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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 21, 2020 | 讙壮 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.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Eruvin 43

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of Lynn Farber and the Ra’anana community. Thanks for helping us through yet another crisis. And by Joanna Rom and Rebecca Schwartzmer in memory of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a true tzadeket. She championed for the rights of women everywhere and loved knowledge and justice. May her memory be for a blessing and may her family be comforted.

Do Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehushua disagree in a case of a moving boat or only when the boat is stationary? Is the space ten handbreadths off the ground subject to laws of techumim or exempt? The gemara brings four sources to try to answer this question but are unable to conclude. Two are from cases of boats in our mishna as boats generally ride ten handbreadths off the ground. One is from a case of someone who “magically” went on Shabbat from Sura to Pumbedita – 100 kilometers – and the gemara first assumes it was Eliyahu who must have flown above ten handbreadths and therefore it must be allowed. However, the gemara suggests it could have been Yosef the demon which wouldn’t teach us anything about the law. A final source is brought regarding one who says he will become a nazir on the day that the Messiah comes – he is allowed to drink wine on Shabbat as the Messiah will not come on Shabbat. First the gemara thinks this is because of techum, even above ten, but then explains that it is for a different reason. How did Rabban Gamliel in the mishna know that when they came on the boat and arrived after Shabbat started that they were within 2,000 cubits before Shabbat started? The braita explains that he has a measuring implement. The braita also mentions other measuring implements that were used at the time. A case happened where Nechemia left the techum by accident and Rav Hisda asked Rav Nachman how to help him and he suggested them make a human mechitza and he will be allowed to walk within those walls and come back into the techum.

诇讛讘专讬讞 诪讬诐 注砖讜讬讜转


for they are only made to keep the water out; that is to say, a boat鈥檚 walls are not designed to turn it into a place of residence, but to protect it from the water. Therefore, they do not have the status of partitions made for the purpose of residence.


讜专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注诪讚讛


The Gemara asks: As for Rabba, what is the reason he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira? The Gemara answers: With regard to a boat that is moving, all agree, i.e., even Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, that one is permitted to walk about the entire boat. They disagree only with regard to a boat that is stationary. Rabban Gamliel holds that the boat鈥檚 walls constitute effective partitions, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚讘诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 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 讛诇讻讜 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise in its implication that the tanna鈥檌m do not disagree with regard to a moving boat. The Gemara asks: From where is this implied? From that which is taught: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them out beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专爪讜 讚讬诇诪讗 注诪讚讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains: Granted, if you say that they do not disagree with regard to a moving boat, that is why it is taught that they sought to be stringent with themselves, i.e., they wished to practice stringency although they were under no obligation to do so, as they were concerned that perhaps the boat will stand, i.e., come to a stop.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗讬 专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗


But if you say that they disagree even in the case of a boat that is moving, this phrase: Sought to be stringent, is problematic, for the mishna should not refer to a desire to be stringent, as according to their opinion it is an outright prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 住驻讬谞讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚讬专 讜住讛专 诪讛 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讚拽讘讬注讬 讗祝 住驻讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讚拽讘讬注讗


With regard to the previous issue, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precise, implying this point in another manner as well, for it teaches the law governing a boat parallel to the law governing a pen and a stable. Just as a pen and a stable are fixed in their place, so too, the mishna discusses a boat that is fixed in its place.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讛诇讻转讗 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav and Shmuel both said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, and if they had to decide the halakha, then this proves by inference that the tanna鈥檌m disagreed about the issue. This is difficult, as the words: They wished to be stringent upon themselves, imply that there was no fundamental dispute at all.


讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 (讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注) 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讬砖讘讜 讜讚谞讜 讘讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗诪砖 讛讻专讬注 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专:


Rav Ashi replied: Yes, the tanna鈥檌m do in fact disagree about a boat that is standing. When the mishna says that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva wished to be stringent upon themselves, implying that there is no real dispute, it is referring to a boat that is stationary. And it was taught in a baraita: 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, says: All that day they spent on the boat, they sat and discussed the matter of halakha; and come evening my father鈥檚 brother, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua, determined: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a moving boat, i.e., one is permitted to walk about all of it. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to a pen and a stable, i.e., one may only walk four cubits in them, and the same applies to a stationary boat.


讘注讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛


Rav 岣nanya raised a dilemma: Does the prohibition of Shabbat limits apply above ten handbreadths from the ground, or perhaps does the prohibition of Shabbat limits not apply above ten handbreadths? In other words, does the Shabbat limit apply only close to the ground, in which case walking more than ten handbreadths above the ground, would be permitted?


注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara clarifies the case in which this dilemma arises: With regard to a post ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, partly within the limit and partly outside of it, this case should not be a dilemma for you. Such a stable post is like solid ground, although it differs from the surrounding area in height; therefore, it is prohibited to walk from the part within the limit to the part outside of it.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讘注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 讘拽驻讬爪讛


The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a post ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths wide, or the like. Alternatively, the case is one where he advances by way of a leap in the air above ten handbreadths from the ground.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讗讬


The Gemara presents another version of the previous dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a boat sailing on the surface of the water more than ten handbreadths from the sea or river bed? Does the prohibition of Shabbat limits apply or not?


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 专爪讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗诪讗讬 专爪讜


Rav Hoshaya said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what was taught in the mishna: It once happened that all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, and their boat set sail on the sea, etc. Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, this is why Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva sought to be stringent. However, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, why did they seek to be stringent?


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽


The Gemara answers: It may be suggested as Rava said with regard to a parallel case, establishing that case as one where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water; here, too, we are dealing with a case where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water, within ten handbreadths of the sea鈥檚 bed, so that the prohibition of Shabbat limits certainly applies.


转讗 砖诪注 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 注讚 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讬 诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: On one occasion on a Shabbat eve, they did not enter the port until after nightfall, etc. Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, it was well that they asked whether or not they may disembark. However, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, even if Rabban Gamliel had told them: We were not within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall, what difference would it have made? They could have alighted from the boat, for the boat was above ten handbreadths, where the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽


The Gemara answers that Rava said: The mishna refers to a case where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water within ten handbreadths of the sea鈥檚 bed.


转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讬 砖讘 砖诪注转讗 讚讗讬转讗诪专谉 讘爪驻专讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘住讜专讗 讘讛讚讬 驻谞讬讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗


The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear a resolution from the incident involving the seven teachings that were first said on Shabbat morning before Rav 岣sda in Sura and then repeated toward the conclusion of that Shabbat before Rava in Pumbedita, despite the fact that the distance between them is too great for someone to have traversed it on Shabbat.


诪讗谉 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讬讜住祝 砖讬讚讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜


Who said those teachings, and delivered them from one place to the other? Was it not Elijah the Prophet, who traveled from Sura to Pumbedita by way of a miraculous leap through the air above ten handbreadths from the ground, who said them? Apparently, the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, for Elijah would not have transgressed this prohibition. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof; perhaps Yosef the demon, who does not observe Shabbat, reported these teachings and brought them from Sura to Pumbedita.


转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 砖讘谉 讚讜讚 讘讗 诪讜转专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐


The Gemara attempts to bring a different proof: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: I will be a nazirite on the day that the son of David comes, i.e., upon the arrival of the Messiah, he is permitted to drink wine on Shabbat and Festivals, for the Messiah will not arrive on one of those days.


讜讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛讞讜诇


However, he is prohibited to drink wine on all weekdays, in case the Messiah has come and he has not yet been informed.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专


The Gemara clarifies: Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, that is why on Shabbat and Festivals he is permitted to drink wine, for the Messiah will certainly not arrive from outside the Shabbat limit on those days. But if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, why is he permitted to drink wine on Shabbat and Festivals?


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讛 讗谞讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讻诐 讗转 讗诇讬讛 讛谞讘讬讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse stated: 鈥淏ehold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers鈥 (Malachi 3:23鈥24). This verse teaches that Elijah will arrive the day before the coming of the Messiah. Since Elijah did not come the previous day, the Messiah will not come today, and therefore he may drink.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讞讜诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗转讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, on weekdays, too, he should be permitted to drink wine each and every day, as Elijah did not arrive the previous day. Rather, the reason for the prohibition on weekdays must be that we say that Elijah may already have arrived at the Great Court, but it has not yet become a matter of public knowledge. Likewise, here too we should say that Elijah already arrived the previous day at the Great Court, on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival.


讻讘专 诪讜讘讟讞 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讗 诇讗 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讜诇讗 讘注专讘讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜专讞


The Gemara answers: It has already been promised to the Jewish people that Elijah will not come either on the eve of Shabbat or on the eve of a Festival, due to the trouble, lest people go out to greet him and not have time to complete all their preparations for the sacred day.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗诇讬讛讜 诇讗 讗转讗 诪砖讬讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诇讗 讗转讬 诪砖讬讞 讗转讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬 诪砖讬讞讗 讛讻诇 注讘讚讬诐 讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara comments: It might enter your mind to say that since Elijah will not come on Shabbat eve due to the trouble involved, the Messiah will also not come then, and if so, on Shabbat eve he should also be permitted to drink wine. However, this reasoning is rejected: It is only Elijah who will not arrive on Shabbat eve, but the Messiah himself may arrive, for once the Messiah comes, all the nations will be subservient to the Jewish people, and they will help them prepare whatever is needed for Shabbat.


讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬砖转专讬 诇驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬砖转专讬 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讘砖讘转


The Gemara raises a difficulty: He should be permitted to drink wine on a Sunday, for if Elijah cannot come on Shabbat, the Messiah will not come on a Sunday. Let us resolve from here that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, as if the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, on Sunday he should be permitted to drink wine, as Elijah cannot come on Shabbat.


讛讗讬 转谞讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara answers: This tanna was uncertain whether there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths or there is no prohibition of Shabbat limits. Therefore, he ruled stringently in this regard concerning Sunday.


讚拽讗讬 讗讬诪转 讚拽讗 谞讚专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讞讜诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讗转讬讗 砖讘转讗 讜诪驻拽注讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a question: When did the person who took the vow of naziriteship arise and take his vow? If you say he arose and took his vow on a weekday, since the vow of naziriteship already took effect, how can Shabbat come and annul it? Naziriteship cannot take effect one day and be annulled on the next; rather, once it applies, it remains in effect for the entire period of his vow.


讗诇讗 讚拽讗讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜拽讗 谞讚专 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽讗 谞讚专 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讚砖专讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讬专 诇讬讛:


Rather, it must be that he arose on Shabbat and took his vow, or else he arose on a Festival and took his vow, and it is only on that day that he is permitted to drink wine, as the Messiah will not come; but from that day on he is prohibited to drink wine, for once the naziriteship takes effect on a weekday, it remains in effect from that point onwards, even on Shabbat and Festivals.


驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 讜讻讜壮:


It was taught in the mishna: On one occasion, they did not enter the port until after nightfall on Shabbat eve, and they asked Rabban Gamliel whether they were permitted to alight from the boat. He told them that they were permitted to alight, for he had been watching, and he knew that they had entered within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall, and therefore they may walk throughout the city.


转谞讗 砖驻讜驻专转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讬讟 讜爪讜驻讛 讘讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬讘砖讛 讜讻谞讙讚讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讬诐


In order to clarify this issue, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel had a special tube through which he would look and see a distance of two thousand cubits on land, and also determine a corresponding distance of two thousand cubits at sea.


讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讚注 讻诪讛 注讜诪拽讜 砖诇 讙讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖驻讜驻专转 讜诪讘讬讟 讘讛 讜讬讚注 讻诪讛 注讜诪拽讜 砖诇 讙讬讗


In general, one who wishes to know the depth of a valley can bring such a tube and look through it, and he will know the depth of the valley.


讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讚注 讻诪讛 讙讜讘讛讜 砖诇 讚拽诇 诪讜讚讚 拽讜诪转讜 讜爪诇讜 讜爪诇 拽讜诪转讜 讜讬讚注 讻诪讛 讙讜讘讛 砖诇 讚拽诇


The Gemara cites another statement with regard to measurements: One who wishes to know the height of a palm tree, but does not want to actually climb the tree to measure it, can measure his own height, and the length of his own shadow, and the length of the shadow of the height of the palm tree, and calculate the proportions, and he will know the height of the palm tree.


讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 转砖专讛 讞讬讛 专注讛 讘爪诇 拽讘专 谞讜注抓 拽谞讛 讘讗专讘注 砖注讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讬专讗讛 诇讛讬讻谉 爪诇讜 谞讜讟讛 诪砖驻讬注 讜注讜诇讛 诪砖驻讬注 讜讬讜专讚


The Gemara cites related advice: If, out of honor for the dead, one wishes that a wild beast should not rest in the shade of a grave, he should insert a reed into the ground at the end of the fourth hour of the day, roughly ten o鈥檆lock in the morning, when it is hot in the sun and cooler in the shade, and beasts begin to seek shelter in the shade. And he should observe in which direction the shadow of the reed inclines, and then slant the gravestone upwards and downwards until he finds an angle at which it casts no shadow at that hour, and the beasts will not come to rest at the grave during the heat of the day.


谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诪砖讻转讬讛 砖诪注转讗 讜谞驻拽 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讞诪讬讛 转诇诪讬讚讱 砖专讜讬 讘爪注专


The Gemara relates that Ne岣mya, son of Rav 岣nilai, was once so engrossed in his learning that he did not notice that he was going out beyond his Shabbat limit. Rav 岣sda said to Rav Na岣an: Your student Ne岣mya is in distress, as he is outside the Shabbat limit and cannot enter. What can we do for him?


讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讬讻谞住


Rav Na岣an said to him: Establish a human partition for him, i.e., people who are permitted to go out there should line up and form human walls, through which he is permitted to walk and thereby reenter the Shabbat limit.


讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k sat behind Rava, and Rava sat in the first row before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: What precisely was Rav 岣sda鈥檚 dilemma that he addressed to Rav Na岣an with regard to Ne岣mya鈥檚 distress?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讚诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


The Gemara explains: If you say that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to go out beyond the Shabbat limit and establish a human partition for Ne岣mya, and then it can be argued that the dilemma that he raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel that a person may walk throughout an enclosed area, although he had not established residence there before Shabbat while it was still day, and the same applies to a human partition of this kind;

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

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 43: When We’re Too Busy to Welcome the Messiah

Does the concept of techum apply to a space that's over 10 tefachim? Again the overlap with eruv chatzerot, and...
alon shvut women

Eliyahu & Moshiach

Eruvin Daf 43 Discussion s there halachic 转讞讜诐 above 10 讟驻讞讬诐. The discussion continues regarding what days of the week...

Eruvin 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 43

诇讛讘专讬讞 诪讬诐 注砖讜讬讜转


for they are only made to keep the water out; that is to say, a boat鈥檚 walls are not designed to turn it into a place of residence, but to protect it from the water. Therefore, they do not have the status of partitions made for the purpose of residence.


讜专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注诪讚讛


The Gemara asks: As for Rabba, what is the reason he did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira? The Gemara answers: With regard to a boat that is moving, all agree, i.e., even Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva, that one is permitted to walk about the entire boat. They disagree only with regard to a boat that is stationary. Rabban Gamliel holds that the boat鈥檚 walls constitute effective partitions, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚讘诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 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 讛诇讻讜 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讝讝讜 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 注爪诪谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise in its implication that the tanna鈥檌m do not disagree with regard to a moving boat. The Gemara asks: From where is this implied? From that which is taught: There was an incident where all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, and their boat set sail on the sea on Shabbat, taking them out beyond their Shabbat limit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya walked about the entire boat, while Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move beyond four cubits, as they sought to be stringent with themselves.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 专爪讜 讚讬诇诪讗 注诪讚讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k explains: Granted, if you say that they do not disagree with regard to a moving boat, that is why it is taught that they sought to be stringent with themselves, i.e., they wished to practice stringency although they were under no obligation to do so, as they were concerned that perhaps the boat will stand, i.e., come to a stop.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗讬 专爪讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗


But if you say that they disagree even in the case of a boat that is moving, this phrase: Sought to be stringent, is problematic, for the mishna should not refer to a desire to be stringent, as according to their opinion it is an outright prohibition.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 住驻讬谞讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚讬专 讜住讛专 诪讛 讚讬专 讜住讛专 讚拽讘讬注讬 讗祝 住驻讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讚拽讘讬注讗


With regard to the previous issue, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precise, implying this point in another manner as well, for it teaches the law governing a boat parallel to the law governing a pen and a stable. Just as a pen and a stable are fixed in their place, so too, the mishna discusses a boat that is fixed in its place.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讛诇讻转讗 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬


Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav and Shmuel both said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a boat, and if they had to decide the halakha, then this proves by inference that the tanna鈥檌m disagreed about the issue. This is difficult, as the words: They wished to be stringent upon themselves, imply that there was no fundamental dispute at all.


讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 (讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注) 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讬砖讘讜 讜讚谞讜 讘讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 讗诪砖 讛讻专讬注 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专:


Rav Ashi replied: Yes, the tanna鈥檌m do in fact disagree about a boat that is standing. When the mishna says that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva wished to be stringent upon themselves, implying that there is no real dispute, it is referring to a boat that is stationary. And it was taught in a baraita: 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, says: All that day they spent on the boat, they sat and discussed the matter of halakha; and come evening my father鈥檚 brother, i.e., Rabbi Yehoshua, determined: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a moving boat, i.e., one is permitted to walk about all of it. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to a pen and a stable, i.e., one may only walk four cubits in them, and the same applies to a stationary boat.


讘注讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛


Rav 岣nanya raised a dilemma: Does the prohibition of Shabbat limits apply above ten handbreadths from the ground, or perhaps does the prohibition of Shabbat limits not apply above ten handbreadths? In other words, does the Shabbat limit apply only close to the ground, in which case walking more than ten handbreadths above the ground, would be permitted?


注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讛讬讗


The Gemara clarifies the case in which this dilemma arises: With regard to a post ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, partly within the limit and partly outside of it, this case should not be a dilemma for you. Such a stable post is like solid ground, although it differs from the surrounding area in height; therefore, it is prohibited to walk from the part within the limit to the part outside of it.


讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讘注诪讜讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 讘拽驻讬爪讛


The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a post ten handbreadths high but not four handbreadths wide, or the like. Alternatively, the case is one where he advances by way of a leap in the air above ten handbreadths from the ground.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讗讬


The Gemara presents another version of the previous dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a boat sailing on the surface of the water more than ten handbreadths from the sea or river bed? Does the prohibition of Shabbat limits apply or not?


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 砖讘讗讜 诪驻诇谞讚专住讬谉 讜讛驻诇讬讙讛 住驻讬谞转诐 讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 专爪讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗诪讗讬 专爪讜


Rav Hoshaya said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what was taught in the mishna: It once happened that all of these Sages were coming from Pelandarsin, and their boat set sail on the sea, etc. Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, this is why Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva sought to be stringent. However, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, why did they seek to be stringent?


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽


The Gemara answers: It may be suggested as Rava said with regard to a parallel case, establishing that case as one where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water; here, too, we are dealing with a case where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water, within ten handbreadths of the sea鈥檚 bed, so that the prohibition of Shabbat limits certainly applies.


转讗 砖诪注 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 注讚 砖讞砖讬讻讛 讜讻讜壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讻讬 诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬


The Gemara cites another proof. Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: On one occasion on a Shabbat eve, they did not enter the port until after nightfall, etc. Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, it was well that they asked whether or not they may disembark. However, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, even if Rabban Gamliel had told them: We were not within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall, what difference would it have made? They could have alighted from the boat, for the boat was above ten handbreadths, where the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪讛诇讻转 讘专拽拽


The Gemara answers that Rava said: The mishna refers to a case where the boat was moving through shallow, swampy water within ten handbreadths of the sea鈥檚 bed.


转讗 砖诪注 讛谞讬 砖讘 砖诪注转讗 讚讗讬转讗诪专谉 讘爪驻专讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讘住讜专讗 讘讛讚讬 驻谞讬讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗


The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear a resolution from the incident involving the seven teachings that were first said on Shabbat morning before Rav 岣sda in Sura and then repeated toward the conclusion of that Shabbat before Rava in Pumbedita, despite the fact that the distance between them is too great for someone to have traversed it on Shabbat.


诪讗谉 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讬讜住祝 砖讬讚讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜


Who said those teachings, and delivered them from one place to the other? Was it not Elijah the Prophet, who traveled from Sura to Pumbedita by way of a miraculous leap through the air above ten handbreadths from the ground, who said them? Apparently, the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, for Elijah would not have transgressed this prohibition. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof; perhaps Yosef the demon, who does not observe Shabbat, reported these teachings and brought them from Sura to Pumbedita.


转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讘讬讜诐 砖讘谉 讚讜讚 讘讗 诪讜转专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐


The Gemara attempts to bring a different proof: Come and hear that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: I will be a nazirite on the day that the son of David comes, i.e., upon the arrival of the Messiah, he is permitted to drink wine on Shabbat and Festivals, for the Messiah will not arrive on one of those days.


讜讗住讜专 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛讞讜诇


However, he is prohibited to drink wine on all weekdays, in case the Messiah has come and he has not yet been informed.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专


The Gemara clarifies: Granted, if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, that is why on Shabbat and Festivals he is permitted to drink wine, for the Messiah will certainly not arrive from outside the Shabbat limit on those days. But if you say that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, why is he permitted to drink wine on Shabbat and Festivals?


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞讛 讗谞讻讬 砖诇讞 诇讻诐 讗转 讗诇讬讛 讛谞讘讬讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇


The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse stated: 鈥淏ehold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers鈥 (Malachi 3:23鈥24). This verse teaches that Elijah will arrive the day before the coming of the Messiah. Since Elijah did not come the previous day, the Messiah will not come today, and therefore he may drink.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讞讜诇 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗转讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗转讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, on weekdays, too, he should be permitted to drink wine each and every day, as Elijah did not arrive the previous day. Rather, the reason for the prohibition on weekdays must be that we say that Elijah may already have arrived at the Great Court, but it has not yet become a matter of public knowledge. Likewise, here too we should say that Elijah already arrived the previous day at the Great Court, on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival.


讻讘专 诪讜讘讟讞 诇讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讗讬谉 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讗 诇讗 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讜诇讗 讘注专讘讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讟讜专讞


The Gemara answers: It has already been promised to the Jewish people that Elijah will not come either on the eve of Shabbat or on the eve of a Festival, due to the trouble, lest people go out to greet him and not have time to complete all their preparations for the sacred day.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗诇讬讛讜 诇讗 讗转讗 诪砖讬讞 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗转讬 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诇讗 讗转讬 诪砖讬讞 讗转讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬 诪砖讬讞讗 讛讻诇 注讘讚讬诐 讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇


The Gemara comments: It might enter your mind to say that since Elijah will not come on Shabbat eve due to the trouble involved, the Messiah will also not come then, and if so, on Shabbat eve he should also be permitted to drink wine. However, this reasoning is rejected: It is only Elijah who will not arrive on Shabbat eve, but the Messiah himself may arrive, for once the Messiah comes, all the nations will be subservient to the Jewish people, and they will help them prepare whatever is needed for Shabbat.


讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬砖转专讬 诇驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬砖转专讬 讚诇讗 讗转讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讘砖讘转


The Gemara raises a difficulty: He should be permitted to drink wine on a Sunday, for if Elijah cannot come on Shabbat, the Messiah will not come on a Sunday. Let us resolve from here that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, as if the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, on Sunday he should be permitted to drink wine, as Elijah cannot come on Shabbat.


讛讗讬 转谞讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬砖 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谉 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜诇讞讜诪专讗


The Gemara answers: This tanna was uncertain whether there is a prohibition of Shabbat limits above ten handbreadths or there is no prohibition of Shabbat limits. Therefore, he ruled stringently in this regard concerning Sunday.


讚拽讗讬 讗讬诪转 讚拽讗 谞讚专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 讘讞讜诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇 注诇讬讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讛讬讻讬 讗转讬讗 砖讘转讗 讜诪驻拽注讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a question: When did the person who took the vow of naziriteship arise and take his vow? If you say he arose and took his vow on a weekday, since the vow of naziriteship already took effect, how can Shabbat come and annul it? Naziriteship cannot take effect one day and be annulled on the next; rather, once it applies, it remains in effect for the entire period of his vow.


讗诇讗 讚拽讗讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜拽讗 谞讚专 讜讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽讗 谞讚专 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讚砖专讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讬专 诇讬讛:


Rather, it must be that he arose on Shabbat and took his vow, or else he arose on a Festival and took his vow, and it is only on that day that he is permitted to drink wine, as the Messiah will not come; but from that day on he is prohibited to drink wine, for once the naziriteship takes effect on a weekday, it remains in effect from that point onwards, even on Shabbat and Festivals.


驻注诐 讗讞转 诇讗 谞讻谞住讜 诇谞诪诇 讜讻讜壮:


It was taught in the mishna: On one occasion, they did not enter the port until after nightfall on Shabbat eve, and they asked Rabban Gamliel whether they were permitted to alight from the boat. He told them that they were permitted to alight, for he had been watching, and he knew that they had entered within the city鈥檚 limit before nightfall, and therefore they may walk throughout the city.


转谞讗 砖驻讜驻专转 讛讬转讛 诇讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讛 诪讘讬讟 讜爪讜驻讛 讘讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讘讬讘砖讛 讜讻谞讙讚讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讬诐


In order to clarify this issue, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel had a special tube through which he would look and see a distance of two thousand cubits on land, and also determine a corresponding distance of two thousand cubits at sea.


讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讚注 讻诪讛 注讜诪拽讜 砖诇 讙讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖驻讜驻专转 讜诪讘讬讟 讘讛 讜讬讚注 讻诪讛 注讜诪拽讜 砖诇 讙讬讗


In general, one who wishes to know the depth of a valley can bring such a tube and look through it, and he will know the depth of the valley.


讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讚注 讻诪讛 讙讜讘讛讜 砖诇 讚拽诇 诪讜讚讚 拽讜诪转讜 讜爪诇讜 讜爪诇 拽讜诪转讜 讜讬讚注 讻诪讛 讙讜讘讛 砖诇 讚拽诇


The Gemara cites another statement with regard to measurements: One who wishes to know the height of a palm tree, but does not want to actually climb the tree to measure it, can measure his own height, and the length of his own shadow, and the length of the shadow of the height of the palm tree, and calculate the proportions, and he will know the height of the palm tree.


讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 转砖专讛 讞讬讛 专注讛 讘爪诇 拽讘专 谞讜注抓 拽谞讛 讘讗专讘注 砖注讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讬专讗讛 诇讛讬讻谉 爪诇讜 谞讜讟讛 诪砖驻讬注 讜注讜诇讛 诪砖驻讬注 讜讬讜专讚


The Gemara cites related advice: If, out of honor for the dead, one wishes that a wild beast should not rest in the shade of a grave, he should insert a reed into the ground at the end of the fourth hour of the day, roughly ten o鈥檆lock in the morning, when it is hot in the sun and cooler in the shade, and beasts begin to seek shelter in the shade. And he should observe in which direction the shadow of the reed inclines, and then slant the gravestone upwards and downwards until he finds an angle at which it casts no shadow at that hour, and the beasts will not come to rest at the grave during the heat of the day.


谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诪砖讻转讬讛 砖诪注转讗 讜谞驻拽 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讞诪讬讛 转诇诪讬讚讱 砖专讜讬 讘爪注专


The Gemara relates that Ne岣mya, son of Rav 岣nilai, was once so engrossed in his learning that he did not notice that he was going out beyond his Shabbat limit. Rav 岣sda said to Rav Na岣an: Your student Ne岣mya is in distress, as he is outside the Shabbat limit and cannot enter. What can we do for him?


讗诪专 诇讜 注砖讛 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讬讻谞住


Rav Na岣an said to him: Establish a human partition for him, i.e., people who are permitted to go out there should line up and form human walls, through which he is permitted to walk and thereby reenter the Shabbat limit.


讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k sat behind Rava, and Rava sat in the first row before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: What precisely was Rav 岣sda鈥檚 dilemma that he addressed to Rav Na岣an with regard to Ne岣mya鈥檚 distress?


讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讚诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇


The Gemara explains: If you say that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to go out beyond the Shabbat limit and establish a human partition for Ne岣mya, and then it can be argued that the dilemma that he raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel that a person may walk throughout an enclosed area, although he had not established residence there before Shabbat while it was still day, and the same applies to a human partition of this kind;

Scroll To Top