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

Daf Yomi

September 16, 2020 | 讻状讝 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 38

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored in honor of Ann Goldhirsch on her birthday. Happy birthday to our #1 Daf Yomi learner! Love, Barry, Aaron and Ezra. And by Yael in honor of her sister Shifra on her birthday.

What happens regarding an eruv techum when Shabbat and Yom Tov fall out right next to each other? Can one make a separate eruv in two different directions – each for a different day – as we can say they are each a separate day of sanctity? Or can we only make an eruv in the same place for both days as we treat them as one sanctity – or at least we should be stringent just in case it is considered one sanctity? The rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree on this issue. The gemara brings some sources that bring a back and forth discussion between the two. How does the issue of preparing on Yom Tov for Shabbat come into play here? The gemara quotes the Tosefta in which there are three approaches to the question. However, based on a statement of Rav, the gemara changes the version that was quoted in the Tosefta.

讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注:


don鈥檛 you at least concede that we must be concerned that perhaps the leather flask will burst, and retroactively this person would have been drinking tevel? Rabbi Meir said to them: When it bursts, I will consider the matter, but now I am not concerned about this possibility.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖讘转 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪注专讘 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讝专讞 讜讘砖谞讬 诇诪注专讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇诪注专讘 讜讘砖谞讬 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬 注讬专讜讘讬 讘砖谞讬 讜讘专讗砖讜谉 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a Festival adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it, on a Friday, or after it, on a Sunday, a person may establish two eiruvin of Shabbat borders [te岣min] and say as follows: My eiruv on the first day shall be to the east, and on the second day to the west. Alternatively, one may say: On the first day it shall be to the west and on the second day to the east. Similarly, one may say: My eiruv shall apply on the first day, but on the second day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town, or: My eiruv shall apply on the second day, but on the first day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诪注专讘 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注专讘 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讜 诪注专讘 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注专讘 讻诇 注讬拽专


And the Rabbis disagree and say that such a split is impossible. Rather, he either establishes an eiruv in one direction for both days, or he establishes no eiruv at all; either he establishes an eiruv for the two days, or he establishes no eiruv at all.


讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讜谞诪爪讗 诪砖转讻专 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 讜诪砖转讻专 讘注讬专讜讘讜


What does one do to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence for the Festival, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it will not become lost before the following evening, in which case he would not have an eiruv for the second day. On the eve of the second day, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and he stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his residence for Shabbat, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Consequently, he benefits in that he is permitted to walk in the direction that he desires, and he benefits in that he is permitted to eat his eiruv.


谞讗讻诇 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讬专讜讘讜 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 诇砖谞讬


However, if the eiruv was eaten on the first day, his eiruv is effective for the first day, and his eiruv is not effective for the second day.


讗诪专 (诇讛谉) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讗转诐 诇讬 砖讛谉 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转:


Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If so, you agree with me that Shabbat and a Festival constitute two distinct sanctities, as if not, the eiruv that went into effect during the twilight period on the eve of the first day should have remained in effect for both days, even if it was eaten during the first day. This being the case, you should also agree with me that one can make two separate eiruvin for the two days in two different directions.


讙诪壮 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗


GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the wording employed by the Rabbis: First, the Rabbis state that one may establish an eiruv in one direction. What does this mean? He must establish an eiruv in that direction for two days. Then they state that he may establish an eiruv for two days. What does this mean? He must establish an eiruv for the two days in one direction. If so, this is exactly the same as the first clause.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞爪讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞爪讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜讞爪讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪讝专讞 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪注专讘


The Gemara explains: This is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede that in the case of one day, one may not establish an eiruv for half the day to the north and for half of it to the south? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Indeed, I agree. They then said to him: Just as one may not establish an eiruv for one day, half the day to the north and half the day to the south, so too, one may not establish an eiruv for two consecutive days of sanctity, one day to the east and one day to the west.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讻讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转


And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond? He holds as follows: There, one day constitutes one sanctity, and it is impossible to impossible to divide the day such that the eiruv applies to one direction for one half of the day and to another direction for the other half of the day. Here, where Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they are two separate sanctities, and therefore one can establish separate eiruvin for the two days.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬


Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Don鈥檛 you concede that if one established an eiruv with his feet by actually going to the place where he desires to establish an eiruv on the eve of the first day and remaining there during the twilight period, as opposed to depositing food there beforehand, he nonetheless must establish another eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, and one eiruv does not suffice; similarly, if his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may not rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of his town on the second day?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讛讗 诇讗讬讬 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜专讘谞谉 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Rabbis said to him: Indeed, that is correct. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: Then isn鈥檛 it correct that they are two distinct sanctities, and therefore one should be permitted to establish two separate eiruvin for the two days? And how do the Rabbis respond? They are in doubt about this issue, and therefore their ruling here is stringent and prohibits establishing separate eiruvin for the two days in different directions, in case the two days are considered a single sanctity; and their ruling here is stringent and they require a separate eiruv for each day, in case the two days are considered distinct sanctities.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讗 诇讗讬讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗


The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede that one may not establish an eiruv initially on a Festival for Shabbat, i.e., if a Festival occurs on a Friday and one forgot to establish an eiruv on the eve of the Festival, he may not establish an eiruv for Shabbat on the Festival itself? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Indeed, that is correct. They said to him: Then isn鈥檛 it correct that the two days constitute one sanctity?


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛


The Gemara responds that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there, the halakha is so not because the two days constitute a single sanctity, but due to the prohibition of preparation on a Festival for Shabbat, which includes establishing an eiruv.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The Sages taught in a baraita: If one established an eiruv with his feet by going to the place he wished to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day and remaining there during the twilight period, he must nevertheless establish another eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day. Similarly, if he had established an eiruv by depositing food in the place he wished to establish as his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may not rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专


Rabbi Yehuda says:


讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇


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 pulled in two opposing directions. Since we are unsure whether the two days constitute one sanctity or two, he must act stringently as though the eiruv established for the first day is both effective and not effective for the second day, i.e., he must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas where he would be permitted to go in both cases.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, say: If he established an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the first day, he need not establish an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, as his eiruv remains effective for the second day as well. Similarly, if he had made an eiruv by depositing food in the place where he wished to establish his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may still rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day, as the two days constitute one sanctity; from the outset, the eiruv acquired his place of rest for both days.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住转讬诪转讗讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诪驻讬拽 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住转讬诪转讗讛


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of these four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities. And these are the four Elders: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka; Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon; and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose opinions were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot. And there are those who say: One of them is Rabbi Elazar, and remove from the list Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose statements were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot.


讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讬驻讜讱


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 we hear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, maintain the opposite opinion in the baraita cited above, namely that the two days constitute a single sanctity? The Gemara answers: Reverse the attributions in the baraita.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讻讜壮


The Gemara asks: If so, this is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said. What is their dispute? The Gemara answers: Say that there is no disagreement between them, and the baraita should read as follows: And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he agrees with what was stated above.


讜诇讬讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 转谞讬 诇讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛


The Gemara now asks: Let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among these Elders, as he too holds that the two days are distinct sanctities. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this opinion, and he himself did not hold it to be correct. He transmitted a ruling that he received from his teachers, but his own opinion was otherwise.


专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 专讘 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let us also say that the Rabbis, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yishmael also taught this law, and they themselves did not hold it to be correct. What proof is there that this represents their own opinions? The Gemara answers: Rav did not rely on the wording of these sources; rather, he learned by way of a definite tradition that these four Elders maintained this position.


讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬讬诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬专诪讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna, Rav鈥檚 preeminent student, passed away, Rav 岣sda entered the study hall to raise a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that when Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities?


讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛


Wasn鈥檛 it stated that with regard to a case where Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg that was laid on one is prohibited on the other, just as an egg that was laid on a Festival day is prohibited on that same day? This statement indicates that the two days constitute a single sanctity. How, then, can he say here that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion that they are two distinct sanctities?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛


Rabba said that a distinction may be drawn between the cases: There, the egg is prohibited on the second day not because the two days constitute a single sanctity but because of the prohibition against preparation, i.e., because it is prohibited to prepare things on a Festival for Shabbat or on Shabbat for a Festival.


讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘


As it was taught in a baraita: The verse that states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, when they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5), indicates as follows: On an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival. Therefore, an egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited on Shabbat not because they constitute a single sanctity, but because it is prohibited to prepare on one sanctified day for another.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转


Abaye said to him: But what about that which we learned in the mishna: What does he do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent takes the eiruv to the spot that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, and then he takes it with him and goes away. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he or his agent takes the eiruv back to the same place and stays there with it until nightfall, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Isn鈥檛 he preparing on a Festival for Shabbat? According to Rabba, this should be considered a prohibited act of preparation.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转 住讜祝 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 转讞诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讜砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇注爪诪讛


Rabba said to him: Do you think that the eiruv acquires one鈥檚 residence at the end of the day, i.e., at the last moment of Shabbat eve, which in this case is a Festival, so that this would involve prohibited preparation? The eiruv acquires his residence at the beginning of the day, i.e., at the first moment of Shabbat, which means that no preparations were made for Shabbat on the Festival, and on Shabbat one may prepare for Shabbat itself.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬注专讘讜 讘诇讙讬谉


Abaye asked: But if that is so, one should be able to establish an eiruv with flasks of wine that were filled from a barrel of first-tithe that was still tevel with respect to teruma of the tithe, and with regard to which one said: Let this wine in the flask be teruma of the tithe for the wine in the barrel only after nightfall. If you say that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 residence at the beginning of the day, why was it determined that one may not establish an eiruv with such wine?


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


The Gemara answers: In that case the eiruv is not valid for a different reason: We require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none, as the wine in the flask remains tevel and therefore unfit for drinking until nightfall.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖讘转 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪注专讘 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛讗 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


Abaye asked further: But what about that which we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: If a Festival is adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a person may establish two eiruvin. Why are these eiruvin valid? Don鈥檛 we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none? Since one established his eiruv in one direction for the first day, he can only travel within a two-thousand-cubit radius of that location. Therefore, if he established his eiruv for the second day in the opposite direction, he cannot access that eiruv during the first day.


诪讬 住讘专转 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讘住讜祝 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 诇讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讘住讜祝 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara responds: Do you think that we are dealing with a case where he placed one eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in this direction, and he placed the other eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in that direction, and he is therefore unable to go from one to the other on one day? No, the case is that he placed one eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in the this direction, and he placed the other eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in that direction, so that even after acquiring his residence on one side of the town by means of the first eiruv, he can still go to the spot where he left the other eiruv for the second day.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讬讜诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讘 讘驻转 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘驻转 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转


Abaye raised yet another difficulty: But what about that which Rav Yehuda said: If one established an eiruv with his feet for the first day, he may establish an eiruv with his feet for the second day; and if he established an eiruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eiruv with bread on the second day? Isn鈥檛 he preparing from a Festival to Shabbat?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讚讗讝讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讝讬诇 讜砖转讬拽 讜讬转讬讘


Rabba said to him: Do you think that one must go and say something at the site of the eiruv, therefore performing an act of preparation? He goes, and is silent, and sits there, and he automatically acquires his residence without having to say or do anything. This does not fall into the category of prohibited preparation.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛


Abaye asked: In accordance with whose opinion do you say that nothing must be said when establishing an eiruv te岣min? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: A sleeping person acquires a Shabbat residence in the spot where he is sleeping. Even though he is comparable to ownerless property, ownerless property itself acquires a Shabbat residence and has its own Shabbat boundary, and there is no need for a person to establish a residence for it in a particular spot.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诇讗 讘讬砖谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘谞讬注讜专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诪讬


Rabba replied: Even if you say that my statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri only with regard to a sleeping person, who cannot say anything, as he is asleep. Consequently, he cannot acquire a Shabbat residence. However, with regard to one who is awake, since if he wanted to speak he could speak, even though he did not say that he is acquiring his Shabbat residence, he is considered as one who did say that statement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 诇住讜祝 砖讚讛讜 诇讬讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin said to Abaye: If the Master, Rabba, had heard that which was taught in the following baraita: A person may not walk to the end of his field on Shabbat to determine what work and repair it requires, which will be done after Shabbat. Similarly,


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 38-44 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week will discuss topics in Daf 38-44 including if one can make a separate Eruv for Shabbat and a...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 38: One Kedushah, Two Kedushah

When yom tov is next to Shabbat... Making one eruv going to the west, and another one going to the...

Eruvin 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 38

讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注:


don鈥檛 you at least concede that we must be concerned that perhaps the leather flask will burst, and retroactively this person would have been drinking tevel? Rabbi Meir said to them: When it bursts, I will consider the matter, but now I am not concerned about this possibility.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖讘转 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪注专讘 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讜讗讜诪专 注讬专讜讘讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇诪讝专讞 讜讘砖谞讬 诇诪注专讘 讘专讗砖讜谉 诇诪注专讘 讜讘砖谞讬 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖谞讬 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬 注讬专讜讘讬 讘砖谞讬 讜讘专讗砖讜谉 讻讘谞讬 注讬专讬


MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a Festival adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it, on a Friday, or after it, on a Sunday, a person may establish two eiruvin of Shabbat borders [te岣min] and say as follows: My eiruv on the first day shall be to the east, and on the second day to the west. Alternatively, one may say: On the first day it shall be to the west and on the second day to the east. Similarly, one may say: My eiruv shall apply on the first day, but on the second day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town, or: My eiruv shall apply on the second day, but on the first day I shall be like the rest of the inhabitants of my town.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诪注专讘 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注专讘 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讜 诪注专讘 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注专讘 讻诇 注讬拽专


And the Rabbis disagree and say that such a split is impossible. Rather, he either establishes an eiruv in one direction for both days, or he establishes no eiruv at all; either he establishes an eiruv for the two days, or he establishes no eiruv at all.


讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讜谞诪爪讗 诪砖转讻专 讘讛诇讬讻转讜 讜诪砖转讻专 讘注讬专讜讘讜


What does one do to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence for the Festival, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it will not become lost before the following evening, in which case he would not have an eiruv for the second day. On the eve of the second day, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and he stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his residence for Shabbat, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Consequently, he benefits in that he is permitted to walk in the direction that he desires, and he benefits in that he is permitted to eat his eiruv.


谞讗讻诇 讘专讗砖讜谉 注讬专讜讘讜 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 诇砖谞讬


However, if the eiruv was eaten on the first day, his eiruv is effective for the first day, and his eiruv is not effective for the second day.


讗诪专 (诇讛谉) 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讚讬诐 讗转诐 诇讬 砖讛谉 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转:


Rabbi Eliezer said to them: If so, you agree with me that Shabbat and a Festival constitute two distinct sanctities, as if not, the eiruv that went into effect during the twilight period on the eve of the first day should have remained in effect for both days, even if it was eaten during the first day. This being the case, you should also agree with me that one can make two separate eiruvin for the two days in two different directions.


讙诪壮 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诇专讜讞 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 拽诪讬讬转讗


GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the wording employed by the Rabbis: First, the Rabbis state that one may establish an eiruv in one direction. What does this mean? He must establish an eiruv in that direction for two days. Then they state that he may establish an eiruv for two days. What does this mean? He must establish an eiruv for the two days in one direction. If so, this is exactly the same as the first clause.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞爪讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞爪讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜讞爪讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪讝专讞 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇诪注专讘


The Gemara explains: This is what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede that in the case of one day, one may not establish an eiruv for half the day to the north and for half of it to the south? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Indeed, I agree. They then said to him: Just as one may not establish an eiruv for one day, half the day to the north and half the day to the south, so too, one may not establish an eiruv for two consecutive days of sanctity, one day to the east and one day to the west.


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讻讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转


And how does Rabbi Eliezer respond? He holds as follows: There, one day constitutes one sanctity, and it is impossible to impossible to divide the day such that the eiruv applies to one direction for one half of the day and to another direction for the other half of the day. Here, where Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they are two separate sanctities, and therefore one can establish separate eiruvin for the two days.


讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬


Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: Don鈥檛 you concede that if one established an eiruv with his feet by actually going to the place where he desires to establish an eiruv on the eve of the first day and remaining there during the twilight period, as opposed to depositing food there beforehand, he nonetheless must establish another eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, and one eiruv does not suffice; similarly, if his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may not rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of his town on the second day?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 讛讗 诇讗讬讬 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜专讘谞谉 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The Rabbis said to him: Indeed, that is correct. Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: Then isn鈥檛 it correct that they are two distinct sanctities, and therefore one should be permitted to establish two separate eiruvin for the two days? And how do the Rabbis respond? They are in doubt about this issue, and therefore their ruling here is stringent and prohibits establishing separate eiruvin for the two days in different directions, in case the two days are considered a single sanctity; and their ruling here is stringent and they require a separate eiruv for each day, in case the two days are considered distinct sanctities.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘转讞讬诇讛 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 讛讗 诇讗讬讬 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗


The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede that one may not establish an eiruv initially on a Festival for Shabbat, i.e., if a Festival occurs on a Friday and one forgot to establish an eiruv on the eve of the Festival, he may not establish an eiruv for Shabbat on the Festival itself? Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Indeed, that is correct. They said to him: Then isn鈥檛 it correct that the two days constitute one sanctity?


讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛


The Gemara responds that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there, the halakha is so not because the two days constitute a single sanctity, but due to the prohibition of preparation on a Festival for Shabbat, which includes establishing an eiruv.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


The Sages taught in a baraita: If one established an eiruv with his feet by going to the place he wished to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day and remaining there during the twilight period, he must nevertheless establish another eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day. Similarly, if he had established an eiruv by depositing food in the place he wished to establish as his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may not rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专


Rabbi Yehuda says:


讛专讬 讝讛 讞诪专 讙诪诇


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 pulled in two opposing directions. Since we are unsure whether the two days constitute one sanctity or two, he must act stringently as though the eiruv established for the first day is both effective and not effective for the second day, i.e., he must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas where he would be permitted to go in both cases.


专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讬讜爪讗 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, say: If he established an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the first day, he need not establish an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, as his eiruv remains effective for the second day as well. Similarly, if he had made an eiruv by depositing food in the place where he wished to establish his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may still rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day, as the two days constitute one sanctity; from the outset, the eiruv acquired his place of rest for both days.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住转讬诪转讗讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诪驻讬拽 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住转讬诪转讗讛


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of these four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities. And these are the four Elders: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka; Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon; and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose opinions were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot. And there are those who say: One of them is Rabbi Elazar, and remove from the list Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose statements were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot.


讜讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讬驻讜讱


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn鈥檛 we hear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, maintain the opposite opinion in the baraita cited above, namely that the two days constitute a single sanctity? The Gemara answers: Reverse the attributions in the baraita.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讻讜壮


The Gemara asks: If so, this is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said. What is their dispute? The Gemara answers: Say that there is no disagreement between them, and the baraita should read as follows: And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he agrees with what was stated above.


讜诇讬讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 转谞讬 诇讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛


The Gemara now asks: Let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among these Elders, as he too holds that the two days are distinct sanctities. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this opinion, and he himself did not hold it to be correct. He transmitted a ruling that he received from his teachers, but his own opinion was otherwise.


专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 专讘 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let us also say that the Rabbis, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yishmael also taught this law, and they themselves did not hold it to be correct. What proof is there that this represents their own opinions? The Gemara answers: Rav did not rely on the wording of these sources; rather, he learned by way of a definite tradition that these four Elders maintained this position.


讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬讬诇 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讬专诪讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讗专讘注讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna, Rav鈥檚 preeminent student, passed away, Rav 岣sda entered the study hall to raise a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that when Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities?


讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘 讗诪专 谞讜诇讚讛 讘讝讛 讗住讜专讛 讘讝讛


Wasn鈥檛 it stated that with regard to a case where Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg that was laid on one is prohibited on the other, just as an egg that was laid on a Festival day is prohibited on that same day? This statement indicates that the two days constitute a single sanctity. How, then, can he say here that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion that they are two distinct sanctities?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讛讻谞讛


Rabba said that a distinction may be drawn between the cases: There, the egg is prohibited on the second day not because the two days constitute a single sanctity but because of the prohibition against preparation, i.e., because it is prohibited to prepare things on a Festival for Shabbat or on Shabbat for a Festival.


讚转谞讬讗 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讞讜诇 诪讻讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻讬谉 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘


As it was taught in a baraita: The verse that states: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, when they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5), indicates as follows: On an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival. Therefore, an egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited on Shabbat not because they constitute a single sanctity, but because it is prohibited to prepare on one sanctified day for another.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪讜诇讬讻讜 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 诪讞砖讬讱 注诇讬讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 讜讘讗 诇讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转


Abaye said to him: But what about that which we learned in the mishna: What does he do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent takes the eiruv to the spot that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, and then he takes it with him and goes away. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he or his agent takes the eiruv back to the same place and stays there with it until nightfall, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Isn鈥檛 he preparing on a Festival for Shabbat? According to Rabba, this should be considered a prohibited act of preparation.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诪讬 住讘专转 住讜祝 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 转讞诇转 讛讬讜诐 拽讜谞讛 注讬专讜讘 讜砖讘转 诪讻讬谞讛 诇注爪诪讛


Rabba said to him: Do you think that the eiruv acquires one鈥檚 residence at the end of the day, i.e., at the last moment of Shabbat eve, which in this case is a Festival, so that this would involve prohibited preparation? The eiruv acquires his residence at the beginning of the day, i.e., at the first moment of Shabbat, which means that no preparations were made for Shabbat on the Festival, and on Shabbat one may prepare for Shabbat itself.


讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬注专讘讜 讘诇讙讬谉


Abaye asked: But if that is so, one should be able to establish an eiruv with flasks of wine that were filled from a barrel of first-tithe that was still tevel with respect to teruma of the tithe, and with regard to which one said: Let this wine in the flask be teruma of the tithe for the wine in the barrel only after nightfall. If you say that an eiruv acquires one鈥檚 residence at the beginning of the day, why was it determined that one may not establish an eiruv with such wine?


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


The Gemara answers: In that case the eiruv is not valid for a different reason: We require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none, as the wine in the flask remains tevel and therefore unfit for drinking until nightfall.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛住诪讜讱 诇砖讘转 讘讬谉 诪诇驻谞讬讛 讜讘讬谉 诪诇讗讞专讬讛 诪注专讘 讗讚诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛讗 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


Abaye asked further: But what about that which we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: If a Festival is adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a person may establish two eiruvin. Why are these eiruvin valid? Don鈥檛 we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none? Since one established his eiruv in one direction for the first day, he can only travel within a two-thousand-cubit radius of that location. Therefore, if he established his eiruv for the second day in the opposite direction, he cannot access that eiruv during the first day.


诪讬 住讘专转 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讘住讜祝 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 诇讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛 讘住讜祝 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讘住讜祝 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara responds: Do you think that we are dealing with a case where he placed one eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in this direction, and he placed the other eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in that direction, and he is therefore unable to go from one to the other on one day? No, the case is that he placed one eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in the this direction, and he placed the other eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in that direction, so that even after acquiring his residence on one side of the town by means of the first eiruv, he can still go to the spot where he left the other eiruv for the second day.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讬讜诐 砖谞讬 注讬专讘 讘驻转 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪注专讘 讘驻转 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬 讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讬谉 诪讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转


Abaye raised yet another difficulty: But what about that which Rav Yehuda said: If one established an eiruv with his feet for the first day, he may establish an eiruv with his feet for the second day; and if he established an eiruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eiruv with bread on the second day? Isn鈥檛 he preparing from a Festival to Shabbat?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 讚讗讝讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讝讬诇 讜砖转讬拽 讜讬转讬讘


Rabba said to him: Do you think that one must go and say something at the site of the eiruv, therefore performing an act of preparation? He goes, and is silent, and sits there, and he automatically acquires his residence without having to say or do anything. This does not fall into the category of prohibited preparation.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讗诪专 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛


Abaye asked: In accordance with whose opinion do you say that nothing must be said when establishing an eiruv te岣min? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, who said: A sleeping person acquires a Shabbat residence in the spot where he is sleeping. Even though he is comparable to ownerless property, ownerless property itself acquires a Shabbat residence and has its own Shabbat boundary, and there is no need for a person to establish a residence for it in a particular spot.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诇讗 讘讬砖谉 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讗讘诇 讘谞讬注讜专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪讬诪专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚诪讬


Rabba replied: Even if you say that my statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri only with regard to a sleeping person, who cannot say anything, as he is asleep. Consequently, he cannot acquire a Shabbat residence. However, with regard to one who is awake, since if he wanted to speak he could speak, even though he did not say that he is acquiring his Shabbat residence, he is considered as one who did say that statement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 诇住讜祝 砖讚讛讜 诇讬讚注 诪讛 讛讬讗 爪专讬讻讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin said to Abaye: If the Master, Rabba, had heard that which was taught in the following baraita: A person may not walk to the end of his field on Shabbat to determine what work and repair it requires, which will be done after Shabbat. Similarly,


Scroll To Top