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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Eruvin 35

Today’s daf is sponsored by Don Nadel on the yahrzeit of his father Melech ben Yehoshua Baer z”l who valued learning.聽

The gemara brings three different explanations of the case in the mishna where the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer debate the case of one who loses the key to the closet in which the eruv is placed. Is it only on Yom Tov and in a case where it is built with bricks places on each other without being cemented together? Or is it made of wood and it is a debate whether or not it is considered a utensil or a tent and if a utensil, the rabbis hold there is no issue of building or taking apart in utensils? Or is it a muktze issue because the lock is attached with a rope that can be cut by a knife 鈥 can one bring a knife to cut it? What is the law if the food rolls out of the 2,000 cubits from the city limits or a pile of rocks falls on top of it and it becomes inaccessible or it burns or it is truma that becomes impure? It depends on whether it happened before or after twilight. What if one doesn鈥檛 know when it happened? Why are each of these cases mentioned? Rabbi Meir is stringent 鈥 how does this work in with other statements of Rabbi that seem similar and yet he isn鈥檛 stringent?

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞转谞讜 讘诪讙讚诇 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讘讚 讛诪驻转讞 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 谞诪爪讗 讛诪驻转讞 讘讬谉 讘注讬专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘注讬专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: If one placed the eiruv in a cupboard and locked it, and the key is lost, it is nonetheless a valid eiruv. In what case is this statement said? On a Festival; however, on Shabbat, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If the key is found, whether in a city or in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says: If it is found in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if it is found in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.

讘注讬专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara now explains the difference: If the key is found in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosed fields [karpeifot] are all one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in them. Accordingly, a utensil that was left on a roof at the beginning of Shabbat may be carried into a courtyard or a karpef. It is possible to transfer anything located in a city from one place to another in a similar manner. If, however, the key is found in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, due to the prohibition to carry in a karmelit. Although carrying there is merely a shevut, the eiruv is not valid.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讙讚诇 砖诇 注抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 住转讬专讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讛讜讗

The discussion above constitutes one understanding of the mishna. Rabba and Rav Yosef, however, both said: Here, we are dealing with a wooden cupboard, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the following point: The first, anonymous Sage, who rules that the eiruv is valid, holds that the cupboard is a utensil, and that there is no prohibited labor of building utensils, and similarly, there is no dismantling of utensils. Since dismantling a utensil is not included in the prohibited labor of dismantling, one may make a hole in the cupboard in order to access the food used for the eiruv. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, who invalidates the eiruv, holds that the cupboard is a tent. A wooden implement of such a large size is no longer classified as a utensil; rather, it is considered a building, and therefore it is subject to the prohibitions against building and dismantling on Shabbat.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛拽讬砖 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟诪讗讬谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专讬谉

And their dispute is parallel to the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav: One of the unique laws of a zav is that he imparts impurity to an object simply by moving it, even if he does not touch it directly. If a zav knocked on a carriage, crate, or cupboard, even if he did not actually come into direct contact with them, they are nonetheless ritually impure because he caused them to move when he struck them. Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon disagree and render them pure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讛讜讗

What, are they not disagreeing about this point: The first Sage holds that a carriage, crate, or cupboard is categorized as a utensil, and therefore it contracts ritual impurity when a zav causes it to move; and the other Sage, Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is a tent, and a building does not contract ritual impurity in any way from a zav?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜转讬住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讛诇 讜谞讬住讟 讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬住讟 讟讛讜专 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讬住讜讟讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 谞讬住讟 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 专注讚讛 讟讛讜专

Abaye said in refutation of this proof: And do you think that this is a reasonable explanation of the mishna? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a zav shook a real tent, and it moved, it is ritually impure; and if he shook a utensil and it did not move, it is ritually pure? This indicates that the critical factor is not whether the article is classified as a tent or as a utensil but whether or not it actually moves when shaken. Furthermore, it was taught in the latter clause of that baraita: And if they moved, they are ritually impure, and this is the principle: If a utensil or a tent moved due to the direct force of the zav, it is ritually impure. But if it moved due to vibrations, e.g., if the zav knocked on the floor or on the platform upon which the object is located, and the vibrations of the floor or the platform caused the object to move, it is ritually pure, as it was not moved by the direct force of the zav. Once again, the determining factor is not the object鈥檚 classification as a tent or a utensil but whether it was actually moved by the zav.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬住讟 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 专注讚讛 讟讛讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘专注讚讛 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜讬 讛讬住讟 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬住讟

Rather, Abaye said that the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon should be understood as follows: All agree that movement due to the direct force of the zav causes the object to become ritually impure, whether it is a tent or a utensil. Conversely, if the movement was due to vibrations of the floor or base, it is ritually pure. And here, we are dealing with a case where the object vibrated because of the direct force of the zav, i.e., where he banged upon the object itself, causing it to vibrate but not to move. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the following point: The first Sage holds that this, too, is considered movement; and the other Sage, Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon, holds that vibration is not considered movement. Therefore, Abaye rejects Rabba and Rav Yosef鈥檚 proof for their explanation of the mishna.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘诪谞注讜诇 讜拽讟讬专 讘诪转谞讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘注讬 住讻讬谞讗 诇诪讬驻住拽讬讛

The Gemara therefore proceeds to ask: If so, how is the mishna with regard to eiruv to be interpreted? The Gemara answers: Abaye and Rava both said: We are dealing here with a lock that is tied with a leather strap, and a knife is required to cut it if there is no key.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪诪住专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讬转讚 砖诇 诪讞专讬砖讛

The anonymous first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, except for a large saw and the blade of a plow. Consequently, one may take a knife, cut the strap, and remove his eiruv from the cupboard.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟诇讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜讜讚 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 转砖诪讬砖谉:

And Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who said: Even a cloak, and even a spoon, which are certainly used only for activities permitted on Shabbat, may be moved on Shabbat only for the purpose of their ordinary use. The same applies to a knife, which may be moved only in order to cut food, but not for any other purpose. Consequently, one cannot cut the strap around the lock of the cupboard, and therefore his eiruv is invalid unless the key is located in town and he can transport it via courtyards.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讗讜 谞砖专祝 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 eiruv rolled beyond the Shabbat limit, and he no longer has access to his eiruv since he may not go beyond his limit, or if a pile of stones fell on it, or if it was burnt, or if the eiruv was teruma and it became ritually impure; if any of these occurrences took place while it was still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv, since one did not have an eiruv at twilight, which is the time one鈥檚 Shabbat residence is established. However, if any of these occurred after dark, when it was already Shabbat, it is a valid eiruv, as it was intact and accessible at the time one鈥檚 Shabbat residence is determined.

讗诐 住驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇

If the matter is in doubt, i.e., if he does not know when one of the aforementioned incidents occurred, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is in the position of both a donkey driver, who must prod the animal from behind, and a camel driver, who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is a person who is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty concerning his Shabbat border, he must act stringently, as though his resting place were both in his town and at the location where he placed the eiruv. He must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas that are within two thousand cubits of both locations.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讛注讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 注诇 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 砖讻砖专:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: An eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid. Rav Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid.

讙诪壮 谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: If one鈥檚 eiruv rolled beyond the Shabbat limit prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. Rava said: They only taught this in a case where one established his eiruv at the edge of his town鈥檚 Shabbat limit and the eiruv rolled more than four cubits outside that limit; however, if it remained within four cubits of the Shabbat limit, it is a valid eiruv. The principle is that one who places his eiruv in a particular location has four cubits around it, since he has established his Shabbat residence there.

谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讜讻讜壮: 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪爪讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

The mishna continues: If a pile of stones fell on the eiruv prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. It might enter your mind to say that the mishna is referring to a case where if one wanted he could take the eiruv, i.e., where it is physically possible to clear the stones and remove the eiruv from underneath them. The only reason he cannot do so is because of the rabbinic prohibition to handle items that are set-aside, such as stones, on Shabbat.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 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

If so, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As, if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there is a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 he say that with regard to anything prohibited due to rabbinic decree, they did not issue the decree to apply during twilight? The prohibition to handle items that are set-aside is also a rabbinic decree, and therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since the eiruv was accessible at twilight, it should be valid.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诪专讗 讜讞爪讬谞讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, we can say that this ruling was necessary only in a case where a hoe or a spade would be required in order to remove the eiruv from under the stones, i.e., one would have to dig, which is a Shabbat labor prohibited by Torah law, not only by rabbinic decree.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 谞转讙诇讙诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 注讬专讜讘

The Gemara comments: And both rulings, the ruling concerning an eiruv that rolled beyond the Shabbat limit and the ruling concerning an eiruv that became buried under a pile of rocks, are necessary. As, if the mishna had only taught the case of the eiruv that rolled away, we might have said that the eiruv is invalid because it is not near him, but if a pile of rocks fell on the eiruv, since it is near him, you might say that it should be a valid eiruv, as one does not actually have to eat the eiruv.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讻住讬 讗讘诇 谞转讙诇讙诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讝讬拽讗 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 注讬专讜讘 爪专讬讻讗:

And conversely, if the mishna had only taught the case where a pile of rocks fell on the eiruv, we might have said that the eiruv is invalid because it is covered, but in the case where it rolled away, since sometimes a wind comes and brings it back, you might say that it should be a valid eiruv. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.

讗讜 谞砖专祝 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转: 诇诪讛 诇讬 转谞讗 谞砖专祝

The mishna further states: Or if the eiruv was burnt, or if the eiruv was teruma that became ritually impure before Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach these two cases? The essential point of both cases is the same: The eiruv is no longer fit to be eaten. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the case where the eiruv was burnt

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专

to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, as he is lenient in a case of uncertainty whether the eiruv was burnt the previous day or only after nightfall, even though the eiruv is now entirely destroyed. Additionally, the mishna taught the case of teruma that became ritually impure to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement, as he is stringent even though the teruma itself is still present, and there is only an uncertainty about when it became impure.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住驻讬拽讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 砖讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讘讗讞转 讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讟讘诇 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讟讘诇 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 ruling itself: Does Rabbi Meir really hold that in cases of doubt one must be stringent? Didn鈥檛 we learn the following in a mishna: If a ritually impure person descended to immerse in a ritual bath, and there is doubt whether he actually immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he certainly immersed, there is doubt whether he immersed in a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, the minimal amount of water necessary for the ritual bath to be valid, or he did not immerse in forty se鈥檃; and similarly, if there are two adjacent ritual baths, one of which has forty se鈥檃 of water in it and is therefore valid, and one of which does not have forty se鈥檃 of water in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed; in each of these cases, owing to one鈥檚 doubt, he remains ritually impure?

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

In what case is this statement, which maintains that in cases of doubt one is considered impure, said? It is said with regard to severe forms of ritual impurity, i.e., those imparted by a primary source of ritual impurity.

讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讗讜 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜注诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讘讗讞转 讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讗讞转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讟讘诇 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讟讘诇 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专

However, with regard to lenient forms of ritual impurity imposed only by rabbinic decree, such as one who ate half a half-loaf of impure foods; and similarly, one who drank impure liquids; and one whose head and most of his body came under drawn water, as opposed to spring water or rainwater, in which case the Sages decreed that person to be ritually impure; or if three log of drawn water fell on one鈥檚 head and most of his body, in which case the Sages also decreed that person to be impure; and if in any of these cases one descended to immerse himself in a ritual bath to purify himself of the rabbinically decreed impurity, and there is doubt whether he actually immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he certainly immersed, there is doubt whether he immersed in forty se鈥檃 of water or he did not immerse in forty se鈥檃; and similarly, if there were two ritual baths, one of which has forty se鈥檃 of water in it and one of which does not have forty se鈥檃 of water in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed; in all of these cases, owing to his doubt, he is ritually pure.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟诪讗

Rabbi Yosei disagrees and renders him ritually impure. In any event, it is clear that, according to the unattributed mishna, which is generally presumed to reflect the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha is lenient in cases of doubt relating to ritual impurity that is due to rabbinic decree. Why, then, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir agree that we should be lenient in cases of doubt relating to an eiruv, which is also of rabbinic origin?

拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law, and therefore the uncertainties in the mishna involve a Torah prohibition, with regard to which one may not be lenient.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讘诇讬注讜 讘讝讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讚专讬谉 讘讛专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Meir really hold that the prohibitions of Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: When taking measurements related to Shabbat boundaries, if a fifty-cubit rope is held at either end by two people, the distance between them is deemed to be fifty cubits, even if the distance on the ground is greater, owing to inclines and depressions? If there is a hill or incline between them that cannot be swallowed by the fifty-cubit measuring rope, so that the usual mode of measurement cannot be used, in this situation, Rabbi Dostai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I heard that we pierce mountains, i.e., we measure the distance as if there were a hole from one side of the hill to the other, so that in effect we measure only the horizontal distance and ignore the differences in elevation.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 诪拽讚专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讚专讬谉 诇讗 讘注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜诇讗 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 转讜专讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law, would it be permitted to pierce the mountains? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: We may not pierce mountains when measuring the boundaries of cities of refuge nor when measuring which city is closest to a corpse and is therefore obligated to perform the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken, because those laws are from the Torah; therefore, a more stringent policy is used to measure the distances precisely?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讝讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讚专讬谉 讘讛专讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is no contradiction between the two statements. This statement, according to which Shabbat limits are by Torah law, is his; that statement, in which he is lenient, is his teacher鈥檚. The language of the mishna is also precise according to this explanation, as we learned: In this case, Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I have heard that we pierce mountains. This formulation indicates that Rabbi Meir did not state his own opinion. Rather, he transmitted a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, even though he did not agree with it himself. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this resolution is correct.

讜专诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara continues: There is still room to raise a contradiction between one ruling with regard to Torah law and another ruling with regard to Torah law, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞谉 谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讬 讗诐 诪转 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讻砖注转 诪爪讬讗转谉

As we learned in a mishna: If one touched one other person at night, and he does not know whether the person he touched was alive or dead, and the following day he arose and found him dead, and he is in doubt as to whether or not he contracted ritual impurity as a result of having come into contact with a corpse, Rabbi Meir renders him ritually pure. It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he is dead. And the Rabbis render him ritually impure because it is assumed that all ritually impure items had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it may be presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night. Therefore, Rabbi Meir is lenient even with respect to an uncertainty relating to a Torah law, and he holds that a person is presumed to be alive until it is known with certainty that he died. Why, then, is he stringent concerning doubt as to whether the eiruv had already become impure on the previous day or only after nightfall? Here too, one should assume that the eiruv is ritually pure until he knows with certainty that it became defiled, and so the eiruv should be valid, even if Shabbat limits are considered Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖谞转谞讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讛 砖专抓 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is referring to a case where a creeping animal that imparts ritual impurity was on the teruma that was used to establish the eiruv for the entire twilight period. The Gemara asks: If so, in that case, would Rabbi Yosei say that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid? There is no uncertainty in this case.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛

It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: The doubt here does not result from the facts of the case themselves, but from conflicting testimonies and an inability to decide between them. Here, we are dealing with two sets of witnesses, one of which says: The teruma became impure while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat; and one of which says: The teruma became impure only after nightfall.

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of 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...
alon shvut women

Eruv Issues

Eruvin Daf 35:聽 Three interpretation of the disagreement between the tana kama and Rebbi Eliezer in the mishna on daf...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 35: If You Come to Move It, Move It

A detour: When someone becomes a "zav" and is impure, that impurity can be transferred to an item simply by...

Eruvin 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 35

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞转谞讜 讘诪讙讚诇 讜谞注诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讘讚 讛诪驻转讞 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 谞诪爪讗 讛诪驻转讞 讘讬谉 讘注讬专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘注讬专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: If one placed the eiruv in a cupboard and locked it, and the key is lost, it is nonetheless a valid eiruv. In what case is this statement said? On a Festival; however, on Shabbat, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If the key is found, whether in a city or in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says: If it is found in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if it is found in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.

讘注讬专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讘砖讚讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara now explains the difference: If the key is found in a city, his eiruv is a valid eiruv in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosed fields [karpeifot] are all one domain with regard to utensils that began Shabbat in them. Accordingly, a utensil that was left on a roof at the beginning of Shabbat may be carried into a courtyard or a karpef. It is possible to transfer anything located in a city from one place to another in a similar manner. If, however, the key is found in a field, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, due to the prohibition to carry in a karmelit. Although carrying there is merely a shevut, the eiruv is not valid.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讙讚诇 砖诇 注抓 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 住转讬专讛 讘讻诇讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讛讜讗

The discussion above constitutes one understanding of the mishna. Rabba and Rav Yosef, however, both said: Here, we are dealing with a wooden cupboard, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the following point: The first, anonymous Sage, who rules that the eiruv is valid, holds that the cupboard is a utensil, and that there is no prohibited labor of building utensils, and similarly, there is no dismantling of utensils. Since dismantling a utensil is not included in the prohibited labor of dismantling, one may make a hole in the cupboard in order to access the food used for the eiruv. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, who invalidates the eiruv, holds that the cupboard is a tent. A wooden implement of such a large size is no longer classified as a utensil; rather, it is considered a building, and therefore it is subject to the prohibitions against building and dismantling on Shabbat.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 讛拽讬砖 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讟诪讗讬谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讟讛专讬谉

And their dispute is parallel to the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a zav: One of the unique laws of a zav is that he imparts impurity to an object simply by moving it, even if he does not touch it directly. If a zav knocked on a carriage, crate, or cupboard, even if he did not actually come into direct contact with them, they are nonetheless ritually impure because he caused them to move when he struck them. Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon disagree and render them pure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讛诇 讛讜讗

What, are they not disagreeing about this point: The first Sage holds that a carriage, crate, or cupboard is categorized as a utensil, and therefore it contracts ritual impurity when a zav causes it to move; and the other Sage, Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is a tent, and a building does not contract ritual impurity in any way from a zav?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜转讬住讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讛诇 讜谞讬住讟 讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬住讟 讟讛讜专 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讬住讜讟讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 谞讬住讟 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 专注讚讛 讟讛讜专

Abaye said in refutation of this proof: And do you think that this is a reasonable explanation of the mishna? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a zav shook a real tent, and it moved, it is ritually impure; and if he shook a utensil and it did not move, it is ritually pure? This indicates that the critical factor is not whether the article is classified as a tent or as a utensil but whether or not it actually moves when shaken. Furthermore, it was taught in the latter clause of that baraita: And if they moved, they are ritually impure, and this is the principle: If a utensil or a tent moved due to the direct force of the zav, it is ritually impure. But if it moved due to vibrations, e.g., if the zav knocked on the floor or on the platform upon which the object is located, and the vibrations of the floor or the platform caused the object to move, it is ritually pure, as it was not moved by the direct force of the zav. Once again, the determining factor is not the object鈥檚 classification as a tent or a utensil but whether it was actually moved by the zav.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬住讟 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 讟诪讗 诪讞诪转 专注讚讛 讟讛讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘专注讚讛 诪讞诪转 讻讞讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜讬 讛讬住讟 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬住讟

Rather, Abaye said that the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon should be understood as follows: All agree that movement due to the direct force of the zav causes the object to become ritually impure, whether it is a tent or a utensil. Conversely, if the movement was due to vibrations of the floor or base, it is ritually pure. And here, we are dealing with a case where the object vibrated because of the direct force of the zav, i.e., where he banged upon the object itself, causing it to vibrate but not to move. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the following point: The first Sage holds that this, too, is considered movement; and the other Sage, Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Shimon, holds that vibration is not considered movement. Therefore, Abaye rejects Rabba and Rav Yosef鈥檚 proof for their explanation of the mishna.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘诪谞注讜诇 讜拽讟讬专 讘诪转谞讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘注讬 住讻讬谞讗 诇诪讬驻住拽讬讛

The Gemara therefore proceeds to ask: If so, how is the mishna with regard to eiruv to be interpreted? The Gemara answers: Abaye and Rava both said: We are dealing here with a lock that is tied with a leather strap, and a knife is required to cut it if there is no key.

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪诪住专 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讬转讚 砖诇 诪讞专讬砖讛

The anonymous first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, except for a large saw and the blade of a plow. Consequently, one may take a knife, cut the strap, and remove his eiruv from the cupboard.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟诇讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜讜讚 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 转砖诪讬砖谉:

And Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who said: Even a cloak, and even a spoon, which are certainly used only for activities permitted on Shabbat, may be moved on Shabbat only for the purpose of their ordinary use. The same applies to a knife, which may be moved only in order to cut food, but not for any other purpose. Consequently, one cannot cut the strap around the lock of the cupboard, and therefore his eiruv is invalid unless the key is located in town and he can transport it via courtyards.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讗讜 谞砖专祝 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 eiruv rolled beyond the Shabbat limit, and he no longer has access to his eiruv since he may not go beyond his limit, or if a pile of stones fell on it, or if it was burnt, or if the eiruv was teruma and it became ritually impure; if any of these occurrences took place while it was still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv, since one did not have an eiruv at twilight, which is the time one鈥檚 Shabbat residence is established. However, if any of these occurred after dark, when it was already Shabbat, it is a valid eiruv, as it was intact and accessible at the time one鈥檚 Shabbat residence is determined.

讗诐 住驻拽 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇

If the matter is in doubt, i.e., if he does not know when one of the aforementioned incidents occurred, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This person is in the position of both a donkey driver, who must prod the animal from behind, and a camel driver, who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is a person who is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty concerning his Shabbat border, he must act stringently, as though his resting place were both in his town and at the location where he placed the eiruv. He must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas that are within two thousand cubits of both locations.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讛注讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 注诇 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 砖讻砖专:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say: An eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid. Rav Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid.

讙诪壮 谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讙诇讙诇 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 诇转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: If one鈥檚 eiruv rolled beyond the Shabbat limit prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. Rava said: They only taught this in a case where one established his eiruv at the edge of his town鈥檚 Shabbat limit and the eiruv rolled more than four cubits outside that limit; however, if it remained within four cubits of the Shabbat limit, it is a valid eiruv. The principle is that one who places his eiruv in a particular location has four cubits around it, since he has established his Shabbat residence there.

谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讜讻讜壮: 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪爪讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

The mishna continues: If a pile of stones fell on the eiruv prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. It might enter your mind to say that the mishna is referring to a case where if one wanted he could take the eiruv, i.e., where it is physically possible to clear the stones and remove the eiruv from underneath them. The only reason he cannot do so is because of the rabbinic prohibition to handle items that are set-aside, such as stones, on Shabbat.

诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讛讗诪专 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

If so, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As, if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, there is a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 he say that with regard to anything prohibited due to rabbinic decree, they did not issue the decree to apply during twilight? The prohibition to handle items that are set-aside is also a rabbinic decree, and therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since the eiruv was accessible at twilight, it should be valid.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诪专讗 讜讞爪讬谞讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, we can say that this ruling was necessary only in a case where a hoe or a spade would be required in order to remove the eiruv from under the stones, i.e., one would have to dig, which is a Shabbat labor prohibited by Torah law, not only by rabbinic decree.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 谞转讙诇讙诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转讗 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 讚讗讬转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 注讬专讜讘

The Gemara comments: And both rulings, the ruling concerning an eiruv that rolled beyond the Shabbat limit and the ruling concerning an eiruv that became buried under a pile of rocks, are necessary. As, if the mishna had only taught the case of the eiruv that rolled away, we might have said that the eiruv is invalid because it is not near him, but if a pile of rocks fell on the eiruv, since it is near him, you might say that it should be a valid eiruv, as one does not actually have to eat the eiruv.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讙诇 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讻住讬 讗讘诇 谞转讙诇讙诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗转讬 讝讬拽讗 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛讜讬 注讬专讜讘 爪专讬讻讗:

And conversely, if the mishna had only taught the case where a pile of rocks fell on the eiruv, we might have said that the eiruv is invalid because it is covered, but in the case where it rolled away, since sometimes a wind comes and brings it back, you might say that it should be a valid eiruv. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.

讗讜 谞砖专祝 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转: 诇诪讛 诇讬 转谞讗 谞砖专祝

The mishna further states: Or if the eiruv was burnt, or if the eiruv was teruma that became ritually impure before Shabbat, it is not a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach these two cases? The essential point of both cases is the same: The eiruv is no longer fit to be eaten. The Gemara answers: The mishna taught the case where the eiruv was burnt

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗 转专讜诪讛 讜谞讟诪讗转 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专

to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement, as he is lenient in a case of uncertainty whether the eiruv was burnt the previous day or only after nightfall, even though the eiruv is now entirely destroyed. Additionally, the mishna taught the case of teruma that became ritually impure to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement, as he is stringent even though the teruma itself is still present, and there is only an uncertainty about when it became impure.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住驻讬拽讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛转谞谉 讟诪讗 砖讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讘讗讞转 讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讟讘诇 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讟讘诇 住驻讬拽讜 讟诪讗

The Gemara questions the mishna鈥檚 ruling itself: Does Rabbi Meir really hold that in cases of doubt one must be stringent? Didn鈥檛 we learn the following in a mishna: If a ritually impure person descended to immerse in a ritual bath, and there is doubt whether he actually immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he certainly immersed, there is doubt whether he immersed in a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, the minimal amount of water necessary for the ritual bath to be valid, or he did not immerse in forty se鈥檃; and similarly, if there are two adjacent ritual baths, one of which has forty se鈥檃 of water in it and is therefore valid, and one of which does not have forty se鈥檃 of water in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed; in each of these cases, owing to one鈥檚 doubt, he remains ritually impure?

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

In what case is this statement, which maintains that in cases of doubt one is considered impure, said? It is said with regard to severe forms of ritual impurity, i.e., those imparted by a primary source of ritual impurity.

讗讘诇 讘讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讘讗 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讘诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讗讜 砖谞驻诇讜 注诇 专讗砖讜 讜注诇 专讜讘讜 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 砖讗讜讘讬谉 讜讬专讚 诇讟讘讜诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘诇 住驻拽 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讟讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪拽讜讜讗讜转 讘讗讞转 讬砖 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讗讞转 讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讜讟讘诇 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讟讘诇 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专

However, with regard to lenient forms of ritual impurity imposed only by rabbinic decree, such as one who ate half a half-loaf of impure foods; and similarly, one who drank impure liquids; and one whose head and most of his body came under drawn water, as opposed to spring water or rainwater, in which case the Sages decreed that person to be ritually impure; or if three log of drawn water fell on one鈥檚 head and most of his body, in which case the Sages also decreed that person to be impure; and if in any of these cases one descended to immerse himself in a ritual bath to purify himself of the rabbinically decreed impurity, and there is doubt whether he actually immersed or he did not immerse; and even if he certainly immersed, there is doubt whether he immersed in forty se鈥檃 of water or he did not immerse in forty se鈥檃; and similarly, if there were two ritual baths, one of which has forty se鈥檃 of water in it and one of which does not have forty se鈥檃 of water in it, and he immersed in one of them, but he does not know in which of them he immersed; in all of these cases, owing to his doubt, he is ritually pure.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟诪讗

Rabbi Yosei disagrees and renders him ritually impure. In any event, it is clear that, according to the unattributed mishna, which is generally presumed to reflect the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha is lenient in cases of doubt relating to ritual impurity that is due to rabbinic decree. Why, then, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Meir agree that we should be lenient in cases of doubt relating to an eiruv, which is also of rabbinic origin?

拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir holds that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law, and therefore the uncertainties in the mishna involve a Torah prohibition, with regard to which one may not be lenient.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讘诇讬注讜 讘讝讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讚专讬谉 讘讛专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Meir really hold that the prohibitions of Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: When taking measurements related to Shabbat boundaries, if a fifty-cubit rope is held at either end by two people, the distance between them is deemed to be fifty cubits, even if the distance on the ground is greater, owing to inclines and depressions? If there is a hill or incline between them that cannot be swallowed by the fifty-cubit measuring rope, so that the usual mode of measurement cannot be used, in this situation, Rabbi Dostai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I heard that we pierce mountains, i.e., we measure the distance as if there were a hole from one side of the hill to the other, so that in effect we measure only the horizontal distance and ignore the differences in elevation.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬 诪拽讚专讬谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 诪拽讚专讬谉 诇讗 讘注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜诇讗 讘注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 转讜专讛

And if it should enter your mind to say that the prohibitions relating to Shabbat limits are prohibited by Torah law, would it be permitted to pierce the mountains? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: We may not pierce mountains when measuring the boundaries of cities of refuge nor when measuring which city is closest to a corpse and is therefore obligated to perform the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken, because those laws are from the Torah; therefore, a more stringent policy is used to measure the distances precisely?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讘讝讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 讬谞讗讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖诪注转讬 砖诪拽讚专讬谉 讘讛专讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is no contradiction between the two statements. This statement, according to which Shabbat limits are by Torah law, is his; that statement, in which he is lenient, is his teacher鈥檚. The language of the mishna is also precise according to this explanation, as we learned: In this case, Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Meir: I have heard that we pierce mountains. This formulation indicates that Rabbi Meir did not state his own opinion. Rather, he transmitted a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, even though he did not agree with it himself. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this resolution is correct.

讜专诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara continues: There is still room to raise a contradiction between one ruling with regard to Torah law and another ruling with regard to Torah law, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞谉 谞讙注 讘讗讞讚 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讬 讗诐 诪转 讜诇诪讞专 讛砖讻讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 诪转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 砖讻诇 讛讟诪讗讜转 讻砖注转 诪爪讬讗转谉

As we learned in a mishna: If one touched one other person at night, and he does not know whether the person he touched was alive or dead, and the following day he arose and found him dead, and he is in doubt as to whether or not he contracted ritual impurity as a result of having come into contact with a corpse, Rabbi Meir renders him ritually pure. It is assumed that the deceased was still alive until the point that it is known with certainty that he is dead. And the Rabbis render him ritually impure because it is assumed that all ritually impure items had already been in the same state as they were at the time they were discovered. Just as the deceased was found dead in the morning, so too, it may be presumed that he was dead when he was touched in the middle of the night. Therefore, Rabbi Meir is lenient even with respect to an uncertainty relating to a Torah law, and he holds that a person is presumed to be alive until it is known with certainty that he died. Why, then, is he stringent concerning doubt as to whether the eiruv had already become impure on the previous day or only after nightfall? Here too, one should assume that the eiruv is ritually pure until he knows with certainty that it became defiled, and so the eiruv should be valid, even if Shabbat limits are considered Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖谞转谞讜 砖讛讬讛 注诇讬讛 砖专抓 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is referring to a case where a creeping animal that imparts ritual impurity was on the teruma that was used to establish the eiruv for the entire twilight period. The Gemara asks: If so, in that case, would Rabbi Yosei say that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid? There is no uncertainty in this case.

专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛

It was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: The doubt here does not result from the facts of the case themselves, but from conflicting testimonies and an inability to decide between them. Here, we are dealing with two sets of witnesses, one of which says: The teruma became impure while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat; and one of which says: The teruma became impure only after nightfall.

Scroll To Top