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

Daf Yomi

September 14, 2020 | 讻状讛 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 36

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Rachael Bentley. 鈥淚 am so very grateful to be able to participate in this cycle of Daf Yomi and want to thank you all. Who would have thought at the outset that we would be living in such strange times? My Montreal group arranged to meet as we finished Tractate Berakhot but of course… even as we finished Tractate Shabbat, we have still not met in person but also by the miracle of Zoom. My prayer is to meet in Israel after completing, by the grace of God. Many thanks and my wishes for good health and safety for all.鈥 And in honor of Jonathan Cohen, my brother, on his birthday today, who has been keeping up with the daf.

The gemara raises a contradiction from Rabbi Meir in our mishna who is stringent regarding an eruv that was good to begin with but later is not (one must assume it was not valid already during twilight) with Rabbi Meir in a different source regarding impurity where he is lenient. Two explanations are brought. Likewise, a contradiction is brought regarding Rabbi Yossi who is lenient in our mishna but stringent elsewhere. Three possible explanations are brought. When does one rely on its original chazaka and when do we not? If one makes a stipulation regarding an eruv – whether or not that will be one’s eruv, does that work? On what does it depend? Rabbi Yehuda allows one to decide on Shabbat which one will be the eruv. How can this be if: 1. Ayo has a version of the braita that says he doesn’t allow this, and 2. We know from other sources that Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t allow breira, retroactive determination?

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛 诇拽讜诇讗


Rava said: That is not the way to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two rulings; rather, there is a difference between the cases with regard to the ritual impurity itself: There, with regard to touching a person who was later found dead, there are two presumptions supporting leniency, whereas here, with respect to the teruma being used for an eiruv, there is only one presumption supporting leniency. How so? With regard to one who touched another person who was later found to be dead, there are two presumptions of purity: Firstly, the person who was found dead was previously alive, and the presumption is that he remained in that state until we know with certainty that he was dead. Secondly, the one who touched that person was previously pure, and he remains in that presumptive state until we know with certainty that he became impure. Therefore, Rabbi Meir had adequate reason to be lenient. However, with regard to teruma, only one presumption exists, that the teruma was previously pure and presumably remained in that state until proven otherwise. Since there is no additional presumption, Rabbi Meir ruled stringently.


拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬


All the difficulties raised above are based on the seemingly conflicting statements of Rabbi Meir. Yet it would appear that there is also a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei, for he was stringent with regard to the doubts involving ritual baths but lenient with regard to doubts involving eiruv.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: The law with regard to ritual impurity is different, since it has a basis in the Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei was stringent even with respect to immersion performed in order to remove impurity that is only of rabbinic origin. The Gemara asks: The prohibitions of Shabbat limits are also prohibited by Torah law; why isn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei stringent about them as well? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei holds: The laws of Shabbat limits are by rabbinic law, not by Torah law.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 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 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 砖住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And if you wish, say instead: This stringent ruling is his; that lenient ruling with regard to an eiruv is his teacher鈥檚. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this explanation, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid. This formulation indicates that Rabbi Yosei was merely reporting a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, although he may not have accepted it. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this resolution of the contradiction is correct.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇


Rava said that a different resolution of the contradiction may be suggested: There, with regard to ritual baths, this is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: Keep the impure person in his presumptive state of ritual impurity, and say that he did not properly immerse himself.


讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 诪拽讜讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讞住专 讘诪拽讜讛 砖诇讗 谞诪讚讚


The Gemara responds: On the contrary, keep the ritual bath in its presumptive state of validity and say that the ritual bath was not lacking the requisite measure of water. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a ritual bath that had not been previously measured to determine whether it contained forty se鈥檃, and therefore it had no prior presumption of validity.


转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 注讬专讘 讘转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗转 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞讟诪讗转 讜讻谉 讘驻讬专讜转 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞转拽谞讜 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞转拽谞讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专


It was taught in the Tosefta: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid? For example, if one established an eiruv with teruma that had been ritually pure but later became impure, and there is doubt whether it became impure while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat, or whether it became impure only after nightfall, and similarly, if one made an eiruv with untithed produce that was later tithed and thereby became permissible for eating, and there is doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat, or whether it was rendered fit only after nightfall, this is an eiruv whose validity is in doubt which Rabbi Yosei said is valid.


讗讘诇 注讬专讘 讘转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 讟讛讜专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗讛 讜讻谉 讘驻讬专讜转 住驻拽 谞转拽谞讜 住驻拽 诇讗 谞转拽谞讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专


However, if one established an eiruv with teruma about which there was doubt whether it was ritually pure or ritually impure from the outset; and similarly, if one established an eiruv with produce about which there was doubt from the outset whether it had been tithed and thereby rendered fit or whether it had not been tithed and thereby rendered fit, this is not a case of an eiruv whose validity is in doubt that Rabbi Yosei said is valid.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转专讜诪讛 讚讗诪专 讛注诪讚 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讛注诪讚 讟讘诇 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 谞转拽谞讜


The Gemara raises a question in order to clarify the Tosefta: What is different about teruma, with regard to which we say: Keep the teruma in its presumptive state of ritual purity, and say that it was still pure at the onset of Shabbat, since it had been previously pure and it is not known when it became impure? According to that reasoning, with regard to untithed produce [tevel] it should also be said: Keep the untithed produce in its presumptive state, as the produce had certainly been untithed originally, and say that it was not tithed and thereby rendered fit prior to the onset of Shabbat.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞转拽谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讚诪注讜 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞讚诪注讜


Rather, emend the wording of the Tosefta: Do not say: There is doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat. Rather, say: There is doubt whether regular produce became mixed with untithed produce while it was still day, or whether it became mixed only after nightfall. In other words, one used regular food to establish his eiruv, but then tevel was mixed with that food, prohibiting the entire mixture from being consumed until tithes are separated for the tevel. However, there is doubt whether the produce became mixed with the tevel while it was still day, in which case the eiruv is invalid, or whether it became mixed only after nightfall, in which case the eiruv is valid. In that case, we say: Keep the produce in its presumptive state and say that it was not mixed with tevel during the day, and therefore the eiruv is valid.


讘注讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讛讜


Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised a dilemma to Rav Huna: If there were two loaves of teruma before someone, one that was ritually impure and one that was ritually pure, and he did not know which one was pure; and he said: Establish an eiruv te岣min for me with the pure loaf, wherever it is, i.e., even though I do not know which it is, I wish to establish my Shabbat residence at the location of the pure loaf, and those present placed both loaves in the same place, what is the halakha? Is this a valid eiruv or not?


转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讬讚注 诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讛


The Gemara clarifies: The question may be asked according to the stringent opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it may be asked according to the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The question may be asked according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the following manner: Perhaps Rabbi Meir only stated his stringent opinion with regard to a questionable eiruv there, where there is no teruma that is definitely pure present, but only teruma whose purity is in doubt. Here, however, there definitely is a pure loaf, and therefore even Rabbi Meir may agree to rule leniently. Or perhaps it may be argued that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he only said that we are lenient with regard to an eiruv whose validity is in doubt in the case dealt with there, where, if indeed the teruma is pure, he knows where it is; but here, he does not know how to identify it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav Huna said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k: According to both the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and the opinion of Rabbi Meir, we require that an eiruv consist of a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, and in this case there is none. Due to the uncertainty as to which loaf is pure and which is impure, neither of the two loaves may be eaten, and an eiruv made with food that may not be eaten while it is still day is not a valid eiruv.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讻专 讝讜 讛讬讜诐 讞讜诇 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rava raised another dilemma to Rav Na岣an: If one said: This loaf shall remain unconsecrated today, and tomorrow it shall be consecrated, and he then said: Establish an eiruv for me with this loaf, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the twilight period鈥檚 status as part of the previous day or part of the day that follows is questionable, the consecration of the loaf may take effect before the eiruv establishes one鈥檚 Shabbat residence, and since an eiruv cannot be made with a consecrated object, the eiruv is not valid? Rav Na岣an said to Rava: In that case, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.


讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 讞讜诇 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗


Rava then asked about one who made the opposite statement: This loaf shall be consecrated today, and tomorrow it shall be unconsecrated, i.e., it shall be redeemed with money that I have in my house, and he then said: Establish an eiruv for me with this loaf, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: His eiruv is not a valid eiruv. Rava asked him: What is different between the two cases? If we are lenient with regard to the twilight period, we should be lenient in both cases.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转讬讻讜诇 注诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 讚诪诇讞讗 讛讬讜诐 讞讜诇 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 讞讜诇 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 驻拽注讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Rava in jest: After you eat a kor of salt over it, and analyze the matter at length, you will be able to understand the difference. The difference is obvious: When one says that today the loaf shall remain unconsecrated, and tomorrow it shall be consecrated, we do not assume out of doubt that sanctity has descended upon the loaf. Therefore, the loaf remains in its presumptive state of being unconsecrated during the twilight period, and the eiruv is valid. With regard to the opposite case, however, when one says that today the loaf shall be consecrated, and tomorrow it shall be unconsecrated, we do not assume out of doubt that the loaf鈥檚 sanctity has departed from it. The loaf remains in its presumptive state of consecration for the duration of the twilight period, and therefore the eiruv is invalid.


转谞谉 讛转诐 诇讙讬谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪诇讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诇讻砖转讞砖讱 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


We learned in a mishna there: If one filled a flask that was immersed during the day [tevul yom] but does not become fully ritually pure until night from a barrel of tithe that was still tevel, meaning that the produce inside was first tithe from which teruma of the tithe had not yet been separated, and he said: Let the contents of this flask be teruma of the tithe for the contents of the barrel when night falls, his statement takes effect. If he were to say that the designated portion should immediately become teruma of the tithe, the teruma of the tithe would be defiled by the flask that is still a tevul yom. Once night falls, however, the flask is absolutely pure, and if the designation of the flask鈥檚 contents as teruma of the tithe takes effect at that time, the produce remains pure. The mishna teaches that teruma of the tithe can be separated in this manner.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 住讜祝 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘


The mishna continues: And if he said: Establish an eiruv for me with the contents of this flask, he has not said anything, as the contents of the flask are still tevel. Rava said: That is to say that the end of the day is when the eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence. The critical time with respect to an eiruv is the last moment of Shabbat eve, rather than the first moment of Shabbat.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讞讬诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讗讬 讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


As, if it should enter your mind that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence at the beginning of the day of Shabbat, then if he said: Establish an eiruv for me with the produce in this flask, why hasn鈥檛 he said anything? After nightfall, when Shabbat begins, the flask is already pure, and therefore the teruma of the tithe inside it is also pure and is suitable for an eiruv.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 转讞讬诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讘注讬谞谉 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讬讻讗:


Rav Pappa said: This is no proof; even if you say that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence at the beginning of the day of Shabbat, nonetheless, we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, in order for the eiruv to be valid, and there is none in this case. While it was still day, it was certainly prohibited to consume the contents of the flask, which were still tevel, and therefore it could not be used as an eiruv.


诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘讗讜 讙讜讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪注专讘 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪讝专讞 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗专爪讛 讗诇讱 诇讗 讘讗讜 诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬


MISHNA: A person may make a condition with regard to his eiruv of Shabbat borders. In other words, he need not decide in advance in which direction his eiruv should take effect. For example, he may deposit an eiruv on each of two opposite sides of his town, and say: If gentiles come from the east, my eiruv is in the west, so that I can escape in that direction; and if they come from the west, my eiruv is in the east. If they come from here and from there, i.e., from both directions, I will go wherever I wish, and my eiruv will retroactively take effect in that direction; and if they do not come at all, neither from here nor from there, I will be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town and give up both eiruvin that I deposited, leaving me with two thousand cubits in all directions from the town.


讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪讝专讞 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪注专讘 讘讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗专爪讛 讗诇讱 诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘讜 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 专讘讜转讬讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专爪讛 讬诇讱:


Similarly, one may say: If a Sage comes from the east and he is spending Shabbat beyond the boundaries of my town, my eiruv is in the east, so that I may go out to greet him there; and if he comes from the west, my eiruv is in the west. If one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, I will go wherever I wish; and if no Sage comes, neither from here nor from there, I will be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages coming from opposite directions was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as it is assumed that was his original intention. And if they were both his teachers, so that there is no reason to suppose that he preferred one over the other, he may go wherever he wishes.


讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讜讬诐 讗讙讜讬诐 拽砖讬讗 讞讻诐 讗讞讻诐


GEMARA: The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Yitz岣k came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught all of the laws in the mishna in the opposite manner. That is to say, according to him, if the gentiles came from the east, his eiruv would be to the east, and, conversely, if the Sage came from the east, his eiruv would be to the west. This is difficult because if this is correct, there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita, and similarly there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita.


讙讜讬诐 讗讙讜讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻专讛讙讘谞讗 讛讗 讘诪专讬 讚诪转讗


The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a tax collector [parhagabena], from whom one wishes to flee; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to the lord of the town, with whom he wishes to speak. Therefore, there are times that one wants to go out toward the gentile, while at other times one wants to flee from him.


讞讻诐 讗讞讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪讜转讬讘 驻讬专拽讬 讛讗 讘诪拽专讬 砖诪注:


Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a scholar who sits and delivers public Torah lectures, and one wishes to come and learn Torah from him; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to one who teaches children how to recite the Shema, i.e., one who teaches young children how to pray, of whom he has no need. The baraita teaches that if a scholar came from one direction to deliver a public lecture and the school teacher came from the opposite direction, his eiruv is in the direction of the scholar.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讻讜壮: 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞讘专讬讛 讟驻讬 诪专讘讬讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as we can assume that this was his original intention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Rabbis do not accept this straightforward argument? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that sometimes one prefers to meet the Sage who is his colleague rather than the Sage who is his teacher, as sometimes one learns more from his peers than from his teachers.


讗诪专 专讘 诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 (讻谉) 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 讜讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗


Rav said: This version of the mishna should not be accepted because of what the Sage Ayo taught to the opposite effect, as Ayo taught the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot make conditions about two things at once, i.e., he cannot say that if one Sage comes from one direction and another Sage comes from the other direction, he will go wherever he wishes. Rather, he may say that if a Sage came from the east, his eiruv is in the east, and if a Sage came from the west, his eiruv is in the west. But he may not say that if one Sage came from here, and another Sage came from there, he will go wherever he wishes.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛


The Gemara asks: What is different about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from here and from there he may go to whichever side he chooses, such that his eiruv is not effective? Apparently, this is due to the principle that there is no retroactive designation, meaning that a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. However, according to this principle, when one established an eiruv to the east and to the west in order to be able to travel in the direction of one Sage who comes toward the town in a case where one does not know in advance from which direction he will come, we should also invoke the principle that there is no retroactive designation. Therefore, even if one deposited an eiruv at both ends of his town for the sake of one Sage who might come from either side, he should not be able to rely on what becomes clarified afterward and decide retroactively which eiruv he is interested in.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not a true case of retroactive designation, as the Sage had already come by twilight but the person who established the eiruv did not yet know which side of the town the Sage had come toward. Therefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shabbat residence it is clear which eiruv the person wants, even though he himself will only become aware of that later.


讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇讚讗讬讜 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉


The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement cited above: Why should we reject the mishna because of the baraita? On the contrary, let us say that the ruling of Ayo should not be accepted because of the mishna.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐


The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to uphold the mishna鈥檚 ruling because it contradicts other sources, as we have already heard that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. As it was taught in the Tosefta: One who buys wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], who do not tithe their produce properly,


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...
alon shvut women

Eruv

Eruvin Daf 36: More tests to see if the eruv is kosher of not. Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/ypG8e3GJddg  
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 36: Wherefore Eruv Techumin?

How accessible does the food in the eruv need to be? What if you're a kohen, and you know that...

Eruvin 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 36

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 转专讬 讞讝拽讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 讞讝拽讛 诇拽讜诇讗


Rava said: That is not the way to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two rulings; rather, there is a difference between the cases with regard to the ritual impurity itself: There, with regard to touching a person who was later found dead, there are two presumptions supporting leniency, whereas here, with respect to the teruma being used for an eiruv, there is only one presumption supporting leniency. How so? With regard to one who touched another person who was later found to be dead, there are two presumptions of purity: Firstly, the person who was found dead was previously alive, and the presumption is that he remained in that state until we know with certainty that he was dead. Secondly, the one who touched that person was previously pure, and he remains in that presumptive state until we know with certainty that he became impure. Therefore, Rabbi Meir had adequate reason to be lenient. However, with regard to teruma, only one presumption exists, that the teruma was previously pure and presumably remained in that state until proven otherwise. Since there is no additional presumption, Rabbi Meir ruled stringently.


拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬


All the difficulties raised above are based on the seemingly conflicting statements of Rabbi Meir. Yet it would appear that there is also a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei, for he was stringent with regard to the doubts involving ritual baths but lenient with regard to doubts involving eiruv.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 砖讗谞讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讘转 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: The law with regard to ritual impurity is different, since it has a basis in the Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei was stringent even with respect to immersion performed in order to remove impurity that is only of rabbinic origin. The Gemara asks: The prohibitions of Shabbat limits are also prohibited by Torah law; why isn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei stringent about them as well? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei holds: The laws of Shabbat limits are by rabbinic law, not by Torah law.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 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 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 砖住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And if you wish, say instead: This stringent ruling is his; that lenient ruling with regard to an eiruv is his teacher鈥檚. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this explanation, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei said: The Sage Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is valid. This formulation indicates that Rabbi Yosei was merely reporting a ruling that he had heard from his teacher, although he may not have accepted it. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this resolution of the contradiction is correct.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛注诪讚 讟诪讗 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讟讘诇


Rava said that a different resolution of the contradiction may be suggested: There, with regard to ritual baths, this is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: Keep the impure person in his presumptive state of ritual impurity, and say that he did not properly immerse himself.


讗讚专讘讛 讛注诪讚 诪拽讜讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讞住专 讘诪拽讜讛 砖诇讗 谞诪讚讚


The Gemara responds: On the contrary, keep the ritual bath in its presumptive state of validity and say that the ritual bath was not lacking the requisite measure of water. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a ritual bath that had not been previously measured to determine whether it contained forty se鈥檃, and therefore it had no prior presumption of validity.


转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专 注讬专讘 讘转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讟诪讗转 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞讟诪讗转 讜讻谉 讘驻讬专讜转 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞转拽谞讜 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞转拽谞讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专


It was taught in the Tosefta: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that an eiruv whose validity is in doubt is nevertheless valid? For example, if one established an eiruv with teruma that had been ritually pure but later became impure, and there is doubt whether it became impure while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat, or whether it became impure only after nightfall, and similarly, if one made an eiruv with untithed produce that was later tithed and thereby became permissible for eating, and there is doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat, or whether it was rendered fit only after nightfall, this is an eiruv whose validity is in doubt which Rabbi Yosei said is valid.


讗讘诇 注讬专讘 讘转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 讟讛讜专讛 住驻拽 讟诪讗讛 讜讻谉 讘驻讬专讜转 住驻拽 谞转拽谞讜 住驻拽 诇讗 谞转拽谞讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 住驻拽 注讬专讜讘 讻砖专


However, if one established an eiruv with teruma about which there was doubt whether it was ritually pure or ritually impure from the outset; and similarly, if one established an eiruv with produce about which there was doubt from the outset whether it had been tithed and thereby rendered fit or whether it had not been tithed and thereby rendered fit, this is not a case of an eiruv whose validity is in doubt that Rabbi Yosei said is valid.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转专讜诪讛 讚讗诪专 讛注诪讚 转专讜诪讛 注诇 讞讝拽转讛 讜讗讬诪讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讬讗 驻讬专讜转 谞诪讬 讛注诪讚 讟讘诇 注诇 讞讝拽转讜 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 谞转拽谞讜


The Gemara raises a question in order to clarify the Tosefta: What is different about teruma, with regard to which we say: Keep the teruma in its presumptive state of ritual purity, and say that it was still pure at the onset of Shabbat, since it had been previously pure and it is not known when it became impure? According to that reasoning, with regard to untithed produce [tevel] it should also be said: Keep the untithed produce in its presumptive state, as the produce had certainly been untithed originally, and say that it was not tithed and thereby rendered fit prior to the onset of Shabbat.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞转拽谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住驻拽 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讚诪注讜 住驻拽 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞讚诪注讜


Rather, emend the wording of the Tosefta: Do not say: There is doubt whether it was rendered fit while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat. Rather, say: There is doubt whether regular produce became mixed with untithed produce while it was still day, or whether it became mixed only after nightfall. In other words, one used regular food to establish his eiruv, but then tevel was mixed with that food, prohibiting the entire mixture from being consumed until tithes are separated for the tevel. However, there is doubt whether the produce became mixed with the tevel while it was still day, in which case the eiruv is invalid, or whether it became mixed only after nightfall, in which case the eiruv is valid. In that case, we say: Keep the produce in its presumptive state and say that it was not mixed with tevel during the day, and therefore the eiruv is valid.


讘注讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讗讞转 讟诪讗讛 讜讗讞转 讟讛讜专讛 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讟讛讜专讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讛讜


Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised a dilemma to Rav Huna: If there were two loaves of teruma before someone, one that was ritually impure and one that was ritually pure, and he did not know which one was pure; and he said: Establish an eiruv te岣min for me with the pure loaf, wherever it is, i.e., even though I do not know which it is, I wish to establish my Shabbat residence at the location of the pure loaf, and those present placed both loaves in the same place, what is the halakha? Is this a valid eiruv or not?


转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讛 讛讻讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 讬讚注 诇讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讛


The Gemara clarifies: The question may be asked according to the stringent opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it may be asked according to the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The question may be asked according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the following manner: Perhaps Rabbi Meir only stated his stringent opinion with regard to a questionable eiruv there, where there is no teruma that is definitely pure present, but only teruma whose purity is in doubt. Here, however, there definitely is a pure loaf, and therefore even Rabbi Meir may agree to rule leniently. Or perhaps it may be argued that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he only said that we are lenient with regard to an eiruv whose validity is in doubt in the case dealt with there, where, if indeed the teruma is pure, he knows where it is; but here, he does not know how to identify it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav Huna said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k: According to both the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and the opinion of Rabbi Meir, we require that an eiruv consist of a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, and in this case there is none. Due to the uncertainty as to which loaf is pure and which is impure, neither of the two loaves may be eaten, and an eiruv made with food that may not be eaten while it is still day is not a valid eiruv.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讻专 讝讜 讛讬讜诐 讞讜诇 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘


Rava raised another dilemma to Rav Na岣an: If one said: This loaf shall remain unconsecrated today, and tomorrow it shall be consecrated, and he then said: Establish an eiruv for me with this loaf, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the twilight period鈥檚 status as part of the previous day or part of the day that follows is questionable, the consecration of the loaf may take effect before the eiruv establishes one鈥檚 Shabbat residence, and since an eiruv cannot be made with a consecrated object, the eiruv is not valid? Rav Na岣an said to Rava: In that case, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.


讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 讞讜诇 讜讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗


Rava then asked about one who made the opposite statement: This loaf shall be consecrated today, and tomorrow it shall be unconsecrated, i.e., it shall be redeemed with money that I have in my house, and he then said: Establish an eiruv for me with this loaf, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an said to him: His eiruv is not a valid eiruv. Rava asked him: What is different between the two cases? If we are lenient with regard to the twilight period, we should be lenient in both cases.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转讬讻讜诇 注诇讬讛 讻讜专讗 讚诪诇讞讗 讛讬讜诐 讞讜诇 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 谞讞转讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 讞讜诇 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 驻拽注讗 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Na岣an said to Rava in jest: After you eat a kor of salt over it, and analyze the matter at length, you will be able to understand the difference. The difference is obvious: When one says that today the loaf shall remain unconsecrated, and tomorrow it shall be consecrated, we do not assume out of doubt that sanctity has descended upon the loaf. Therefore, the loaf remains in its presumptive state of being unconsecrated during the twilight period, and the eiruv is valid. With regard to the opposite case, however, when one says that today the loaf shall be consecrated, and tomorrow it shall be unconsecrated, we do not assume out of doubt that the loaf鈥檚 sanctity has departed from it. The loaf remains in its presumptive state of consecration for the duration of the twilight period, and therefore the eiruv is invalid.


转谞谉 讛转诐 诇讙讬谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 砖诪诇讗讜 诪谉 讛讞讘讬转 砖诇 诪注砖专 讟讘诇 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讛 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 诇讻砖转讞砖讱 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


We learned in a mishna there: If one filled a flask that was immersed during the day [tevul yom] but does not become fully ritually pure until night from a barrel of tithe that was still tevel, meaning that the produce inside was first tithe from which teruma of the tithe had not yet been separated, and he said: Let the contents of this flask be teruma of the tithe for the contents of the barrel when night falls, his statement takes effect. If he were to say that the designated portion should immediately become teruma of the tithe, the teruma of the tithe would be defiled by the flask that is still a tevul yom. Once night falls, however, the flask is absolutely pure, and if the designation of the flask鈥檚 contents as teruma of the tithe takes effect at that time, the produce remains pure. The mishna teaches that teruma of the tithe can be separated in this manner.


讜讗诐 讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 住讜祝 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘


The mishna continues: And if he said: Establish an eiruv for me with the contents of this flask, he has not said anything, as the contents of the flask are still tevel. Rava said: That is to say that the end of the day is when the eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence. The critical time with respect to an eiruv is the last moment of Shabbat eve, rather than the first moment of Shabbat.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 转讞讬诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讗讬 讗诪专 注讬专讘讜 诇讬 讘讝讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


As, if it should enter your mind that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence at the beginning of the day of Shabbat, then if he said: Establish an eiruv for me with the produce in this flask, why hasn鈥檛 he said anything? After nightfall, when Shabbat begins, the flask is already pure, and therefore the teruma of the tithe inside it is also pure and is suitable for an eiruv.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 转讞讬诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讘注讬谞谉 住注讜讚讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讬讻讗:


Rav Pappa said: This is no proof; even if you say that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 Shabbat residence at the beginning of the day of Shabbat, nonetheless, we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, prior to the onset of Shabbat, in order for the eiruv to be valid, and there is none in this case. While it was still day, it was certainly prohibited to consume the contents of the flask, which were still tevel, and therefore it could not be used as an eiruv.


诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讛 讗讚诐 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘讗讜 讙讜讬诐 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪注专讘 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪讝专讞 讗诐 讘讗讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗专爪讛 讗诇讱 诇讗 讘讗讜 诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬


MISHNA: A person may make a condition with regard to his eiruv of Shabbat borders. In other words, he need not decide in advance in which direction his eiruv should take effect. For example, he may deposit an eiruv on each of two opposite sides of his town, and say: If gentiles come from the east, my eiruv is in the west, so that I can escape in that direction; and if they come from the west, my eiruv is in the east. If they come from here and from there, i.e., from both directions, I will go wherever I wish, and my eiruv will retroactively take effect in that direction; and if they do not come at all, neither from here nor from there, I will be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town and give up both eiruvin that I deposited, leaving me with two thousand cubits in all directions from the town.


讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪讝专讞 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讬 诇诪注专讘 讘讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讗专爪讛 讗诇讱 诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讗 诇讻讗谉 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 专讘讜 讛讜诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讜 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 专讘讜转讬讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讬专爪讛 讬诇讱:


Similarly, one may say: If a Sage comes from the east and he is spending Shabbat beyond the boundaries of my town, my eiruv is in the east, so that I may go out to greet him there; and if he comes from the west, my eiruv is in the west. If one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, I will go wherever I wish; and if no Sage comes, neither from here nor from there, I will be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages coming from opposite directions was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as it is assumed that was his original intention. And if they were both his teachers, so that there is no reason to suppose that he preferred one over the other, he may go wherever he wishes.


讙诪壮 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讜讬诐 讗讙讜讬诐 拽砖讬讗 讞讻诐 讗讞讻诐


GEMARA: The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Yitz岣k came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught all of the laws in the mishna in the opposite manner. That is to say, according to him, if the gentiles came from the east, his eiruv would be to the east, and, conversely, if the Sage came from the east, his eiruv would be to the west. This is difficult because if this is correct, there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita, and similarly there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita.


讙讜讬诐 讗讙讜讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻专讛讙讘谞讗 讛讗 讘诪专讬 讚诪转讗


The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a tax collector [parhagabena], from whom one wishes to flee; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to the lord of the town, with whom he wishes to speak. Therefore, there are times that one wants to go out toward the gentile, while at other times one wants to flee from him.


讞讻诐 讗讞讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪讜转讬讘 驻讬专拽讬 讛讗 讘诪拽专讬 砖诪注:


Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a scholar who sits and delivers public Torah lectures, and one wishes to come and learn Torah from him; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to one who teaches children how to recite the Shema, i.e., one who teaches young children how to pray, of whom he has no need. The baraita teaches that if a scholar came from one direction to deliver a public lecture and the school teacher came from the opposite direction, his eiruv is in the direction of the scholar.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜讻讜壮: 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讘讞讘专讬讛 讟驻讬 诪专讘讬讛


We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as we can assume that this was his original intention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Rabbis do not accept this straightforward argument? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that sometimes one prefers to meet the Sage who is his colleague rather than the Sage who is his teacher, as sometimes one learns more from his peers than from his teachers.


讗诪专 专讘 诇讬转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 (讻谉) 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 讜讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗


Rav said: This version of the mishna should not be accepted because of what the Sage Ayo taught to the opposite effect, as Ayo taught the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A person cannot make conditions about two things at once, i.e., he cannot say that if one Sage comes from one direction and another Sage comes from the other direction, he will go wherever he wishes. Rather, he may say that if a Sage came from the east, his eiruv is in the east, and if a Sage came from the west, his eiruv is in the west. But he may not say that if one Sage came from here, and another Sage came from there, he will go wherever he wishes.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛


The Gemara asks: What is different about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from here and from there he may go to whichever side he chooses, such that his eiruv is not effective? Apparently, this is due to the principle that there is no retroactive designation, meaning that a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. However, according to this principle, when one established an eiruv to the east and to the west in order to be able to travel in the direction of one Sage who comes toward the town in a case where one does not know in advance from which direction he will come, we should also invoke the principle that there is no retroactive designation. Therefore, even if one deposited an eiruv at both ends of his town for the sake of one Sage who might come from either side, he should not be able to rely on what becomes clarified afterward and decide retroactively which eiruv he is interested in.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not a true case of retroactive designation, as the Sage had already come by twilight but the person who established the eiruv did not yet know which side of the town the Sage had come toward. Therefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shabbat residence it is clear which eiruv the person wants, even though he himself will only become aware of that later.


讗讚专讘讛 诇讬转讗 诇讚讗讬讜 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉


The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement cited above: Why should we reject the mishna because of the baraita? On the contrary, let us say that the ruling of Ayo should not be accepted because of the mishna.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讛讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘专讬专讛 讚转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐


The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to uphold the mishna鈥檚 ruling because it contradicts other sources, as we have already heard that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. As it was taught in the Tosefta: One who buys wine from among the Samaritans [Kutim], who do not tithe their produce properly,


Scroll To Top