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

Daf Yomi

September 20, 2020 | 讘壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗

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 42

This is Sunday’s Daf. For Friday’s and Shabbat’s dapim, please click here.

Today’s daf is dedicated by Oren and Rachel Seliger in memory of Tzvi ben Aryeh (Zvi Seliger) husband, father, father in law, grand-father and great grand-father, 砖注诇讛 讘转专讜注讛 讛砖诪讬讬诪讛 one year ago, on 讗’ 转砖专讬 转砖”驻. He was a 讞讜讝专 讘转砖讜讘讛 who showed us all how to be dedicated to Torah and Mitzvot 讘砖诪讞讛. His way of life was an example to us all, and why all of his nearly 50 descendants are 讬专讗讬 砖诪讬讬诐 and 砖讜诪专讬 诪爪讜讜转. May his memory be blessed. We miss you very much Abba/Sabba.

What is the law regarding fruits that left the techum that were then returned? Does is make a difference if they were returned intentionally or unwittingly? Rav Nachman and Rav Huna disagree about a case that one set his eruv in valley and on Shabbat non-Jews came and put up a wall around the valley – is one allowed to carry in the whole space or does one need to be concerned that one may also walk beyond the permitted limit if we allow carrying in the whole space (since one can still only walk 2,000 cubits from the original eruv)? Is this the same debate as between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva regarding one who was placed in a pen or stable or one traveling in a boat who leaves the techum on Shabbat – is the issue there, do we forbid it in case one may think it’s allowed in an unenclosed space – likewise here, do we forbid it in case one may carry in the forbidden space? Or are the situations and thus the issues different? Who do we hold by in the case of the mishna?

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讬讗讻诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


Rabbi Ne岣mya says: If the produce was returned and is now in its original place, it may be eaten; but if it is not in its original place, i.e., if it is still beyond the Shabbat limit, it may not be eaten.


诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by: In its place? If you say that the produce was returned to its place intentionally, there is a difficulty, as it was explicitly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, only if it was returned unwittingly is it indeed permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


Rather, does it not mean that the produce was returned to its place unwittingly, and the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


In what case is this statement said? In a case where the produce is not in its original place, i.e., it is still beyond the Shabbat limit. But if it was returned and is now in its original place, even if it was returned intentionally, it may be eaten. And Rabbi Ne岣mya came to say: Even if the produce was returned and is now in its original place, a distinction applies. If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted; but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.


诇讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜讙讙 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘砖讜讙讙 砖专讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讙讙 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗


The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, this is not necessarily the case, as the baraita can also be explained as follows: If the produce was returned intentionally to its place, everyone agrees, i.e., both the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya, that it is forbidden. However, here they disagree with regard to produce that was unwittingly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was not returned, so that it is not in its original place. The first tanna holds that if the produce was taken out unwittingly, it is permitted to be eaten, even if it is not in its original place. However, Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that even if the produce was taken out unwittingly, if it was returned to its original place, it is permitted; but if it was not returned to its original place, it is not permitted.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 砖专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara objects to this reading: However, since the latter clause of this baraita teaches that Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: Actually, carrying the produce beyond four cubits is prohibited, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly, and by inference, only if it was unwittingly returned is it indeed permitted; however, if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted. And since Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that produce that was intentionally returned to its place is forbidden, by inference, the first tanna holds that even if it was returned intentionally, it is also permitted. If so, the preceding explanation cannot be accepted, and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion is supported by the opinion of the first tanna.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 驻住讬注讜转 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 转讞讜诐 砖讘转


Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If one was walking in a certain place and does not know where the Shabbat limit lies, he may take two thousand medium strides in each direction from the spot he acquired as his place of residence, and this is the Shabbat limit, for a medium stride is approximately a cubit.


讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘转 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 谞讻专讬诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讘砖讘转 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


And Rav Na岣an also said that Shmuel said: If one established residence in a valley, and gentiles surrounded the entire area with a partition for the purpose of residence on Shabbat, he may walk only two thousand cubits in each direction, as he cannot rely on partitions that were not present when he acquired his place of residence. However, he may carry in the entire partitioned area, as in any other private domain, even in the part that is beyond his two thousand cubits, but only by means of throwing, as he himself cannot accompany the object past two thousand cubits.


讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


Rav Huna said: He may walk two thousand cubits; however, even within this area he may carry objects only a distance of four cubits, as in a karmelit. The Gemara asks: And let him be permitted to carry in the entire partitioned area by means of throwing. Although he himself is limited in where he may walk, the partitions render it a private domain, and he should be permitted to carry in the entire area.


砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 讞驻爪讜


The Gemara answers: The Sages prohibited this as a preventive measure, lest he be drawn after his object. It is prohibited for him to leave the two thousand cubit limit, but were he permitted to carry by means of throwing, he might follow his object and go out beyond his permitted limit.


讘讗诇驻讬诐 诪讬讛转 诇讬讟诇讟诇 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛


The Gemara asks: Within two thousand cubits, at any rate, let him carry the object in his usual manner. Since he may traverse this area, there should be no concern that he might come to be drawn after the object.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讗住讜专 诇讛


The Gemara answers that this is prohibited due to another aspect of the laws of eiruvin, namely because this is similar to the case of a partition that is breached in its entirety, leaving the space open to a place into which it is prohibited to carry. Since he may not carry more than two thousand cubits, and the enclosed area is larger than two thousand cubits, the area that is permitted to him is breached in its entirety, left open to an area that is prohibited to him. Consequently, carrying is prohibited in the entire area, even by means of throwing.


讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗


However, 岣yya bar Rav said: In that case, he may walk two thousand cubits, and he may also carry objects within these two thousand cubits. The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did 岣yya bar Rav issue his ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, while this dispute would appear to leave no place for a third opinion.


讗讬诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇 讘讗专讘注 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘


The Gemara answers: Read 岣yya bar Rav鈥檚 ruling as follows: He may carry objects only a distance of four cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: Read it then as follows: And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav said.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗


Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: Do not argue with the opinion of Shmuel as cited by Rav Na岣an with regard to a field surrounded by a partition on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with his opinion. As it was taught in a baraita:


讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 讘讞爪讬 讛注讬专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注讘讜专 讗转 讛转讞讜诐 讘专讙诇讬讜 诪讗讬 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讗讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of the city, he is permitted to carry throughout the city, provided that he does not overstep the limit by foot, i.e., that he does not walk beyond his permitted limit in the middle of the city. If he cannot walk about on foot, how can he carry throughout the city? Is it not by means of throwing? This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who prohibits carrying by means of throwing in a place where it is prohibited to walk.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讬讻讛


Rav Huna said: No, it means that he may carry in the city by means of pulling, i.e., he is permitted to pull objects from the other side of the city to the side where he is permitted to walk, for in this manner there is no concern that he might be drawn after the object, since he is bringing the object to him.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 讘讞爪讬 讞爪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 讞爪专


Similarly, Rav Huna said: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of a courtyard, he has only half the courtyard in which to walk.


驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讞爪讬 讞爪专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that he is not permitted to walk beyond his Shabbat limit. The Gemara answers: Read Rav Huna鈥檚 statement as follows: He has half a courtyard, i.e., Rav Huna addresses a different aspect of the issue; namely, he permits carrying in half the courtyard.


讛讗讬 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: However, this too is obvious, for why should it be prohibited for him to carry in a private domain where he is permitted to walk? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if he is permitted to carry in half the courtyard, he might come to carry in the entire courtyard. Consequently, Rav Huna teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 注诇 砖驻转 转拽专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻诇 讛讘讬转


Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna agrees with me that carrying is not prohibited in a comparable case, out of concern that the person be drawn after the object he is carrying: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended at the edge of the roof of a house, most of which stood outside his Shabbat limit, he is permitted to carry throughout the house by means of throwing.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转拽专转 讛讘讬转 讞讜讘讟转


What is the reason that Rav Huna agrees in this case? Because the edge of the roof of the house is regarded as if it presses down vertically at the end of his Shabbat limit, thus creating a partition, and so there is no concern that he might pass beyond this partition and be drawn after his object.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讻转谞讗讬 讛讜诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘讚讬专 讗讜 讘住讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: The dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m recorded in the mishna: If the gentiles brought him to a different city beyond his Shabbat limit, or if they put him in a pen or a stable, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire stable or pen. Since they are enclosed by a partition, their entire area is considered like only four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was deposited.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专讜 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讘讘拽注讛


Is it not the case that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said: He may walk about the entire area, do not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to walking in a field where one is limited to four cubits? Rather, they say that since the stable is surrounded by partitions, it is not similar to a field, in which a person may not leave his four cubits.


讜诪讚讛讬诇讜讱 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 诇讗 讙讝专讬


And since they did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would certainly not prohibit carrying in a pen due to the limits imposed on walking in a field. Rather, they would permit a person to carry in a field that had been enclosed on Shabbat by gentiles, and even to throw into the part lying beyond his two thousand cubits, parallel to the opinion of Shmuel who did not decree against this.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讙讝专讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讘拽注讛 讜诪讚讛讬诇讜讱 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讙讝专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 谞诪讬 讙讝专讬


And is it not the case that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, who say that he has only four cubits, prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field? And since they prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would also prohibit carrying past the two thousand cubit limit by means of throwing due to the limits imposed on walking past there, in accordance with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.


诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 住讛专 讜讚讬专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讘拽注讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛转诐 讚砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛谉


The Gemara rejects this comparison: From what do you infer that this is the case? Perhaps Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, but this applies only there, because they are two distinct places. In other words, the pen and stable are enclosed by partitions, while the field is not, and there is no reason to prohibit walking in one place out of concern that one might come to act improperly in a different place.


讗讘诇 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讚诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讙讝专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 讞驻爪讜


However, as for the prohibition of carrying due to the limits imposed on walking, where it is all one place, might we also say that even Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would decree against carrying as a preventive measure, lest the person be drawn after his object and come to walk in a place prohibited to him.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专讬 讛讜讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 住讘专讬 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐


The comparison can also be rejected from another angle: And with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva too, from what can it be inferred that they prohibit walking beyond four cubits due to a decree? Perhaps it is because they hold that when we say that the entire house is considered like four cubits, this applies only where one acquired his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, i.e., prior to the onset of Shabbat.


讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗


However, where he did not acquire his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, the house, and all the more so the stable or pen, is not considered as four cubits; rather, it is measured based on the actual number of cubits it contains. Based on this explanation, this ruling indicates nothing with regard to the issue of throwing beyond the two-thousand cubit limit. Consequently, the Gemara rejects the link between the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m in the mishna and that of Rav Na岣an and Rav Huna.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜住驻讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 诇讗


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, but not with regard to a stable or a pen.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara poses a question: At any rate, all agree, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat. What is the reason that the halakha is different in this case than in the other cases?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐


Rabba said: This is since he acquired his place of residence within the partitions of the boat while it was still day, in which case it is reasonable to say that the entire boat is considered as if it is only four cubits.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住驻讬谞讛 谞讜讟诇转讜 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 讜诪谞讞转讜 讘住讜祝 讗专讘注


Rabbi Zeira said: This is since the boat constantly moves the person out of his four cubits, lifting him from the beginning of four cubits and placing him at the end of four cubits. Since in any case he cannot restrict himself to any particular four cubits, even if he wished to do so, it is reasonable to say that he is permitted to walk about the entire boat.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖谞驻讞转讜 讚讜驻谞讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽讜驻抓 诪住驻讬谞讛 诇住驻讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where the walls of the boat were breached, so that the person is no longer located between its partitions. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a case where the person jumped from one boat to another, so that he is no longer on the boat where he had acquired his place of residence. In both of these cases, Rabba鈥檚 reason no longer applies, but Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 reason does.


讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara asks: As for Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, whose explanation is more straightforward? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: The sides of a boat are not regarded as proper partitions,


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...
alon shvut women

The 转讞讜诐 of Objects

Eruvin Daf 42 The 转讞讜诐 of objects. Can objects that left their 转讞讜诐. We also discuss how much area an...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 42: Blurring Eruv Techumin with Eruv Chatzerot

THIS IS SUNDAY'S DAF (Day 2 of Rosh Hashanah). Eruv techumin vs. Eruv chatzerot - note that they're really different...

Eruvin 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 42

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讬讗讻诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


Rabbi Ne岣mya says: If the produce was returned and is now in its original place, it may be eaten; but if it is not in its original place, i.e., if it is still beyond the Shabbat limit, it may not be eaten.


诪讗讬 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讛讚讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by: In its place? If you say that the produce was returned to its place intentionally, there is a difficulty, as it was explicitly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond four cubits, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, only if it was returned unwittingly is it indeed permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻讬专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜


Rather, does it not mean that the produce was returned to its place unwittingly, and the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally, it may not be eaten.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 讬讗讻诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诪谉 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗


In what case is this statement said? In a case where the produce is not in its original place, i.e., it is still beyond the Shabbat limit. But if it was returned and is now in its original place, even if it was returned intentionally, it may be eaten. And Rabbi Ne岣mya came to say: Even if the produce was returned and is now in its original place, a distinction applies. If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted; but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.


诇讗 讘诪讝讬讚 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘砖讜讙讙 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘砖讜讙讙 砖专讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讙讙 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 诇讗


The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, this is not necessarily the case, as the baraita can also be explained as follows: If the produce was returned intentionally to its place, everyone agrees, i.e., both the first tanna and Rabbi Ne岣mya, that it is forbidden. However, here they disagree with regard to produce that was unwittingly taken out beyond the Shabbat limit and was not returned, so that it is not in its original place. The first tanna holds that if the produce was taken out unwittingly, it is permitted to be eaten, even if it is not in its original place. However, Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that even if the produce was taken out unwittingly, if it was returned to its original place, it is permitted; but if it was not returned to its original place, it is not permitted.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讞讝专讜 诇诪拽讜诪谉 砖讜讙讙讬谉 砖讜讙讙 讗讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 砖专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara objects to this reading: However, since the latter clause of this baraita teaches that Rabbi Ne岣mya and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov say: Actually, carrying the produce beyond four cubits is prohibited, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly, and by inference, only if it was unwittingly returned is it indeed permitted; however, if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted. And since Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that produce that was intentionally returned to its place is forbidden, by inference, the first tanna holds that even if it was returned intentionally, it is also permitted. If so, the preceding explanation cannot be accepted, and the Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion is supported by the opinion of the first tanna.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 转讞讜诐 砖讘转 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 驻住讬注讜转 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 转讞讜诐 砖讘转


Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If one was walking in a certain place and does not know where the Shabbat limit lies, he may take two thousand medium strides in each direction from the spot he acquired as his place of residence, and this is the Shabbat limit, for a medium stride is approximately a cubit.


讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘转 讘讘拽注讛 讜讛拽讬驻讜讛 谞讻专讬诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讘砖讘转 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


And Rav Na岣an also said that Shmuel said: If one established residence in a valley, and gentiles surrounded the entire area with a partition for the purpose of residence on Shabbat, he may walk only two thousand cubits in each direction, as he cannot rely on partitions that were not present when he acquired his place of residence. However, he may carry in the entire partitioned area, as in any other private domain, even in the part that is beyond his two thousand cubits, but only by means of throwing, as he himself cannot accompany the object past two thousand cubits.


讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜谞讬讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


Rav Huna said: He may walk two thousand cubits; however, even within this area he may carry objects only a distance of four cubits, as in a karmelit. The Gemara asks: And let him be permitted to carry in the entire partitioned area by means of throwing. Although he himself is limited in where he may walk, the partitions render it a private domain, and he should be permitted to carry in the entire area.


砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 讞驻爪讜


The Gemara answers: The Sages prohibited this as a preventive measure, lest he be drawn after his object. It is prohibited for him to leave the two thousand cubit limit, but were he permitted to carry by means of throwing, he might follow his object and go out beyond his permitted limit.


讘讗诇驻讬诐 诪讬讛转 诇讬讟诇讟诇 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛


The Gemara asks: Within two thousand cubits, at any rate, let him carry the object in his usual manner. Since he may traverse this area, there should be no concern that he might come to be drawn after the object.


诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讗住讜专 诇讛


The Gemara answers that this is prohibited due to another aspect of the laws of eiruvin, namely because this is similar to the case of a partition that is breached in its entirety, leaving the space open to a place into which it is prohibited to carry. Since he may not carry more than two thousand cubits, and the enclosed area is larger than two thousand cubits, the area that is permitted to him is breached in its entirety, left open to an area that is prohibited to him. Consequently, carrying is prohibited in the entire area, even by means of throwing.


讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗


However, 岣yya bar Rav said: In that case, he may walk two thousand cubits, and he may also carry objects within these two thousand cubits. The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did 岣yya bar Rav issue his ruling? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, nor in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, while this dispute would appear to leave no place for a third opinion.


讗讬诪讗 诪讟诇讟诇 讘讗专讘注 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘


The Gemara answers: Read 岣yya bar Rav鈥檚 ruling as follows: He may carry objects only a distance of four cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara answers: Read it then as follows: And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav said.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 转讬驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗


Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: Do not argue with the opinion of Shmuel as cited by Rav Na岣an with regard to a field surrounded by a partition on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita in accordance with his opinion. As it was taught in a baraita:


讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 讘讞爪讬 讛注讬专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬注讘讜专 讗转 讛转讞讜诐 讘专讙诇讬讜 诪讗讬 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讗讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讝专讬拽讛


If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of the city, he is permitted to carry throughout the city, provided that he does not overstep the limit by foot, i.e., that he does not walk beyond his permitted limit in the middle of the city. If he cannot walk about on foot, how can he carry throughout the city? Is it not by means of throwing? This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, who prohibits carrying by means of throwing in a place where it is prohibited to walk.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讬讻讛


Rav Huna said: No, it means that he may carry in the city by means of pulling, i.e., he is permitted to pull objects from the other side of the city to the side where he is permitted to walk, for in this manner there is no concern that he might be drawn after the object, since he is bringing the object to him.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 讘讞爪讬 讞爪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 讞爪专


Similarly, Rav Huna said: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended in the middle of a courtyard, he has only half the courtyard in which to walk.


驻砖讬讟讗 讗讬诪讗 讬砖 诇讜 讞爪讬 讞爪专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that he is not permitted to walk beyond his Shabbat limit. The Gemara answers: Read Rav Huna鈥檚 statement as follows: He has half a courtyard, i.e., Rav Huna addresses a different aspect of the issue; namely, he permits carrying in half the courtyard.


讛讗讬 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘讻讜诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: However, this too is obvious, for why should it be prohibited for him to carry in a private domain where he is permitted to walk? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that we should be concerned that if he is permitted to carry in half the courtyard, he might come to carry in the entire courtyard. Consequently, Rav Huna teaches us that this concern is not taken into account.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讚讛 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讜讚讚 讜讘讗 讜讻诇转讛 诪讚转讜 注诇 砖驻转 转拽专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻诇 讛讘讬转


Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna agrees with me that carrying is not prohibited in a comparable case, out of concern that the person be drawn after the object he is carrying: If a person was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the spot where he deposited his eiruv, and his measuring ended at the edge of the roof of a house, most of which stood outside his Shabbat limit, he is permitted to carry throughout the house by means of throwing.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜转拽专转 讛讘讬转 讞讜讘讟转


What is the reason that Rav Huna agrees in this case? Because the edge of the roof of the house is regarded as if it presses down vertically at the end of his Shabbat limit, thus creating a partition, and so there is no concern that he might pass beyond this partition and be drawn after his object.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 讻转谞讗讬 讛讜诇讬讻讜讛讜 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘讚讬专 讗讜 讘住讛专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: The dispute between Shmuel and Rav Huna is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m recorded in the mishna: If the gentiles brought him to a different city beyond his Shabbat limit, or if they put him in a pen or a stable, the Sages disagree. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya say: He may walk about the entire stable or pen. Since they are enclosed by a partition, their entire area is considered like only four cubits. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He has only four cubits from where he was deposited.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专讜 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讚诇讗 讙讝专讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讘讘拽注讛


Is it not the case that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said: He may walk about the entire area, do not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to walking in a field where one is limited to four cubits? Rather, they say that since the stable is surrounded by partitions, it is not similar to a field, in which a person may not leave his four cubits.


讜诪讚讛讬诇讜讱 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 诇讗 讙讝专讬


And since they did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would certainly not prohibit carrying in a pen due to the limits imposed on walking in a field. Rather, they would permit a person to carry in a field that had been enclosed on Shabbat by gentiles, and even to throw into the part lying beyond his two thousand cubits, parallel to the opinion of Shmuel who did not decree against this.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讙讝专讬 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讚讘拽注讛 讜诪讚讛讬诇讜讱 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讙讝专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 谞诪讬 讙讝专讬


And is it not the case that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, who say that he has only four cubits, prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field? And since they prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, they would also prohibit carrying past the two thousand cubit limit by means of throwing due to the limits imposed on walking past there, in accordance with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.


诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讛讬诇讜讱 住讛专 讜讚讬专 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讘拽注讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛转诐 讚砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛谉


The Gemara rejects this comparison: From what do you infer that this is the case? Perhaps Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not prohibit walking in a pen or a stable due to the limits imposed on walking in a field, but this applies only there, because they are two distinct places. In other words, the pen and stable are enclosed by partitions, while the field is not, and there is no reason to prohibit walking in one place out of concern that one might come to act improperly in a different place.


讗讘诇 讟诇讟讜诇 讗讟讜 讛讬诇讜讱 讚诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讙讝专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪砖讱 讗讞专 讞驻爪讜


However, as for the prohibition of carrying due to the limits imposed on walking, where it is all one place, might we also say that even Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would decree against carrying as a preventive measure, lest the person be drawn after his object and come to walk in a place prohibited to him.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诪砖讜诐 讚讙讝专讬 讛讜讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 住讘专讬 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 讛讘讬转 讻讜诇讜 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐


The comparison can also be rejected from another angle: And with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva too, from what can it be inferred that they prohibit walking beyond four cubits due to a decree? Perhaps it is because they hold that when we say that the entire house is considered like four cubits, this applies only where one acquired his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, i.e., prior to the onset of Shabbat.


讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诇讗


However, where he did not acquire his place of residence within the airspace of the partitions of the house while it was still day, the house, and all the more so the stable or pen, is not considered as four cubits; rather, it is measured based on the actual number of cubits it contains. Based on this explanation, this ruling indicates nothing with regard to the issue of throwing beyond the two-thousand cubit limit. Consequently, the Gemara rejects the link between the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m in the mishna and that of Rav Na岣an and Rav Huna.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜住驻讬谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗讘诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 诇讗


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, but not with regard to a stable or a pen.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛转 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara poses a question: At any rate, all agree, i.e., both Rav and Shmuel, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat. What is the reason that the halakha is different in this case than in the other cases?


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讘转 讘讗讜讬专 诪讞讬爪讜转 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐


Rabba said: This is since he acquired his place of residence within the partitions of the boat while it was still day, in which case it is reasonable to say that the entire boat is considered as if it is only four cubits.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住驻讬谞讛 谞讜讟诇转讜 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 讜诪谞讞转讜 讘住讜祝 讗专讘注


Rabbi Zeira said: This is since the boat constantly moves the person out of his four cubits, lifting him from the beginning of four cubits and placing him at the end of four cubits. Since in any case he cannot restrict himself to any particular four cubits, even if he wished to do so, it is reasonable to say that he is permitted to walk about the entire boat.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖谞驻讞转讜 讚讜驻谞讬 住驻讬谞讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘拽讜驻抓 诪住驻讬谞讛 诇住驻讬谞讛


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where the walls of the boat were breached, so that the person is no longer located between its partitions. Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a case where the person jumped from one boat to another, so that he is no longer on the boat where he had acquired his place of residence. In both of these cases, Rabba鈥檚 reason no longer applies, but Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 reason does.


讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara asks: As for Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, whose explanation is more straightforward? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: The sides of a boat are not regarded as proper partitions,


Scroll To Top