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

Daf Yomi

September 10, 2020 | 讻状讗 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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • 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 32

Today’s daf is dedicated by Art Gould to the health, healing and well-being of his beloved bride of 47 years, Carol Robinson – Karina Gola bat Huddah. “Carol has been my best friend and partner, mother to our daughters, bubbe to our grand-daughter and the emotional center of our extended family. She has an almost magical ability to always know the right thing to do and the right thing to say. I love her more than words can possibly express.”

Can one assume that if one appoints a messenger, the messenger will get the job done? Do we rely on this only with rabbinic issues or also with Torah obligations? Rav Sheshet and Rav Nachman disagree about this and Rav Sheshet brings three proofs for his position from tannaitic sources (although according to one version, one is brought as a proof for Rav Nachman). The gemara then brings an explanation for each source according to Rav Nachman. Within these sources, a debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is brought regarding tithed produce as to whether or not it is assumed that one will transgress a minor transgression in order to ensure that someone else does not transgress a more serious prohibition – relating to the issue of not putting a stumbling block in front of others. In order to make an eruv techumim, one needs to be able to be able to be in the same location as one’s eruv, at least at twilight when Shabbat comes in. The mishna brings various cases regarding this issue and the rabbis try to figure out the exact case of the mishna.

Click here for Pictures

讘砖诇 住讜驻专讬诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


However, with regard to rabbinic laws, we do rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. And Rav Sheshet disagreed and said: With regard to both this, Torah law, and that, rabbinic law, we rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讛讞讚砖 诪讬讚


Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As we learned in a mishna: Once the omer has been offered, the grain from the new crop is immediately permitted. The Torah prohibits eating from the new crop of grain until the omer sacrifice is offered on the second day of Passover (Leviticus 23:14); once the omer is offered, it is immediately permitted to partake of the new grain.


讜讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讛讗 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


And those far from Jerusalem, who do not know whether or not the omer has already been offered, are permitted to eat from the new crop from midday and on, as the omer must surely have been offered by this time. Isn鈥檛 the prohibition to eat from the new crop a Torah law? And nevertheless, it was taught: And those far from Jerusalem are permitted to eat from the new crop from midday and on. Is this not because we may rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency? The priests in the Temple serve as the agents of the entire Jewish people, and it may be assumed that they have performed the mission entrusted to them.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Na岣an, who holds that with respect to Torah laws we may not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, refute this proof? He can respond as follows: There, the agents may be trusted for the reason that was explicitly taught: Because we know that the court will not be indolent in offering the omer sacrifice; however, the same cannot be said of ordinary agents.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜 讛讗 砖诇讬讞 诪转注爪诇 讘讜


And some say a different version of this response: Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say this principle? As it was taught that the reason is because we know that the court will not be indolent in offering the omer past midday. From this we may infer: It is the court that will not be indolent with regard to missions entrusted to it, but an ordinary agent may indeed be indolent with regard to his mission. Therefore, we cannot rely upon an ordinary agent.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗


And Rav Sheshet could have said to you that this is not the correct inference; rather, we should infer as follows: It is only the court that is presumed to have executed its mission by midday, even though the mitzva to bring the omer offering lasts all day. However, an ordinary agent, who is not as diligent, is only presumed to have completed his mission by the end of the entire day.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讝讬讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诪注讜转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘砖讜驻专 讜讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇注专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman who is responsible to offer sacrifices following childbirth or after experiencing ziva (Leviticus 12, 15) brings money and puts it in the appropriate collection box in the Temple, immerses in a ritual bath, and she may then eat sacrificial food at nightfall. What is the reason that she is permitted to eat immediately at nightfall? Is it not because we say that there is a presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, and the priests certainly purchased the appropriate sacrifices with her money and offered them during the day?


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讻诇 诪注讜转 砖讘砖讜驻专


The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Na岣an counter this proof? There, in the case of a woman who put money in the box, the reason she may rely on agency is in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya, as Rav Shemaya said: There is a legal presumption that the court of priests would not leave the Temple until all the money in the collection box has been spent on the purchase of sacrifices. We may rely only on the special court appointed to carry out this task, as it can be trusted. However, no proof may be brought from here with regard to an ordinary agent.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜诇拽讟 诇讱 转讗谞讬诐 诪转讗谞转讬 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讚讗讬 诪诇讗 诇讱 讻诇讻诇讛 讝讛 转讗谞讬诐 诪转讗谞转讬 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬


Rav Sheshet said another proof: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: One who says to another person: Go and gather for yourself figs from my fig tree, if he does not specify the amount that he should take, the gatherer may eat casually from them even without separating tithes. However, if one wishes to eat the figs as a regular, set meal, he must first tithe them as fruit that is known with certainty not to previously be tithed. In this case, it may be assumed that the owner of the fig tree did not separate tithes to exempt these figs, as he did not know how many the gatherer would take. However, if the owner of the fig tree said to him: Fill this basket for yourself with figs from my fig tree, he may eat from them casually without tithing, and before eating them as a regular meal, he must tithe them as demai, produce with regard to which we are unsure if the appropriate tithes have been separated. Since the owner of the tree knows how many figs the gatherer will take, it is possible that he has already separated tithes for these figs.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝


In what case is this statement said? Where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. But if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may eat the figs, and he need not tithe them even as demai, as the owner certainly separated tithes for them from other produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. His father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, says the opposite: In what case is this statement said? Where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. But if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may not eat the fruit until he tithes them because 岣verim, who are meticulous in their observance of halakha, are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. Since the figs that have been picked are not adjacent to the owner鈥檚 other figs, he has certainly not separated teruma and tithes on their account.


讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇讜 诇注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement appears to be more correct than Father鈥檚 statement: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 谞讞砖讚讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara infers: The tanna鈥檌m disagreed only with regard to the following point: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that 岣verim are suspected of tithing with produce that is not adjacent to the produce it comes to exempt, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that they are not suspected of that. But all agree that we may rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, i.e., that the owner, who is regarded as an agent to tithe his produce so that no one will eat tevel on his account, can be relied upon to separate the tithes.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讜讗 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜


And Rav Na岣an can respond as follows: There, the owner can be trusted, in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃, as Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said: There is a legal presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release anything that is not tithed from his possession. Therefore, we are not relying on a general presumption with regard to agents but on a presumption with regard to 岣verim.


讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The previous baraita contained several puzzling elements. Now that the Gemara has completed its primary discussion, namely the presumption that an agent carries out his mission, it turns to a discussion of the baraita itself. The Master said: If one said to his fellow: Go and gather for yourself figs, in what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. However, if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may eat the figs, and he need not tithe them; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


讛讗讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讞讘专讬讛 诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬 诪讬 爪讬讬转 讗诇讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇讜 诇注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讛转诐


The Gemara asks: This am ha鈥檃retz, who addressed his fellow man, to whom did he speak? If you say that he spoke to his fellow am ha鈥檃retz, if so, how are we to understand the statement that follows: He must tithe them as demai? Would an am ha鈥檃retz comply with the admonition of the Sages to suspect that the produce of his fellow am ha鈥檃retz may not have been tithed? Rather, this must be referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who told a 岣ver to gather figs from his fig tree, and the 岣ver will certainly tithe them. However, say that the latter clause of this baraita: My statement appears to be more correct than Father鈥檚 statement, means the following: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel. What is the relevance of amei ha鈥檃retz there? According to that explanation, the situation is the opposite. The person eating the figs is a 岣ver, and the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘专 住讬驻讗 讘讞讘专 砖讗诪专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讞讘专 讗讞专 砖讜诪注讜 专讘讬


Ravina said: The first clause is referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who spoke to a 岣ver, while the latter clause is referring to a 岣ver who spoke to an am ha鈥檃retz, and a different 岣ver heard him speak, and the discussion relates not to the one gathering the figs but to whether the second 岣ver may partake of the figs if they are offered to him. The Gemara explains the disagreement according to this understanding: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi


住讘专 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讜讚讗讬 注讬砖讜专讬 诪注砖专 讛讛讜讗 讞讘专 拽诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬诐


holds: That 岣ver, who heard the first 岣ver speaking to the am ha鈥檃retz, may immediately eat from the basket, and he is not required to tithe the produce, as the first 岣ver certainly separated tithes for the person who picked the figs, as he would not have caused an am ha鈥檃retz to eat tevel. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: That 岣ver may not eat of the fruit until he has tithed them, for 岣verim are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讚诇注讘讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽诇讬诇讗 讜诇讗 诇讬注讘讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讚诇讬注讘讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜讗讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专讗 拽诇讬诇讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讚:


The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a 岣ver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha鈥檃retz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a 岣ver that an am ha鈥檃retz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression.


诪转谞讬壮 谞转谞讜 讘讗讬诇谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 谞转谞讜 讘讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诪讜拽 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘:


MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv; if it is below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv. If he placed the eiruv in a pit, even if it was a hundred cubits deep, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.


讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜专讘讗 讘专 谞转谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讗讬诇谉 讚拽讗讬 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讟讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注


GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba sat, and with him sat Rabbi Asi and Rava bar Natan, and Rav Na岣an sat beside them, and they sat and said: This tree mentioned in the mishna, where does it stand? If you say it stands in the private domain, what is the difference to me whether the eiruv is placed above ten handbreadths or below ten handbreadths? The private domain ascends to the sky, and there is no difference whether an object is above or below ten handbreadths.


讜讗诇讗 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讘讜转 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉


Rather, say that the tree stands in the public domain; but in that case the question arises: Where did the person intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If you say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the tree above, he and his eiruv are in one place. Consequently, the eiruv should be valid, even if is at a height of more than ten handbreadths. Rather, say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below; but isn鈥檛 he making use of the tree if he accesses his eiruv? It is prohibited to make use of a tree on Shabbat, and therefore his eiruv should invalid even if it is less than ten handbreadths above the ground because it is inaccessible to him.


诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


The Gemara answers: Actually, we can accept the latter assumption that the tree stands in the public domain, and that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below, in the public domain. And with regard to the prohibition against making use of a tree, this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight, which is neither definitively day nor definitively night. Since using a tree is only prohibited due to a shevut, it is permitted to make use of the tree and remove one鈥檚 eiruv from it during the twilight period, which is when the eiruv establishes the person鈥檚 Shabbat residence. Therefore, the eiruv is valid, provided that it is below ten handbreadths. If, however, the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, it is invalid. At that height, removing the eiruv from the tree entails violation of the Torah prohibition of carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited even during twilight.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 驻转专讬 讘讛 [讗诇讗 讛讻讬] 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 拽讘注讬转讜 诇讬讛 讘讙诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


Rav Na岣an said to them: Well said, and Shmuel said similarly with regard to this issue. They said to him: Have you, the Sages of Babylonia, gone so far in your explanation of the mishna? The Gemara asks: Why were the Sages of Eretz Yisrael so surprised? They, too, explained the mishna in this manner. Rather, this is what they said to Rav Na岣an: Have you established this explanation as part of your regular study of the mishna? He said to them: Yes. Indeed, it was also explicitly stated that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with a tree standing in the public domain, and the tree is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. It thereby constitutes a private domain, and one intended to establish his Shabbat residence below in the public domain. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree, the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘转讜讱 注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讚诪转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬讗


Rava said in continuation of this discussion: They only taught this law with regard to a tree that stands beyond the outskirts of the city, i.e., outside a radius of seventy and two-thirds cubits around the city. However, with regard to a tree that stands within the outskirts of the city, even if the eiruv was placed above ten handbreadths, it is a valid eiruv, as the city is considered as though it were filled in with earth, so that anything located at any height within the town itself or its outskirts is regarded as being in the same domain. Even though the person intended to establish his Shabbat residence below the tree in the public domain, we view the ground as raised to the height of the eiruv, and his eiruv is therefore valid even though he cannot actually remove it from the tree during the twilight period.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讜抓 诇注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注


The Gemara asks: If so, if the tree stood beyond the outskirts of the town, there should also be no difference whether the eiruv is above or below the height of ten handbreadths. Since Rava himself said: One who places his eiruv in a particular location has four cubits surrounding him that are considered as a private domain, here too, the area should be considered a private domain; and a private domain rises to the sky. Since the tree stands within this area, all parts of the tree should be regarded as a private domain regardless of their height.


讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉


Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: Here, we are dealing with a tree that leans out horizontally beyond four cubits from its trunk, and one placed the eiruv on a section that is beyond four cubits,


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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • 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 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 32

讘砖诇 住讜驻专讬诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


However, with regard to rabbinic laws, we do rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. And Rav Sheshet disagreed and said: With regard to both this, Torah law, and that, rabbinic law, we rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讛讞讚砖 诪讬讚


Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As we learned in a mishna: Once the omer has been offered, the grain from the new crop is immediately permitted. The Torah prohibits eating from the new crop of grain until the omer sacrifice is offered on the second day of Passover (Leviticus 23:14); once the omer is offered, it is immediately permitted to partake of the new grain.


讜讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讛讗 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


And those far from Jerusalem, who do not know whether or not the omer has already been offered, are permitted to eat from the new crop from midday and on, as the omer must surely have been offered by this time. Isn鈥檛 the prohibition to eat from the new crop a Torah law? And nevertheless, it was taught: And those far from Jerusalem are permitted to eat from the new crop from midday and on. Is this not because we may rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency? The priests in the Temple serve as the agents of the entire Jewish people, and it may be assumed that they have performed the mission entrusted to them.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Na岣an, who holds that with respect to Torah laws we may not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, refute this proof? He can respond as follows: There, the agents may be trusted for the reason that was explicitly taught: Because we know that the court will not be indolent in offering the omer sacrifice; however, the same cannot be said of ordinary agents.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜 讛讗 砖诇讬讞 诪转注爪诇 讘讜


And some say a different version of this response: Rav Na岣an said: From where do I say this principle? As it was taught that the reason is because we know that the court will not be indolent in offering the omer past midday. From this we may infer: It is the court that will not be indolent with regard to missions entrusted to it, but an ordinary agent may indeed be indolent with regard to his mission. Therefore, we cannot rely upon an ordinary agent.


讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诇讱 讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 驻诇讙讬讛 讚讬讜诪讗 砖诇讬讞 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗


And Rav Sheshet could have said to you that this is not the correct inference; rather, we should infer as follows: It is only the court that is presumed to have executed its mission by midday, even though the mitzva to bring the omer offering lasts all day. However, an ordinary agent, who is not as diligent, is only presumed to have completed his mission by the end of the entire day.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 讗讜 讝讬讘讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诪注讜转 讜谞讜转谞转 讘砖讜驻专 讜讟讜讘诇转 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇注专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say my opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: A woman who is responsible to offer sacrifices following childbirth or after experiencing ziva (Leviticus 12, 15) brings money and puts it in the appropriate collection box in the Temple, immerses in a ritual bath, and she may then eat sacrificial food at nightfall. What is the reason that she is permitted to eat immediately at nightfall? Is it not because we say that there is a presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, and the priests certainly purchased the appropriate sacrifices with her money and offered them during the day?


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诪讚讬诐 诪砖诐 注讚 砖讬讻诇讜 讻诇 诪注讜转 砖讘砖讜驻专


The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Na岣an counter this proof? There, in the case of a woman who put money in the box, the reason she may rely on agency is in accordance with the statement of Rav Shemaya, as Rav Shemaya said: There is a legal presumption that the court of priests would not leave the Temple until all the money in the collection box has been spent on the purchase of sacrifices. We may rely only on the special court appointed to carry out this task, as it can be trusted. However, no proof may be brought from here with regard to an ordinary agent.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 爪讗 讜诇拽讟 诇讱 转讗谞讬诐 诪转讗谞转讬 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讜讚讗讬 诪诇讗 诇讱 讻诇讻诇讛 讝讛 转讗谞讬诐 诪转讗谞转讬 讗讜讻诇 诪讛谉 注专讗讬 讜诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬


Rav Sheshet said another proof: From where do I say this? As it was taught in a baraita: One who says to another person: Go and gather for yourself figs from my fig tree, if he does not specify the amount that he should take, the gatherer may eat casually from them even without separating tithes. However, if one wishes to eat the figs as a regular, set meal, he must first tithe them as fruit that is known with certainty not to previously be tithed. In this case, it may be assumed that the owner of the fig tree did not separate tithes to exempt these figs, as he did not know how many the gatherer would take. However, if the owner of the fig tree said to him: Fill this basket for yourself with figs from my fig tree, he may eat from them casually without tithing, and before eating them as a regular meal, he must tithe them as demai, produce with regard to which we are unsure if the appropriate tithes have been separated. Since the owner of the tree knows how many figs the gatherer will take, it is possible that he has already separated tithes for these figs.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝


In what case is this statement said? Where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. But if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may eat the figs, and he need not tithe them even as demai, as the owner certainly separated tithes for them from other produce; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. His father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, says the opposite: In what case is this statement said? Where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. But if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may not eat the fruit until he tithes them because 岣verim, who are meticulous in their observance of halakha, are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. Since the figs that have been picked are not adjacent to the owner鈥檚 other figs, he has certainly not separated teruma and tithes on their account.


讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇讜 诇注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬诐


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My statement appears to be more correct than Father鈥檚 statement: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 谞讞砖讚讜 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞讝拽讛 砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜


The Gemara infers: The tanna鈥檌m disagreed only with regard to the following point: That one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that 岣verim are suspected of tithing with produce that is not adjacent to the produce it comes to exempt, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that they are not suspected of that. But all agree that we may rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, i.e., that the owner, who is regarded as an agent to tithe his produce so that no one will eat tevel on his account, can be relied upon to separate the tithes.


讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讜讝讗讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讜讗 注诇 讞讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜


And Rav Na岣an can respond as follows: There, the owner can be trusted, in accordance with the statement of Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃, as Rav 岣nina 岣za鈥檃 said: There is a legal presumption with regard to a 岣ver that he does not release anything that is not tithed from his possession. Therefore, we are not relying on a general presumption with regard to agents but on a presumption with regard to 岣verim.


讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讘诇 讘讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The previous baraita contained several puzzling elements. Now that the Gemara has completed its primary discussion, namely the presumption that an agent carries out his mission, it turns to a discussion of the baraita itself. The Master said: If one said to his fellow: Go and gather for yourself figs, in what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz. However, if he is a 岣ver, the gatherer may eat the figs, and he need not tithe them; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


讛讗讬 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讞讘专讬讛 诪注砖专谉 讚诪讗讬 诪讬 爪讬讬转 讗诇讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讚讘专讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇讜 诇注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讛转诐


The Gemara asks: This am ha鈥檃retz, who addressed his fellow man, to whom did he speak? If you say that he spoke to his fellow am ha鈥檃retz, if so, how are we to understand the statement that follows: He must tithe them as demai? Would an am ha鈥檃retz comply with the admonition of the Sages to suspect that the produce of his fellow am ha鈥檃retz may not have been tithed? Rather, this must be referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who told a 岣ver to gather figs from his fig tree, and the 岣ver will certainly tithe them. However, say that the latter clause of this baraita: My statement appears to be more correct than Father鈥檚 statement, means the following: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel. What is the relevance of amei ha鈥檃retz there? According to that explanation, the situation is the opposite. The person eating the figs is a 岣ver, and the owner of the fig tree is an am ha鈥檃retz.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘注诐 讛讗专抓 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘专 住讬驻讗 讘讞讘专 砖讗诪专 诇注诐 讛讗专抓 讜讞讘专 讗讞专 砖讜诪注讜 专讘讬


Ravina said: The first clause is referring to an am ha鈥檃retz who spoke to a 岣ver, while the latter clause is referring to a 岣ver who spoke to an am ha鈥檃retz, and a different 岣ver heard him speak, and the discussion relates not to the one gathering the figs but to whether the second 岣ver may partake of the figs if they are offered to him. The Gemara explains the disagreement according to this understanding: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi


住讘专 讗讜转讜 讞讘专 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇注砖专 讚讜讚讗讬 注讬砖讜专讬 诪注砖专 讛讛讜讗 讞讘专 拽诪讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬注砖专 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讞砖讚讜 讞讘专讬诐 诇转专讜诐 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜拽祝 讜讗诇 讬讗讻讬诇讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讟讘诇讬诐


holds: That 岣ver, who heard the first 岣ver speaking to the am ha鈥檃retz, may immediately eat from the basket, and he is not required to tithe the produce, as the first 岣ver certainly separated tithes for the person who picked the figs, as he would not have caused an am ha鈥檃retz to eat tevel. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: That 岣ver may not eat of the fruit until he has tithed them, for 岣verim are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is better that 岣verim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha鈥檃retz produce that is tevel.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讚诇注讘讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专讗 拽诇讬诇讗 讜诇讗 诇讬注讘讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专 讚诇讬注讘讚 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗讬住讜专讗 专讘讛 讜讗讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬住讜专讗 拽诇讬诇讗 诇讗 诇讬注讘讚:


The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a 岣ver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha鈥檃retz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a 岣ver that an am ha鈥檃retz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression.


诪转谞讬壮 谞转谞讜 讘讗讬诇谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 谞转谞讜 讘讘讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诪讜拽 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘:


MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv; if it is below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv. If he placed the eiruv in a pit, even if it was a hundred cubits deep, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.


讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讜专讘讗 讘专 谞转谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讛讗讬 讗讬诇谉 讚拽讗讬 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讟讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注


GEMARA: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba sat, and with him sat Rabbi Asi and Rava bar Natan, and Rav Na岣an sat beside them, and they sat and said: This tree mentioned in the mishna, where does it stand? If you say it stands in the private domain, what is the difference to me whether the eiruv is placed above ten handbreadths or below ten handbreadths? The private domain ascends to the sky, and there is no difference whether an object is above or below ten handbreadths.


讜讗诇讗 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讘讜转 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘讗讬诇谉


Rather, say that the tree stands in the public domain; but in that case the question arises: Where did the person intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If you say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the tree above, he and his eiruv are in one place. Consequently, the eiruv should be valid, even if is at a height of more than ten handbreadths. Rather, say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below; but isn鈥檛 he making use of the tree if he accesses his eiruv? It is prohibited to make use of a tree on Shabbat, and therefore his eiruv should invalid even if it is less than ten handbreadths above the ground because it is inaccessible to him.


诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


The Gemara answers: Actually, we can accept the latter assumption that the tree stands in the public domain, and that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below, in the public domain. And with regard to the prohibition against making use of a tree, this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight, which is neither definitively day nor definitively night. Since using a tree is only prohibited due to a shevut, it is permitted to make use of the tree and remove one鈥檚 eiruv from it during the twilight period, which is when the eiruv establishes the person鈥檚 Shabbat residence. Therefore, the eiruv is valid, provided that it is below ten handbreadths. If, however, the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, it is invalid. At that height, removing the eiruv from the tree entails violation of the Torah prohibition of carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited even during twilight.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 驻转专讬转讜 讘讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 拽讗 驻转专讬 讘讛 [讗诇讗 讛讻讬] 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 拽讘注讬转讜 诇讬讛 讘讙诪专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜谞转讻讜讜谉 诇砖讘讜转 诇诪讟讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


Rav Na岣an said to them: Well said, and Shmuel said similarly with regard to this issue. They said to him: Have you, the Sages of Babylonia, gone so far in your explanation of the mishna? The Gemara asks: Why were the Sages of Eretz Yisrael so surprised? They, too, explained the mishna in this manner. Rather, this is what they said to Rav Na岣an: Have you established this explanation as part of your regular study of the mishna? He said to them: Yes. Indeed, it was also explicitly stated that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with a tree standing in the public domain, and the tree is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. It thereby constitutes a private domain, and one intended to establish his Shabbat residence below in the public domain. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree, the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗讘诇 讗讬诇谉 讛注讜诪讚 讘转讜讱 注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讚诪转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬讗 讚诪讬讗


Rava said in continuation of this discussion: They only taught this law with regard to a tree that stands beyond the outskirts of the city, i.e., outside a radius of seventy and two-thirds cubits around the city. However, with regard to a tree that stands within the outskirts of the city, even if the eiruv was placed above ten handbreadths, it is a valid eiruv, as the city is considered as though it were filled in with earth, so that anything located at any height within the town itself or its outskirts is regarded as being in the same domain. Even though the person intended to establish his Shabbat residence below the tree in the public domain, we view the ground as raised to the height of the eiruv, and his eiruv is therefore valid even though he cannot actually remove it from the tree during the twilight period.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讜抓 诇注讬讘讜专讛 砖诇 注讬专 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜诇讛 注讚 诇专拽讬注


The Gemara asks: If so, if the tree stood beyond the outskirts of the town, there should also be no difference whether the eiruv is above or below the height of ten handbreadths. Since Rava himself said: One who places his eiruv in a particular location has four cubits surrounding him that are considered as a private domain, here too, the area should be considered a private domain; and a private domain rises to the sky. Since the tree stands within this area, all parts of the tree should be regarded as a private domain regardless of their height.


讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉


Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: Here, we are dealing with a tree that leans out horizontally beyond four cubits from its trunk, and one placed the eiruv on a section that is beyond four cubits,


Scroll To Top