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

Daf Yomi

September 11, 2020 | 讻状讘 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.

Eruvin 33

Today’s daf is dedicated by Rabbi Julie Danan in memory of a beloved friend, Rabbi Dr. Sarah Tauber, a brilliant teacher and scholar who will be sorely missed by a wide circle of family, friends, and communities.

The gemara continues to understand the cases brought in the mishna regarding accessibility to one’s eruv. The more the gemara delves into it, the more the gemara limits the case of the mishna. Where is the debate between Rebbi and the rabbis regarding whether or not rabbinic prohibitions are in effect during the twilight period. In the braita quoted, there is a halacha regarding a basket attached to a tree and Rebbi allows one to put an eruv there. The gemara questions the reality of the case (dimensions?) and Ravina and Rabbi Yirmia each provide explanations for the case. According to Ravina the issue relates to stability of the eruv. According to Rabbi Yirmia, the issue is about accessibility and even though the basket in not in the same “place” as the person, since theoretically it can be tilted and can be, that is sufficient.

讜谞转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬拽专讜 讜诪讗讬 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讚讛讚专 讝拽讬祝


and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence at its base. And what is the meaning of the terms above and below, as we said that this tree extends horizontally to the side, which indicates that it remains at a uniform height? After the tree leans horizontally beyond four cubits from the place of its roots, it rises once again in an upright position, and therefore the terms above and below are applicable.


讜讛讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讚专讱 注诇讬讜


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that even if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, if one wants, he can remove it from where it was deposited and bring it by way of the tree鈥檚 leaves, i.e., its branches that are above ten handbreadths, to within four cubits of the place where he intended to establish his Shabbat residence? Therefore, the eiruv should be valid even though it is above ten handbreadths.


讻砖专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诪讜讚 转砖注讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘:


The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a unique situation where the horizontal section of the tree is used by the masses to shoulder their burdens on it, i.e., to temporarily rest their loads on it, so that they can adjust them and easily lift them up again; and the halakha in that case is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: With regard to a pillar that is nine handbreadths high and situated in the public domain, and the masses use it to shoulder their loads upon it, and someone threw an object from a private domain and it came to rest upon it, he is liable, as this pillar has the status of a public domain. Consequently, in the case of the tree, one may not bring the eiruv by way of the tree鈥檚 branches, as the horizontal section of the tree has the status of a public domain, and one may not carry from one private domain to another via a public domain.


诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉


The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree is not prohibited during the twilight period. The Gemara now attempts to clarify the matter: What is the source that originally cites Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, and what is the source which cites the opinion of the Rabbis?


讚转谞讬讗 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 讜讗住讜专 诇讬讟诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讜转专 诇讬讟诇讜 谞转谞讜 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讜转诇讗讜 讘讗讬诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara cites the source of the disagreement: As it was taught in the Tosefta: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he placed it below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, but he is prohibited to take it on Shabbat in order to eat it because it is prohibited to use the tree on Shabbat. However, if the eiruv is within three handbreadths of the ground, he is permitted to take it because it is considered as though it were on the ground and not in a tree. If one placed the eiruv in a basket and hung it on a tree, even above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis disagree and say: In any situation in which the eiruv was placed in a location where it is prohibited to take it, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara clarifies: With regard to which statement did the Rabbis state their opinion? If you say they were referring to the latter clause with respect to the basket hanging from the tree, let us say that the Rabbis hold that using even the sides of a tree is prohibited, as making use of the basket is considered using the sides of a tree. Rather, the Rabbis鈥 statement must refer to the first clause, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if one put the eiruv below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is valid, but he is prohibited to move it.


讛讗讬 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讻讬 谞转谞讜 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara clarifies further: This tree, what are its circumstances? If it is not four by four handbreadths wide, it is an exempt domain, i.e., a neutral place with respect to the laws of carrying on Shabbat, from which an object may be carried into any other Shabbat domain. In that case, the eiruv should be valid even if it was placed higher than ten handbreadths in the tree. And if it is four by four handbreadths wide, when one places it in a basket, what of it? What difference does it make? In any event it is in a private domain.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 住讬驻讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讻诇讻诇讛 诪砖诇讬诪转讜 诇讗专讘注讛


Ravina said: The first clause is referring to a case where the tree is four by four handbreadths wide. The eiruv is not valid if it was placed above ten handbreadths because the tree at that height constitutes a private domain, and the eiruv cannot be brought to the public domain below, where one wishes to establish his Shabbat residence. The latter clause, however, is referring to a case where the tree is not four by four handbreadths wide, and the basket completes the width of the tree at that spot to four.


讜专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐


The Gemara clarifies: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said the following in the case of an arched gateway in which the lower, straight-walled section is three handbreadths high, and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high: Even if, at the height of ten handbreadths, the arch is less than four handbreadths wide, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the arch has the legal status as though it were actually enlarged to a width of four handbreadths. Similarly, in our case the basket is taken into account and enlarges the tree to a width of four handbreadths.


讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗


And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: We require that the eiruv rest on a place that is four by four handbreadths wide, and here there is not a width of four handbreadths without taking the basket into account.


诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽讜专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讜 注诇讬讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara now asks: What is the source of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one stuck a cross beam into the ground in the public domain and placed his eiruv upon it, if the cross beam is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it has the status of a private domain, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if not, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.


讗讚专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘专讗砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘专讗砖讛 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara expresses surprise: On the contrary, if the cross beam is not ten handbreadths high, why shouldn鈥檛 his eiruv be valid? He and his eiruv are in the same place, i.e., in the public domain. Rather, this is what he said: If the cross beam is ten handbreadths high, it is necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide, so that it can be considered its own domain; but if it is not ten handbreadths high, it is not necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide because it is considered part of the public domain.


讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ravina offer his explanation, which maintains that we are dealing with a basket that completes the dimension of the tree to four handbreadths and yet it is not treated as a private domain? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If one stuck a reed into the ground in the public domain, and placed a basket [teraskal] four by four handbreadths wide on top of it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable for carrying from a public domain to a private domain. According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, if a surface of four by four handbreadths rests at a height of ten handbreadths from the ground, this is sufficient for it to be considered a private domain. Ravina鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 position, however, does not appear to accept this assumption.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讛讚专谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 讛讚专谉 诪讞讬爪转讗


The Gemara refutes this and claims that this proof is not conclusive: Even if you say that Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a distinction can be made: There, in the case of the basket resting on a reed, the sides of the basket constitute partitions that surround the reed on all sides, and we can invoke the principle of: Lower the partition, according to which the partitions are viewed as extending down to the ground. Consequently, a kind of private domain is created within the public domain. Here, in the case of the basket hanging from the tree, the partitions of the basket do not surround the tree, and so they do not suffice to create a private domain.


专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讻诇讻诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诇讛讘讬讗讛 诇转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rabbi Yirmeya said that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the Tosefta can be explained in an entirely different manner: A basket is different, since one can tilt it and in that way bring it to within ten handbreadths of the ground. Without moving the entire basket, one can tilt it and thereby remove the eiruv in order to eat it, without carrying it from one domain to another.


讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜


Rav Pappa sat and recited this halakha. Rav bar Shabba raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the following mishna: What does one do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, i.e., the eve of the Festival, and stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it does not become lost before Shabbat begins, in which case he would not have an eiruv for Shabbat. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his Shabbat residence; and then he may then eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires.


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.

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...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 33: Oh, Go Hang Your Eruv in a Tree

If you put your eruv good low in a tree, note that if it within 3 tefachim of the ground,...

Eruvin 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 33

讜谞转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬拽专讜 讜诪讗讬 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 讚讛讚专 讝拽讬祝


and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence at its base. And what is the meaning of the terms above and below, as we said that this tree extends horizontally to the side, which indicates that it remains at a uniform height? After the tree leans horizontally beyond four cubits from the place of its roots, it rises once again in an upright position, and therefore the terms above and below are applicable.


讜讛讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讚专讱 注诇讬讜


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it true that even if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, if one wants, he can remove it from where it was deposited and bring it by way of the tree鈥檚 leaves, i.e., its branches that are above ten handbreadths, to within four cubits of the place where he intended to establish his Shabbat residence? Therefore, the eiruv should be valid even though it is above ten handbreadths.


讻砖专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讻讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诪讜讚 转砖注讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘:


The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a unique situation where the horizontal section of the tree is used by the masses to shoulder their burdens on it, i.e., to temporarily rest their loads on it, so that they can adjust them and easily lift them up again; and the halakha in that case is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: With regard to a pillar that is nine handbreadths high and situated in the public domain, and the masses use it to shoulder their loads upon it, and someone threw an object from a private domain and it came to rest upon it, he is liable, as this pillar has the status of a public domain. Consequently, in the case of the tree, one may not bring the eiruv by way of the tree鈥檚 branches, as the horizontal section of the tree has the status of a public domain, and one may not carry from one private domain to another via a public domain.


诪讗讬 专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 专讘谞谉


The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree is not prohibited during the twilight period. The Gemara now attempts to clarify the matter: What is the source that originally cites Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, and what is the source which cites the opinion of the Rabbis?


讚转谞讬讗 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 讜讗住讜专 诇讬讟诇讜 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诪讜转专 诇讬讟诇讜 谞转谞讜 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讜转诇讗讜 讘讗讬诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara cites the source of the disagreement: As it was taught in the Tosefta: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he placed it below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, but he is prohibited to take it on Shabbat in order to eat it because it is prohibited to use the tree on Shabbat. However, if the eiruv is within three handbreadths of the ground, he is permitted to take it because it is considered as though it were on the ground and not in a tree. If one placed the eiruv in a basket and hung it on a tree, even above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis disagree and say: In any situation in which the eiruv was placed in a location where it is prohibited to take it, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专讬 专讘谞谉 爪讚讚讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


The Gemara clarifies: With regard to which statement did the Rabbis state their opinion? If you say they were referring to the latter clause with respect to the basket hanging from the tree, let us say that the Rabbis hold that using even the sides of a tree is prohibited, as making use of the basket is considered using the sides of a tree. Rather, the Rabbis鈥 statement must refer to the first clause, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if one put the eiruv below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is valid, but he is prohibited to move it.


讛讗讬 讗讬诇谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讻讬 谞转谞讜 讘讻诇讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara clarifies further: This tree, what are its circumstances? If it is not four by four handbreadths wide, it is an exempt domain, i.e., a neutral place with respect to the laws of carrying on Shabbat, from which an object may be carried into any other Shabbat domain. In that case, the eiruv should be valid even if it was placed higher than ten handbreadths in the tree. And if it is four by four handbreadths wide, when one places it in a basket, what of it? What difference does it make? In any event it is in a private domain.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讬砖讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 住讬驻讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讻诇讻诇讛 诪砖诇讬诪转讜 诇讗专讘注讛


Ravina said: The first clause is referring to a case where the tree is four by four handbreadths wide. The eiruv is not valid if it was placed above ten handbreadths because the tree at that height constitutes a private domain, and the eiruv cannot be brought to the public domain below, where one wishes to establish his Shabbat residence. The latter clause, however, is referring to a case where the tree is not four by four handbreadths wide, and the basket completes the width of the tree at that spot to four.


讜专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐


The Gemara clarifies: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said the following in the case of an arched gateway in which the lower, straight-walled section is three handbreadths high, and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high: Even if, at the height of ten handbreadths, the arch is less than four handbreadths wide, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the arch has the legal status as though it were actually enlarged to a width of four handbreadths. Similarly, in our case the basket is taken into account and enlarges the tree to a width of four handbreadths.


讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗


And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: We require that the eiruv rest on a place that is four by four handbreadths wide, and here there is not a width of four handbreadths without taking the basket into account.


诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽讜专讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 注讬专讜讘讜 注诇讬讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara now asks: What is the source of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one stuck a cross beam into the ground in the public domain and placed his eiruv upon it, if the cross beam is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it has the status of a private domain, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if not, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.


讗讚专讘讛 讛讜讗 讜注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘专讗砖讛 讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘专讗砖讛 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara expresses surprise: On the contrary, if the cross beam is not ten handbreadths high, why shouldn鈥檛 his eiruv be valid? He and his eiruv are in the same place, i.e., in the public domain. Rather, this is what he said: If the cross beam is ten handbreadths high, it is necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide, so that it can be considered its own domain; but if it is not ten handbreadths high, it is not necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide because it is considered part of the public domain.


讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讘专讗砖讜 讟专住拽诇 讜讝专拽 讜谞讞 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ravina offer his explanation, which maintains that we are dealing with a basket that completes the dimension of the tree to four handbreadths and yet it is not treated as a private domain? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If one stuck a reed into the ground in the public domain, and placed a basket [teraskal] four by four handbreadths wide on top of it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable for carrying from a public domain to a private domain. According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, if a surface of four by four handbreadths rests at a height of ten handbreadths from the ground, this is sufficient for it to be considered a private domain. Ravina鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 position, however, does not appear to accept this assumption.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讛讚专谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 讛讚专谉 诪讞讬爪转讗


The Gemara refutes this and claims that this proof is not conclusive: Even if you say that Ravina鈥檚 explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a distinction can be made: There, in the case of the basket resting on a reed, the sides of the basket constitute partitions that surround the reed on all sides, and we can invoke the principle of: Lower the partition, according to which the partitions are viewed as extending down to the ground. Consequently, a kind of private domain is created within the public domain. Here, in the case of the basket hanging from the tree, the partitions of the basket do not surround the tree, and so they do not suffice to create a private domain.


专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讻诇讻诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇谞讟讜转讛 讜诇讛讘讬讗讛 诇转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rabbi Yirmeya said that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the Tosefta can be explained in an entirely different manner: A basket is different, since one can tilt it and in that way bring it to within ten handbreadths of the ground. Without moving the entire basket, one can tilt it and thereby remove the eiruv in order to eat it, without carrying it from one domain to another.


讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讘专 砖讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜


Rav Pappa sat and recited this halakha. Rav bar Shabba raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the following mishna: What does one do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, i.e., the eve of the Festival, and stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it does not become lost before Shabbat begins, in which case he would not have an eiruv for Shabbat. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his Shabbat residence; and then he may then eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires.


Scroll To Top