel. The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where the Levite preceded the priest and took first tithe from the pile, and only teruma of the tithe was taken from it, but teruma gedola was not taken from it, and the produce is therefore still tevel.


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚砖谞讬 诇讬讛:


Lest you say the halakha in that case is as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and the Levite is exempt from separating teruma gedola, and therefore the food may be used for an eiruv, the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa: If the Levite takes grain after it had been gathered in a pile, he must separate teruma gedola. Until he does so the produce may not be eaten.


讜诇讗 讘诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讛拽讚砖 砖诇讗 谞驻讚讜: 驻砖讬讟讗


We also learned in the mishna that one may not establish an eiruv with the second tithe or consecrated food that have not been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these items may not be used.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖驻讚讗谉 讜诇讗 驻讚讗谉 讻讛诇讻转谉 诪注砖专 砖驻讚讗讜 注诇 讙讘 讗住讬诪讜谉 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讻住祝 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 爪讜专讛


The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where he redeemed them, but did not redeem them properly, e.g., in the case of second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon]. And the Torah says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: And bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25). This is expounded to mean that the second tithe may only be redeemed with money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it; however, unminted coins are not considered money for the purpose of redeeming the second tithe.


讛拽讚砖 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讙讘 拽专拽注 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜:


With regard to consecrated property, the reference is to a case where one redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Torah states: 鈥淗e will give the money and it shall become his.鈥 Since the verse speaks of giving money, it may be inferred that consecrated property cannot be redeemed by giving the Temple treasury land of equivalent value.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜诇讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讚 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗讜 讘讬讚 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘:


MISHNA: If one sends his eiruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv. But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific location and set it down in that spot, it is a valid eiruv. The critical point in the establishment of an eiruv is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the eiruv arrives there.


讙诪壮 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讟谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛注讬专讜讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讗谉 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is a minor not fit to set down an eiruv? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: A minor may collect the food for an eiruv from the residents of a courtyard and establish an eiruv on their behalf even ab initio? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here, where the mishna invalidates an eiruv placed by a minor, it is referring to an eiruv of Shabbat borders. These laws are relatively stringent, as they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do. There, where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an eiruv, he was referring to an eiruv of courtyards. This type of eiruv is more lenient and may be established even by a minor, as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.


讗讜 讘讬讚 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘: 诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讜转讗讬:


We learned in the mishna: Or if one sends his eiruv in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv. The Gemara asks: Who is this? Rav 岣sda said: A Samaritan [Kuti], who does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to eiruv.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘: 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜


The mishna also states: And if he told another person to receive the eiruv from him, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara challenges this statement: Let us be concerned that perhaps the minor or other incompetent person will not bring the eiruv to the other person. The Gemara responds: This may be answered as Rav 岣sda said with regard to a different statement, that it was referring to a case where he stands and watches him. Here, too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches him from afar until the eiruv reaches the person designated to receive it.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, let us be concerned that perhaps the other person will not take the eiruv from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place. From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening. He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination. The Gemara answers this question as follows: Rav Ye岣el said in a different context that there is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Here, too, there is a legal presumption that the agent appointed to accept the eiruv fulfills his agency.


讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讗讛讗 讗转诪专 讚转谞讬讗 谞转谞讜 诇驻讬诇 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 诇拽讜祝 讜讛讜诇讬讻讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 诇拽讘诇讜 讛讬诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪诪讟讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 诪拽讘诇 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav 岣sda and Rav Ye岣el stated? The Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita: If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a valid eiruv. But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it? Rav 岣sda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv. The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept it from the elephant or monkey. Rav Ye岣el said: There is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖诇 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


Rav Na岣an said: With regard to Torah laws, we do not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency; rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission.


Scroll To Top