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

Daf Yomi

August 13, 2020 | 讻状讙 讘讗讘 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 4

Today’s daf is dedicated by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker on her father’s second yahrzeit, Alan Hirshfeld, Asher Tuvia ben Shlomo v’Chana z”l. And by Michael Radwin in honor of Ariella Radwin in celebration of their 20th wedding anniversary. And by Yael and Jon Cohen in honor of their son Eddie who drafted yesterday. May Hashem protect you as you do the work that enables our country to be free. 注诇讛 讜讛爪诇讞!

The gemara brings a tannatic source to question Abaye’s understanding of Rav Nachman regarding the size of a cubit (5 or 6 handbreadths). The gemara resolves the issue. The requisite amount, mechitza (separations) and chatzitza聽(one cannot be purified by a mikveh if there is a separation between the water and one’s body) are all oral traditions passed down from Moshe at Sinai. The gemara questions each – aren’t they mentioned in the Torah? The gemara explains what is meant by each term in order to answer the question.

砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜讛诇诇讜 注爪讘讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗


that they are not precisely a cubit. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita means: So that these, the cubits of diverse kinds of seeds, should be measured with expansive handbreadths, and those, the cubits of sukka, should be measured with depressed handbreadths. However, according to Abaye, it is difficult.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛


The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you: Emend the baraita and say: The cubit of diverse kinds of seeds mentioned by the Sages is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, not the other cubits.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻诇 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All the cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds are measured with cubits of six handbreadths, provided that they are not measured with exact handbreadths? This proves by inference that the anonymous first tanna is speaking of all cubits, and not only those in the case of diverse kinds of seeds.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you: Isn鈥檛 there Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in accordance with my opinion? I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: According to Abaye, the issue of large and small cubits is certainly subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as his ruling can only be in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. According to Rava, however, must it be said that this is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讬爪诪爪诐


The Gemara answers: This is not necessarily the case, as Rava could have said to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not dispute the basic teaching of the anonymous first tanna that all the cubits mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths. Rather, he came to teach us this: One should not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds, i.e., one should not measure it with depressed handbreadths.


讜诇讬诪讗 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讬爪诪爪诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讜讗诪转 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara raises an objection. And if that is the case, let him say: One must not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds. What does the phrase: A cubit consisting of six handbreadths come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of an alleyway, which are measured with cubits of five handbreadths?


诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘


The Gemara rejects this argument. No, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 formulation comes to exclude the cubit of the base of the altar, which is the bottom level of the altar, one cubit high with a ledge one cubit wide, and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar, which is five cubits above the base, six cubits above the ground, and one cubit wide. Everyone agrees that those cubits are small cubits of five handbreadths.


讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讛 诪讚讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讗诪讜转 讗诪讛 讗诪讛 讜讟驻讞 讜讞讬拽 讛讗诪讛 讜讗诪讛 专讞讘 讜讙讘讜诇讛 讗诇 砖驻转讛 住讘讬讘 讝专转 讛讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讙讘 讛诪讝讘讞 讞讬拽 讛讗诪讛 讝讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 专讞讘 讝讛 住讜讘讘 讜讙讘讜诇讛 讗诇 砖驻转讛 住讘讬讘 讗诇讜 讛拽专谞讜转 讜讝讛 讙讘 讛诪讝讘讞 讝讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘:


As it is written: 鈥淎nd these are the measures of the altar by cubits; the cubit is a cubit and a handbreadth, the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be a span: And this shall be the higher part of the altar鈥 (Ezekiel 43:13). And the Sages explained this verse as follows: 鈥淭he bottom shall be a cubit,鈥 this is the base of the altar; 鈥渁nd the breadth a cubit,鈥 this is the surrounding ledge of the altar; 鈥渁nd its border by its edge round about,鈥 these are the horns of the altar, i.e., extensions of the corners of the altar; 鈥渁nd this shall be the higher part of the altar,鈥 this refers to the golden altar that stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured by small cubits.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讞爪讬爪讬谉 讜诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


Since the Gemara discussed measurements, it proceeds to cite that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures relating to mitzvot in the Torah, and the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersions, and the halakhot of partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. These halakhot have no basis in the Written Torah, but according to tradition they were orally transmitted by God to Moses together with the Written Torah.


砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专


The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎 land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav 岣nan said: This entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.


讞讟讛 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转讬驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讬讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇 讘诇讬驻转谉


Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as that which we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.


砖注讜专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇


Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.


讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专


The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, who is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.


转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转


Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.


专诪讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专讬诪讜谞讬诐


Pomegranate teaches the measure, as that which we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity, and they are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.


讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 (讜讚讘砖) 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗专抓 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐


The Sages interpreted: A land of olive oil and honey, as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olives-bulks? Yet aren鈥檛 there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures, e.g., those relating to forbidden foods and to impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent and by contact with an animal carcass, are olive-bulks.


讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐


Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food. Clearly, the measurements pertaining to mitzvot are explicitly written in the Torah and were not transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


讜转讬住讘专讗 砖讬注讜专讬谉 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬


The Gemara refutes this argument: And can you hold that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages based them on verses in the Torah.


讞爪讬爪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 (讘诪讬诐) 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谉 讘砖专讜 诇诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛


Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said above that Rav said that the laws governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe all his flesh in the water鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), and the Sages derived that nothing should intervene between his flesh and the water. The definite article in the phrase 鈥渋n the water鈥 indicates that this bathing is performed in water mentioned elsewhere, i.e., specifically in the water of a ritual bath, and not in just any water. And the phrase 鈥渁ll his flesh鈥 indicates that it must be in water into which all of his body can enter, i.e., in which a person can immerse his entire body at once. And how much water is that? It is a cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated the volume of a ritual bath of this size and determined that the waters of a ritual bath measure forty se鈥檃. As this is derived from the Written Torah, what need is there for a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai?


讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇砖注专讜 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 拽砖讜专讛 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is needed with regard to his hair, that it too must be accessible to the water without interposition. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A single hair tied in a knot constitutes an interposition and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not constitute an interposition, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


砖注专讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇讘砖专讜 讜讝讛讜 砖注专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to his hair is also written in the Torah, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe all [et kol] his flesh. The superfluous word et comes to amplify and include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and that is hair.


讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇专讜讘讜 讜诇诪讬注讜讟讜 讜诇诪拽驻讬讚 讜诇砖讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach the details of interpositions on the body with regard to its majority and its minority, and with regard to one who is particular and one who is not particular, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讘专 转讜专讛 专讜讘讜 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讜注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚


As Rabbi Yitz岣k said: By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.


讜诇讬讙讝讜专 谞诪讬 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚


The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.


讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree, because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then rise up and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜


Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said that the halakhot of partitions were transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: They are written in the Torah, as the fundamental principle that a partition ten handbreadths high establishes a separate domain is derived from the Torah.


讚讗诪专 诪专 讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讜讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛


As the Master said: The Holy Ark in the Tabernacle was nine handbreadths high, as the verse states that its height was a cubit and a half. A cubit contains six handbreadths, so its height totaled nine handbreadths. And the cover atop the Ark was one handbreadth, which total ten. There is a tradition that the Divine Presence does not descend into the domain of this world, which is derived from the verse that states that the Divine Presence would reveal itself from above the cover of the Ark. Apparently, a partition of ten handbreadths creates a separate domain.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诪转 讘谞讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讗诪转 讻诇讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The cubit mentioned with regard to the building of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a large cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit mentioned with regard to the sacred vessels was a cubit of five handbreadths. According to this opinion, the Ark, which was a cubit and a half, and its cover, which was a handbreadth, measured eight and a half handbreadths. Therefore, nothing can be derived with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗诪讜转 讛讬讜 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara poses a question. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: All the cubits were medium ones, regular cubits of six handbreadths; what can be said? Apparently, according to his opinion, the laws governing partitions are explicitly stated in the Torah.


诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讚 讜诇诇讘讜讚 讜诇讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛:


The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths is indeed written in the Torah. However, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of the curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is valid even if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.


讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讜 讻诪讛 诪诪注讟 讻诪讛 诪诪注讟 讻诪讛 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛


The Gemara returns to the laws of alleyways: If the cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway was higher than twenty cubits from the ground and one comes to diminish its height, how much must he diminish it? The Gemara is surprised by the question: How much must he diminish it? The amount that he needs in order to render its height less than twenty cubits.


讗诇讗 专讞讘讜 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟驻讞 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗专讘注讛


Rather, the space between the cross beam and the ground must, of course, be reduced to twenty cubits. However, when one raises the alleyway, how much must the width of the raised section be in order to render the alleyway fit for carrying within it? Rav Yosef said: One handbreadth. Abaye said: Four handbreadths.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟驻讞 拽住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree about this: The one who said one handbreadth holds that one is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam spanning the entrance to the alleyway, as he maintains that the cross beam serves as a partition, and the alleyway is considered as if it were sealed by a partition descending from the outer edge of the cross beam that faces the public domain. Since the area beneath the cross beam is part of the alleyway and is less than twenty cubits, there is a conspicuous demarcation for one standing in the alleyway.


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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 2-9

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 4: The Seven Species and What They Teach

More on the phrasing of tefachim and amot: they're happy and sad! Also: All those measurements are "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai."...

Eruvin 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 4

砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜讛诇诇讜 注爪讘讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗


that they are not precisely a cubit. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita means: So that these, the cubits of diverse kinds of seeds, should be measured with expansive handbreadths, and those, the cubits of sukka, should be measured with depressed handbreadths. However, according to Abaye, it is difficult.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛


The Gemara answers: Abaye could have said to you: Emend the baraita and say: The cubit of diverse kinds of seeds mentioned by the Sages is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths, not the other cubits.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻诇 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专


The Gemara raises a difficulty. However, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: All the cubits that the Sages mentioned with regard to diverse kinds of seeds are measured with cubits of six handbreadths, provided that they are not measured with exact handbreadths? This proves by inference that the anonymous first tanna is speaking of all cubits, and not only those in the case of diverse kinds of seeds.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you: Isn鈥檛 there Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds in accordance with my opinion? I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.


诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘讗 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara comments: According to Abaye, the issue of large and small cubits is certainly subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as his ruling can only be in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. According to Rava, however, must it be said that this is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讬爪诪爪诐


The Gemara answers: This is not necessarily the case, as Rava could have said to you: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not dispute the basic teaching of the anonymous first tanna that all the cubits mentioned by the Sages are cubits of six handbreadths. Rather, he came to teach us this: One should not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds, i.e., one should not measure it with depressed handbreadths.


讜诇讬诪讗 讗诪转 讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讬爪诪爪诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诪转 住讜讻讛 讜讗诪转 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara raises an objection. And if that is the case, let him say: One must not reduce the cubit of diverse kinds of seeds. What does the phrase: A cubit consisting of six handbreadths come to exclude? Does it not come to exclude the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of an alleyway, which are measured with cubits of five handbreadths?


诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗诪讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 住讜讘讘


The Gemara rejects this argument. No, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 formulation comes to exclude the cubit of the base of the altar, which is the bottom level of the altar, one cubit high with a ledge one cubit wide, and the cubit of the surrounding ledge of the altar, which is five cubits above the base, six cubits above the ground, and one cubit wide. Everyone agrees that those cubits are small cubits of five handbreadths.


讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讛 诪讚讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讗诪讜转 讗诪讛 讗诪讛 讜讟驻讞 讜讞讬拽 讛讗诪讛 讜讗诪讛 专讞讘 讜讙讘讜诇讛 讗诇 砖驻转讛 住讘讬讘 讝专转 讛讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讙讘 讛诪讝讘讞 讞讬拽 讛讗诪讛 讝讛 讬住讜讚 讜讗诪讛 专讞讘 讝讛 住讜讘讘 讜讙讘讜诇讛 讗诇 砖驻转讛 住讘讬讘 讗诇讜 讛拽专谞讜转 讜讝讛 讙讘 讛诪讝讘讞 讝讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘:


As it is written: 鈥淎nd these are the measures of the altar by cubits; the cubit is a cubit and a handbreadth, the bottom shall be a cubit, and the breadth a cubit, and its border by its edge round about shall be a span: And this shall be the higher part of the altar鈥 (Ezekiel 43:13). And the Sages explained this verse as follows: 鈥淭he bottom shall be a cubit,鈥 this is the base of the altar; 鈥渁nd the breadth a cubit,鈥 this is the surrounding ledge of the altar; 鈥渁nd its border by its edge round about,鈥 these are the horns of the altar, i.e., extensions of the corners of the altar; 鈥渁nd this shall be the higher part of the altar,鈥 this refers to the golden altar that stood inside the Sanctuary and was also measured by small cubits.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讞爪讬爪讬谉 讜诪讞讬爪讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬


Since the Gemara discussed measurements, it proceeds to cite that which Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: The measures relating to mitzvot in the Torah, and the halakhot governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersions, and the halakhot of partitions are all halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. These halakhot have no basis in the Written Torah, but according to tradition they were orally transmitted by God to Moses together with the Written Torah.


砖讬注讜专讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗专抓 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜拽 讛讝讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉 谞讗诪专


The Gemara questions this assertion: Are measures a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? They are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎 land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8), and Rav 岣nan said: This entire verse was stated for the purpose of teaching measures with regard to different halakhot in the Torah.


讞讟讛 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪谞讜讙注 讜讻诇讬讜 注诇 讻转讬驻讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讬讚讬讜 讛讜讗 讜讛诐 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 诇讘讜砖 讻诇讬讜 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜讟讘注讜转讬讜 讘讗爪讘注讜转讬讜 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讬讚 讜讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 驻转 讞讬讟讬谉 讜诇讗 驻转 砖注讜专讬谉 诪讬住讘 讜讗讜讻诇 讘诇讬驻转谉


Wheat was mentioned as the basis for calculating the time required for one to become ritually impure when entering a house afflicted with leprosy, as that which we learned in a mishna: One who enters a house afflicted with leprosy of the house (see Leviticus 14), and his clothes are draped over his shoulders, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, immediately become ritually impure. However, if he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet, and his rings were on his fingers, he immediately becomes ritually impure, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he stays in the house long enough to eat half a loaf of bread. This calculation is based on wheat bread, which takes less time to eat, and not on barley bread, and it relates to one who is reclining and eating it together with relish, which hastens the eating. This is a Torah measurement connected specifically to wheat.


砖注讜专讛 讚转谞谉 注爪诐 讻砖注讜专讛 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讛诇


Barley is also used as a basis for measurements, as we learned in a mishna: A bone from a corpse the size of a grain of barley imparts ritual impurity through contact and by being carried, but it does not impart impurity by means of a tent, i.e., if the bone was inside a house, it does not render all the articles in the house ritually impure.


讙驻谉 讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 诇谞讝讬专


The halakhic measure determined by a vine is the quantity of a quarter-log of wine for a nazirite. A nazirite, who is prohibited to drink wine, is liable to be flogged if he drinks that measure.


转讗谞讛 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讛讜爪讗转 砖讘转


Fig alludes to the measure of a dried fig-bulk with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat. One is liable for carrying food fit for human consumption on Shabbat, provided that he carries a dried fig-bulk of that food.


专诪讜谉 讻讚转谞谉 讻诇 讻诇讬 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖讬注讜专谉 讻专讬诪讜谞讬诐


Pomegranate teaches the measure, as that which we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden vessels belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through being broken, as broken vessels cannot contract or maintain ritual impurity, and they are considered broken if they have holes the size of pomegranates.


讗专抓 讝讬转 砖诪谉 (讜讚讘砖) 讗专抓 砖讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗专抓 砖专讜讘 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讝讬转讬诐


The Sages interpreted: A land of olive oil and honey, as: A land, all of whose measures are olive-bulks. The Gemara poses a question: Does it enter your mind that it is a land all of whose measures are olives-bulks? Yet aren鈥檛 there those measures that we just mentioned above, which are not olive-bulks? Rather, say: A land, most of whose measures are olive-bulks, as most measures, e.g., those relating to forbidden foods and to impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent and by contact with an animal carcass, are olive-bulks.


讚讘砖 讻讻讜转讘转 讛讙住讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐


Honey, i.e., dates from which date honey is extracted, also determines a measure, as with regard to eating on Yom Kippur, one is liable only if he eats a large date-bulk of food. Clearly, the measurements pertaining to mitzvot are explicitly written in the Torah and were not transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


讜转讬住讘专讗 砖讬注讜专讬谉 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘讬 讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗住诪讻讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗拽专讗讬


The Gemara refutes this argument: And can you hold that all these measures are explicitly written in the Torah with regard to each of the halakhot mentioned above? Rather, they are halakhot that were transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the Sages based them on verses in the Torah.


讞爪讬爪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜专讞抓 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 (讘诪讬诐) 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讚讘专 讞讜爪抓 讘讬谉 讘砖专讜 诇诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛


Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said above that Rav said that the laws governing interpositions that invalidate ritual immersion are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion: These, too, are written in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe all his flesh in the water鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), and the Sages derived that nothing should intervene between his flesh and the water. The definite article in the phrase 鈥渋n the water鈥 indicates that this bathing is performed in water mentioned elsewhere, i.e., specifically in the water of a ritual bath, and not in just any water. And the phrase 鈥渁ll his flesh鈥 indicates that it must be in water into which all of his body can enter, i.e., in which a person can immerse his entire body at once. And how much water is that? It is a cubit by a cubit by the height of three cubits. And the Sages calculated the volume of a ritual bath of this size and determined that the waters of a ritual bath measure forty se鈥檃. As this is derived from the Written Torah, what need is there for a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai?


讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇砖注专讜 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 拽砖讜专讛 讞讜爪爪转 砖诇砖 讗讬谞谉 讞讜爪爪讜转 砖转讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is needed with regard to his hair, that it too must be accessible to the water without interposition. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A single hair tied in a knot constitutes an interposition and invalidates the immersion. Three hairs tied together in a knot do not constitute an interposition, because three hairs cannot be tied so tightly that water cannot penetrate them. With regard to two hairs tied together in a knot, I do not know the halakha. This halakha with regard to hair is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


砖注专讜 谞诪讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 讗转 讛讟驻诇 诇讘砖专讜 讜讝讛讜 砖注专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The halakha with regard to his hair is also written in the Torah, as it was taught in a baraita: And he shall bathe all [et kol] his flesh. The superfluous word et comes to amplify and include that which is subordinate to his flesh, and that is hair.


讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇专讜讘讜 讜诇诪讬注讜讟讜 讜诇诪拽驻讬讚 讜诇砖讗讬谉 诪拽驻讬讚 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach the details of interpositions on the body with regard to its majority and its minority, and with regard to one who is particular and one who is not particular, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讘专 转讜专讛 专讜讘讜 讜诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讞讜爪抓 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 注诇讬讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讙讝专讜 注诇 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讜注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚


As Rabbi Yitz岣k said: By Torah law, if there is an interposition between a person and the water, and it covers the majority of his body, and he is particular and wants the interposing substance removed, only then is it considered an interposition that invalidates immersion in a ritual bath. However, if he is not particular about that substance, it is not considered an interposition. The Sages, however, issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular, due to substances covering the majority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is particular. And, they issued a decree prohibiting substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which one is particular.


讜诇讬讙讝讜专 谞诪讬 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚 诪砖讜诐 诪讬注讜讟讜 讛诪拽驻讬讚 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 专讜讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽驻讬讚


The Gemara raises a question: Then let us also issue a decree deeming substances covering the minority of one鈥檚 body with regard to which he is not particular an interposition due to substances covering the minority of his body with regard to which one is particular, or alternatively, due to substances covering the majority of his body with regard to which he is not particular.


讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛


The Gemara answers: We do not issue that decree, because the halakha that deems both an interposition covering the minority of his body about which one is particular and an interposition covering the majority of his body about which one is not particular an interposition is itself a decree. Shall we then rise up and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? In any case, these details with regard to interpositions are neither written nor alluded to in the Torah; rather, they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞讬谞讛讜


Rabbi 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said that the halakhot of partitions were transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: They are written in the Torah, as the fundamental principle that a partition ten handbreadths high establishes a separate domain is derived from the Torah.


讚讗诪专 诪专 讗专讜谉 转砖注讛 讜讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讛专讬 讻讗谉 注砖专讛


As the Master said: The Holy Ark in the Tabernacle was nine handbreadths high, as the verse states that its height was a cubit and a half. A cubit contains six handbreadths, so its height totaled nine handbreadths. And the cover atop the Ark was one handbreadth, which total ten. There is a tradition that the Divine Presence does not descend into the domain of this world, which is derived from the verse that states that the Divine Presence would reveal itself from above the cover of the Ark. Apparently, a partition of ten handbreadths creates a separate domain.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗诪转 讘谞讬谉 讘讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讗诪转 讻诇讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛


The Gemara answers: The halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The cubit mentioned with regard to the building of the Tabernacle and the Temple was a large cubit of six handbreadths, whereas the cubit mentioned with regard to the sacred vessels was a cubit of five handbreadths. According to this opinion, the Ark, which was a cubit and a half, and its cover, which was a handbreadth, measured eight and a half handbreadths. Therefore, nothing can be derived with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛讗诪讜转 讛讬讜 讘讘讬谞讜谞讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara poses a question. And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: All the cubits were medium ones, regular cubits of six handbreadths; what can be said? Apparently, according to his opinion, the laws governing partitions are explicitly stated in the Torah.


诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讬 讗转讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 诇讙讜讚 讜诇诇讘讜讚 讜诇讚讜驻谉 注拽讜诪讛:


The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the halakha with regard to a partition of ten handbreadths is indeed written in the Torah. However, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to teach other halakhot concerning partitions, e.g., the halakhot of extending [gode], according to which an existing partition is extended upward or downward to complete the requisite measure; and the halakhot of joining [lavud], according to which two solid surfaces are joined if they are separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths; and the halakhot of the curved wall of a sukka. A sukka is valid even if there are up to four cubits of invalid roofing, provided that this roofing is adjacent to one of the walls of the sukka. In that case, the invalid roofing is considered a bent extension of the wall. These concepts are certainly not written in the Torah.


讛讬讛 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘讗 诇诪注讟讜 讻诪讛 诪诪注讟 讻诪讛 诪诪注讟 讻诪讛 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛


The Gemara returns to the laws of alleyways: If the cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway was higher than twenty cubits from the ground and one comes to diminish its height, how much must he diminish it? The Gemara is surprised by the question: How much must he diminish it? The amount that he needs in order to render its height less than twenty cubits.


讗诇讗 专讞讘讜 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟驻讞 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗专讘注讛


Rather, the space between the cross beam and the ground must, of course, be reduced to twenty cubits. However, when one raises the alleyway, how much must the width of the raised section be in order to render the alleyway fit for carrying within it? Rav Yosef said: One handbreadth. Abaye said: Four handbreadths.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟驻讞 拽住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree about this: The one who said one handbreadth holds that one is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam spanning the entrance to the alleyway, as he maintains that the cross beam serves as a partition, and the alleyway is considered as if it were sealed by a partition descending from the outer edge of the cross beam that faces the public domain. Since the area beneath the cross beam is part of the alleyway and is less than twenty cubits, there is a conspicuous demarcation for one standing in the alleyway.


Scroll To Top