Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 12, 2020 | כ״ג באלול תש״פ

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 34

Today’s daf is dedicated by Miriam Tannenbaum in memory of her mother, Ruth Zemsky, Raizel bat Yehoshua HaLevi and Chaya Keila z”l on her yahrzeit. Her greatest nachat was her children and grandchildren and their involvement in the learning and teaching of Torah. יהי זכרה ברוך

Two questions are brought on Rabbi Yirmia’s explanation of the basket attached to the tree. What exactly is the case in the mishna regarding the eruv in a pit? Can one put an eruv at the top of a pole or a reed? Under what circumstances? If one put an eruv in a locked closet, does one need to have access to the key? What if the key is lost?

אמאי נימא כיון דאי בעי אמטויי מצי ממטי ליה אף על גב דלא אמטייה כמאן דאמטייה דמי

Why must one actually bring the eiruv to the place where he wishes to establish his residence? Let us say: Since if he wished to bring the eiruv there he could bring it, even though he did not bring it, it is considered as though he did bring it there. This follows the same reasoning proposed by Rav Yirmeya in the case of the basket: Since one can tilt it. The fact that this reasoning is not employed here indicates that the potential to do something is insufficient; rather, the deed must actually be done.

אמר רבי זירא גזירה משום יום טוב שחל להיות אחר שבת

Rabbi Zeira said: The fact that one must bring his eiruv the day before to the spot that he wishes to establish as his place of residence, and the potential to bring it there does not suffice, is a decree due to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat. In that case, the eiruv is valid for the Festival only if it was brought there before Shabbat, for it cannot be carried there on Shabbat. Since one cannot actually bring the eiruv there, it cannot be said: It is considered as though he did bring it there because had he wished to bring the eiruv he could have. Consequently, the Sages decreed that in all cases, the eiruv is only valid if it was actually brought to the designated spot, lest one come to think that even on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat it need not be brought there.

איתיביה נתכוון לשבות ברשות הרבים והניח עירובו בכותל למטה מעשרה טפחים עירובו עירוב למעלה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב נתכוון לשבות בראש השובך או בראש המגדל למעלה מעשרה טפחים עירובו עירוב למטה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב

Rav bar Shabba raised another objection from a different baraita: With regard to one who intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the public domain and placed his eiruv in a wall that is more than four cubits away from that location; if he placed the eiruv below a height of ten handbreadths above the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if he placed it above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv because he is in a public domain while his eiruv is in a private domain. If one intended to establish his Shabbat residence on top of a dovecote or on top of a large cupboard, if he placed the eiruv in the dovecote or cupboard above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv because both he and his eiruv are in a private domain; but if he placed it below ten handbreadths, the area in which he placed his eiruv is considered a karmelit, and his eiruv is not a valid eiruv because he cannot transport his eiruv from there to his own domain on Shabbat.

ואמאי הכי נמי נימא הואיל ויכול לנטותו ולהביאו לתוך עשרה אמר רבי ירמיה הכא במגדל מסומר עסקינן

Why should this be so? Here too, let us say that his eiruv should be valid even if it was placed below ten handbreadths, since one can tilt the cupboard and bring it to within ten handbreadths from the ground, in which case he and his eiruv would be in the same domain. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here, we are dealing with a cupboard that is nailed to the wall so that it cannot be tilted.

רבא אמר אפילו תימא במגדל שאינו מסומר והכא במגדל ארוך עסקינן דאי ממטי ליה פורתא אזיל חוץ לארבע אמות

Rava said: Even if you say that it is referring to a cupboard that is not nailed to the wall, here, we are dealing with a very tall cupboard, such that were one to tilt it a little in order to bring the top of the cupboard within ten handbreadths from the ground, the top of the cupboard would project beyond the four cubits that constitute one’s Shabbat residence.

היכי דמי אי דאיכא כוותא ומתנא לייתיה בכוותא ומתנא דלית ליה כוותא ומתנא:

The Gemara asks: What, exactly, are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the cupboard has a window, and one has a rope at hand, let him bring it by means of the window and rope. In other words, let him lower the rope through the cupboard’s window and bring the eiruv with it, and he will not have to move the entire cupboard. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where it does not have a window, and he does not have a rope at hand.

נתנו בבור אפילו עמוק מאה אמה וכו׳: האי בור דקאי היכא אילימא דקאי ברשות היחיד

We learned in the mishna: If one placed the eiruv in a pit, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eiruv is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: This pit, where is it situated? If you say that it is situated in the private domain,

פשיטא רשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע וכי היכי דסלקא לעיל הכי נמי דנחתא לתחת ואלא דקאי ברשות הרבים

it is obvious, for the private domain ascends to the sky, and just as it ascends upward, so too, it descends downward to the bottom of the pit, even if it is more than ten handbreadths deep. Rather, we must say that the pit is situated in the public domain.

דנתכוון לשבות היכא אי למעלה הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא אי למטה פשיטא הוא ועירובו במקום אחד

The Gemara now clarifies: Where did one intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If he intended to establish his residence above the pit in the public domain, this is a case where he is in one place and his eiruv is in another place, i.e., in a private domain, and therefore his eiruv is not valid. Alternatively, if one intended to establish his Shabbat residence below, in the pit, it is also obvious, as he and his eiruv are in one place.

לא צריכא דקאי בכרמלית ונתכוון לשבות למעלה ורבי היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות:

The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where the pit is situated in a karmelit, and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence above the pit in the karmelit. And with regard to the question of how this eiruv can be valid, as one cannot bring the eiruv from the pit to the karmelit, the answer is that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: With regard to anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree [shevut], they did not issue the decree to apply during twilight. Since carrying from the pit to the karmelit is only prohibited as a shevut, a person may carry from the pit to the karmelit during twilight, the time when the eiruv establishes one’s Shabbat residence.

מתני׳ נתנו בראש הקנה או בראש הקונדס בזמן שהוא תלוש ונעוץ אפילו גבוה מאה אמה הרי זה עירוב:

MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv on top of a reed or on top of a pole [kundas], when the reed or pole is detached from its original place and stuck into the ground, even if it is a hundred cubits high, it is a valid eiruv, as one can remove the reed or pole from the ground and take his eiruv.

גמ׳ רמי ליה רב אדא בר מתנא לרבא תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ונעוץ לא מני רבנן היא דאמרי כל דבר שהוא משום שבות גזרו עליו בין השמשות והא אמרת רישא רבי רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

GEMARA: Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a contradiction before Rava concerning two tannaitic rulings: The mishna states that if the reed was detached from its place of growth and then stuck into the ground, yes, the eiruv is valid. That indicates that if it was not detached and then stuck back into the ground, no, the eiruv is not valid. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree [shevut], such as using a tree on Shabbat, they issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Therefore, if the eiruv was on top of a reed that was still attached to the ground in its original place of growth, since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to make use of trees on Shabbat, one cannot remove the eiruv from its place at the time that he must establish his Shabbat residence, and therefore his eiruv is invalid. But didn’t you say that the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? How can you say that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

אמר ליה כבר רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא ושני ליה רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

Rava said to Rav Adda: Rami bar Ḥama already raised this contradiction before Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda answered him: Indeed, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

רבינא אמר כולה רבי היא וסיפא גזירה שמא יקטום:

Ravina said: You can, in fact, say that it is all Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause, i.e., the mishna that insists that the reed be detached and inserted, is not based upon the prohibition of utilizing trees on Shabbat. Rather, in that case there is a unique decree lest he break it off from the ground if the reed is relatively soft. Therefore, the mishna requires one to use something that has already been detached from the ground and reinserted. However, the previous mishna is referring to someone who placed his eiruv in a tree, where this concern is not relevant.

ההוא פולמוסא דאתא לנהרדעא אמר להו רב נחמן פוקו עבידו כבושי כבשי באגמא ולמחר ניזיל וניתיב עלויהו

The Gemara relates that a certain army [pulmosa] once came to Neharde’a and took quarters in the study hall, so that there was not enough room for the students. Rav Naḥman said to the students: Go out and create seats by compressing reeds in the marshes, and tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit on them and study there.

איתיביה רמי בר חמא לרב נחמן ואמרי לה רב עוקבא בר אבא לרב נחמן תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ולא נעוץ לא

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say that it was Rav Ukva bar Abba who raised the objection to Rav Naḥman, from the mishna that states that if the reed was detached and then stuck into the ground, yes; but if it was not detached and not stuck into the ground, no. This shows that it is not enough to compress the reeds, and they must actually be detached from the ground before they may be used on Shabbat.

אמר ליה התם בעוזרדין ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עוזרדין לשאין עוזרדין דתניא הקנין והאטדין וההגין מין אילן הן ואינן כלאים בכרם ותניא אידך הקנים והקידן והאורבנין מין ירק הן והן כלאים בכרם קשיא אהדדי

Rav Naḥman said to him: There, in the mishna, we are dealing with hard reeds, which may not be bent and used on Shabbat, unlike soft reeds.He adds: And from where do you say that we distinguish between hard reeds and reeds that are not hard? As it was taught in a baraita: Reeds, boxthorn, and thistles are species of trees, and therefore they are not included in the prohibition of food crops in a vineyard, which applies only to herbs planted among vines. And it was taught in another baraita: Reeds, cassia, and bulrushes are species of herbs, and therefore they are included in the prohibition of food crops in a vineyard. These two baraitot contradict one another, as one states that reeds are trees, while the other says that they are considered herbs.

אלא שמע מינה כאן בעוזרדין כאן בשאין עוזרדין שמע מינה

Rather, conclude from this that we must distinguish between them as follows: Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to hard reeds, which are like trees; whereas there, in the second baraita, it is referring to reeds that are not hard. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that our resolution of the contradiction is correct.

וקידה מין ירק הוא והתנן אין מרכיבין פגם על גבי קידה לבנה מפני שהוא ירק באילן אמר רב פפא קידה לחוד וקידה לבנה לחוד:

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the previously cited baraita: Is cassia a type of herb? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may not graft rue to white cassia, as this involves the grafting of herbs to a tree? This proves that white cassia is a tree. Rav Pappa said: There is no difficulty, as cassia is distinct and is considered a type of herb, and white cassia is distinct and is considered a type of tree.

מתני׳ נתנו במגדל ואבד המפתח הרי זה עירוב רבי אליעזר אומר אם אינו יודע שהמפתח במקומו אינו עירוב:

MISHNA: If one put the eiruv in a cupboard and locked it, and the key was lost, so that he is now unable to open the cupboard and access the eiruv, it is nonetheless a valid eiruv. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not a valid eiruv.

גמ׳ ואמאי הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And why should the eiruv be valid if the key was lost? He is in one place and his eiruv is in a different place, since he cannot access the eiruv.

רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במגדל של לבנים עסקינן ורבי מאיר היא דאמר פוחת לכתחילה ונוטל דתנן בית שמילאהו פירות סתום ונפחת נוטל ממקום הפחת רבי מאיר אומר פוחת ונוטל לכתחילה

It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Here, we are dealing with a cupboard made of bricks, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One may create a breach in a brick wall on Shabbat ab initio, and take produce from the other side. As we learned in a mishna: If a house filled with produce had been sealed and was then breached, one may take out produce from the place of the breach.Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: One may even create a breach in the wall of the house and take produce ab initio. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir it is permissible to make a hole in the cupboard in order to remove the produce found inside.

והאמר רב נחמן בר אדא אמר שמואל באוירא דליבני הכא נמי באוירא דליבני

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Naḥman bar Adda say that Shmuel said that that very mishna cited as a proof is referring to a structure built from layers of bricks piled one atop the other without cement or mortar between them, in which case making a hole cannot be considered dismantling a bona fide structure? The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a cupboard made from layers of bricks.

והא אמר רבי זירא ביום טוב אמרו אבל לא בשבת הכא נמי ביום טוב

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say: The Sages in the aforementioned mishna, who discussed the breaching of a wall, spoke only with regard to a Festival, but not with regard to Shabbat? Therefore, it cannot be derived from that mishna that it is permitted to breach the cupboard on Shabbat in order to access the food inside. The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person needed an eiruv for a Festival but not for Shabbat.

אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה רבי אליעזר אומר אם בעיר אבד עירובו עירוב ואם בשדה אבד אין עירובו עירוב ואי ביום טוב מה לי עיר מה לי שדה

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the mishna is referring only to a Festival, there is a difficulty with that which was taught about it in the following Tosefta: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the key was lost in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; and if it was lost in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv, for within a city it is possible to carry the key by way of courtyards that have joined together in an eiruv or the like, but in a field it is impossible to carry it, as the field has the status of a karmelit. And if the mishna is referring to a Festival, what is the difference to me whether the key was lost in a city or a field? On a Festival there is no prohibition against carrying from a private to a public domain, and therefore if the key was lost even in a field, the eiruv should still be valid.

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

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 34: Accessing the Physical Eruv (Or Not)

Do you really need to bring the eruv techumin to the place where you want to set up the eruv?...

Eruvin 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 34

אמאי נימא כיון דאי בעי אמטויי מצי ממטי ליה אף על גב דלא אמטייה כמאן דאמטייה דמי

Why must one actually bring the eiruv to the place where he wishes to establish his residence? Let us say: Since if he wished to bring the eiruv there he could bring it, even though he did not bring it, it is considered as though he did bring it there. This follows the same reasoning proposed by Rav Yirmeya in the case of the basket: Since one can tilt it. The fact that this reasoning is not employed here indicates that the potential to do something is insufficient; rather, the deed must actually be done.

אמר רבי זירא גזירה משום יום טוב שחל להיות אחר שבת

Rabbi Zeira said: The fact that one must bring his eiruv the day before to the spot that he wishes to establish as his place of residence, and the potential to bring it there does not suffice, is a decree due to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat. In that case, the eiruv is valid for the Festival only if it was brought there before Shabbat, for it cannot be carried there on Shabbat. Since one cannot actually bring the eiruv there, it cannot be said: It is considered as though he did bring it there because had he wished to bring the eiruv he could have. Consequently, the Sages decreed that in all cases, the eiruv is only valid if it was actually brought to the designated spot, lest one come to think that even on a Festival that occurs after Shabbat it need not be brought there.

איתיביה נתכוון לשבות ברשות הרבים והניח עירובו בכותל למטה מעשרה טפחים עירובו עירוב למעלה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב נתכוון לשבות בראש השובך או בראש המגדל למעלה מעשרה טפחים עירובו עירוב למטה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב

Rav bar Shabba raised another objection from a different baraita: With regard to one who intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the public domain and placed his eiruv in a wall that is more than four cubits away from that location; if he placed the eiruv below a height of ten handbreadths above the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if he placed it above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv because he is in a public domain while his eiruv is in a private domain. If one intended to establish his Shabbat residence on top of a dovecote or on top of a large cupboard, if he placed the eiruv in the dovecote or cupboard above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is a valid eiruv because both he and his eiruv are in a private domain; but if he placed it below ten handbreadths, the area in which he placed his eiruv is considered a karmelit, and his eiruv is not a valid eiruv because he cannot transport his eiruv from there to his own domain on Shabbat.

ואמאי הכי נמי נימא הואיל ויכול לנטותו ולהביאו לתוך עשרה אמר רבי ירמיה הכא במגדל מסומר עסקינן

Why should this be so? Here too, let us say that his eiruv should be valid even if it was placed below ten handbreadths, since one can tilt the cupboard and bring it to within ten handbreadths from the ground, in which case he and his eiruv would be in the same domain. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here, we are dealing with a cupboard that is nailed to the wall so that it cannot be tilted.

רבא אמר אפילו תימא במגדל שאינו מסומר והכא במגדל ארוך עסקינן דאי ממטי ליה פורתא אזיל חוץ לארבע אמות

Rava said: Even if you say that it is referring to a cupboard that is not nailed to the wall, here, we are dealing with a very tall cupboard, such that were one to tilt it a little in order to bring the top of the cupboard within ten handbreadths from the ground, the top of the cupboard would project beyond the four cubits that constitute one’s Shabbat residence.

היכי דמי אי דאיכא כוותא ומתנא לייתיה בכוותא ומתנא דלית ליה כוותא ומתנא:

The Gemara asks: What, exactly, are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where the cupboard has a window, and one has a rope at hand, let him bring it by means of the window and rope. In other words, let him lower the rope through the cupboard’s window and bring the eiruv with it, and he will not have to move the entire cupboard. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where it does not have a window, and he does not have a rope at hand.

נתנו בבור אפילו עמוק מאה אמה וכו׳: האי בור דקאי היכא אילימא דקאי ברשות היחיד

We learned in the mishna: If one placed the eiruv in a pit, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eiruv is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: This pit, where is it situated? If you say that it is situated in the private domain,

פשיטא רשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע וכי היכי דסלקא לעיל הכי נמי דנחתא לתחת ואלא דקאי ברשות הרבים

it is obvious, for the private domain ascends to the sky, and just as it ascends upward, so too, it descends downward to the bottom of the pit, even if it is more than ten handbreadths deep. Rather, we must say that the pit is situated in the public domain.

דנתכוון לשבות היכא אי למעלה הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא אי למטה פשיטא הוא ועירובו במקום אחד

The Gemara now clarifies: Where did one intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If he intended to establish his residence above the pit in the public domain, this is a case where he is in one place and his eiruv is in another place, i.e., in a private domain, and therefore his eiruv is not valid. Alternatively, if one intended to establish his Shabbat residence below, in the pit, it is also obvious, as he and his eiruv are in one place.

לא צריכא דקאי בכרמלית ונתכוון לשבות למעלה ורבי היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות:

The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in a case where the pit is situated in a karmelit, and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence above the pit in the karmelit. And with regard to the question of how this eiruv can be valid, as one cannot bring the eiruv from the pit to the karmelit, the answer is that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: With regard to anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree [shevut], they did not issue the decree to apply during twilight. Since carrying from the pit to the karmelit is only prohibited as a shevut, a person may carry from the pit to the karmelit during twilight, the time when the eiruv establishes one’s Shabbat residence.

מתני׳ נתנו בראש הקנה או בראש הקונדס בזמן שהוא תלוש ונעוץ אפילו גבוה מאה אמה הרי זה עירוב:

MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv on top of a reed or on top of a pole [kundas], when the reed or pole is detached from its original place and stuck into the ground, even if it is a hundred cubits high, it is a valid eiruv, as one can remove the reed or pole from the ground and take his eiruv.

גמ׳ רמי ליה רב אדא בר מתנא לרבא תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ונעוץ לא מני רבנן היא דאמרי כל דבר שהוא משום שבות גזרו עליו בין השמשות והא אמרת רישא רבי רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

GEMARA: Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a contradiction before Rava concerning two tannaitic rulings: The mishna states that if the reed was detached from its place of growth and then stuck into the ground, yes, the eiruv is valid. That indicates that if it was not detached and then stuck back into the ground, no, the eiruv is not valid. In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree [shevut], such as using a tree on Shabbat, they issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Therefore, if the eiruv was on top of a reed that was still attached to the ground in its original place of growth, since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to make use of trees on Shabbat, one cannot remove the eiruv from its place at the time that he must establish his Shabbat residence, and therefore his eiruv is invalid. But didn’t you say that the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? How can you say that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

אמר ליה כבר רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא ושני ליה רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

Rava said to Rav Adda: Rami bar Ḥama already raised this contradiction before Rav Ḥisda, and Rav Ḥisda answered him: Indeed, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

רבינא אמר כולה רבי היא וסיפא גזירה שמא יקטום:

Ravina said: You can, in fact, say that it is all Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the latter clause, i.e., the mishna that insists that the reed be detached and inserted, is not based upon the prohibition of utilizing trees on Shabbat. Rather, in that case there is a unique decree lest he break it off from the ground if the reed is relatively soft. Therefore, the mishna requires one to use something that has already been detached from the ground and reinserted. However, the previous mishna is referring to someone who placed his eiruv in a tree, where this concern is not relevant.

ההוא פולמוסא דאתא לנהרדעא אמר להו רב נחמן פוקו עבידו כבושי כבשי באגמא ולמחר ניזיל וניתיב עלויהו

The Gemara relates that a certain army [pulmosa] once came to Neharde’a and took quarters in the study hall, so that there was not enough room for the students. Rav Naḥman said to the students: Go out and create seats by compressing reeds in the marshes, and tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit on them and study there.

איתיביה רמי בר חמא לרב נחמן ואמרי לה רב עוקבא בר אבא לרב נחמן תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ולא נעוץ לא

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say that it was Rav Ukva bar Abba who raised the objection to Rav Naḥman, from the mishna that states that if the reed was detached and then stuck into the ground, yes; but if it was not detached and not stuck into the ground, no. This shows that it is not enough to compress the reeds, and they must actually be detached from the ground before they may be used on Shabbat.

אמר ליה התם בעוזרדין ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עוזרדין לשאין עוזרדין דתניא הקנין והאטדין וההגין מין אילן הן ואינן כלאים בכרם ותניא אידך הקנים והקידן והאורבנין מין ירק הן והן כלאים בכרם קשיא אהדדי

Rav Naḥman said to him: There, in the mishna, we are dealing with hard reeds, which may not be bent and used on Shabbat, unlike soft reeds.He adds: And from where do you say that we distinguish between hard reeds and reeds that are not hard? As it was taught in a baraita: Reeds, boxthorn, and thistles are species of trees, and therefore they are not included in the prohibition of food crops in a vineyard, which applies only to herbs planted among vines. And it was taught in another baraita: Reeds, cassia, and bulrushes are species of herbs, and therefore they are included in the prohibition of food crops in a vineyard. These two baraitot contradict one another, as one states that reeds are trees, while the other says that they are considered herbs.

אלא שמע מינה כאן בעוזרדין כאן בשאין עוזרדין שמע מינה

Rather, conclude from this that we must distinguish between them as follows: Here, in the first baraita, it is referring to hard reeds, which are like trees; whereas there, in the second baraita, it is referring to reeds that are not hard. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that our resolution of the contradiction is correct.

וקידה מין ירק הוא והתנן אין מרכיבין פגם על גבי קידה לבנה מפני שהוא ירק באילן אמר רב פפא קידה לחוד וקידה לבנה לחוד:

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the previously cited baraita: Is cassia a type of herb? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may not graft rue to white cassia, as this involves the grafting of herbs to a tree? This proves that white cassia is a tree. Rav Pappa said: There is no difficulty, as cassia is distinct and is considered a type of herb, and white cassia is distinct and is considered a type of tree.

מתני׳ נתנו במגדל ואבד המפתח הרי זה עירוב רבי אליעזר אומר אם אינו יודע שהמפתח במקומו אינו עירוב:

MISHNA: If one put the eiruv in a cupboard and locked it, and the key was lost, so that he is now unable to open the cupboard and access the eiruv, it is nonetheless a valid eiruv. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not a valid eiruv.

גמ׳ ואמאי הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And why should the eiruv be valid if the key was lost? He is in one place and his eiruv is in a different place, since he cannot access the eiruv.

רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במגדל של לבנים עסקינן ורבי מאיר היא דאמר פוחת לכתחילה ונוטל דתנן בית שמילאהו פירות סתום ונפחת נוטל ממקום הפחת רבי מאיר אומר פוחת ונוטל לכתחילה

It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Here, we are dealing with a cupboard made of bricks, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One may create a breach in a brick wall on Shabbat ab initio, and take produce from the other side. As we learned in a mishna: If a house filled with produce had been sealed and was then breached, one may take out produce from the place of the breach.Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: One may even create a breach in the wall of the house and take produce ab initio. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir it is permissible to make a hole in the cupboard in order to remove the produce found inside.

והאמר רב נחמן בר אדא אמר שמואל באוירא דליבני הכא נמי באוירא דליבני

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Naḥman bar Adda say that Shmuel said that that very mishna cited as a proof is referring to a structure built from layers of bricks piled one atop the other without cement or mortar between them, in which case making a hole cannot be considered dismantling a bona fide structure? The Gemara answers: Here too, we are dealing with a cupboard made from layers of bricks.

והא אמר רבי זירא ביום טוב אמרו אבל לא בשבת הכא נמי ביום טוב

The Gemara raises another difficulty: Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say: The Sages in the aforementioned mishna, who discussed the breaching of a wall, spoke only with regard to a Festival, but not with regard to Shabbat? Therefore, it cannot be derived from that mishna that it is permitted to breach the cupboard on Shabbat in order to access the food inside. The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person needed an eiruv for a Festival but not for Shabbat.

אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה רבי אליעזר אומר אם בעיר אבד עירובו עירוב ואם בשדה אבד אין עירובו עירוב ואי ביום טוב מה לי עיר מה לי שדה

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the mishna is referring only to a Festival, there is a difficulty with that which was taught about it in the following Tosefta: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the key was lost in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; and if it was lost in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv, for within a city it is possible to carry the key by way of courtyards that have joined together in an eiruv or the like, but in a field it is impossible to carry it, as the field has the status of a karmelit. And if the mishna is referring to a Festival, what is the difference to me whether the key was lost in a city or a field? On a Festival there is no prohibition against carrying from a private to a public domain, and therefore if the key was lost even in a field, the eiruv should still be valid.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top