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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 22, 2020 | 讚壮 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 is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Eruvin 44

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rivkah Isseroff in honor of all the women who participate in learning daf yomi, and especially in honor of our dear friends Sally Poolat and Shlomit Metz-Poolat who recently made aliya. Wishing them a wonderful sweet year, the first of many to come in Israel, and continued joy in learning (in this daf yomi class!).

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks Raba two questions about the situation with Nechemia who accidentally left the techum and Rav Nachman told Rav Chisda to build a human partition to allow him back in. 1. Why didn鈥檛 Rav Chisda know this himself 鈥 what was unclear to him? 2. A braita seems to imply that one cannot built a wall using a human on Shabbat or Chag (learned from walls of a sukka). Rava brings a different braita that says one can build a wall in order to answer his question. In any case, the braitot contradict. The gemara brings four explanations to resolve the contradiction 鈥 either they represent different opinions or different situations. In the end they conclude that it depends on whether or not the people know that they are forming a partition. A number of real life situations were brought in which people used human partitions. The Mishna discusses a person who leaves the techum for permitted purposes, i.e. to save someone, to testify about seeing the new moon, etc. If they left the techum and then found out that they were no longer needed, they have 2,000 cubits from where they are at the time they find out. If they are still within their original techum, then their home remains their techum. Why does the Mishna need to tell us that, isn鈥檛 it obvious?! Raba and Rav Shimi bar Chiya disagree about how to understand the Mishna and the root of their debate is: if there is an overlap between two techumim, can we view that as one large techum?

讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Or perhaps we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to establish a human partition for Ne岣mya. In that case, there were enough people to establish partitions from where Ne岣mya was standing to within two cubits from the limit, and the dilemma that Rav 岣sda raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that someone who went two cubits outside of his Shabbat limit may reenter it, or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

驻砖讬讟讗 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讚诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜住驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is obvious that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, as if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could be fully filled with people, what is Rav 岣sda鈥檚 dilemma? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat? Rather, we must be dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, and the dilemma that he raised was about the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讻谞住 诪讗讬 讬讻谞住 诇讗讜 讘诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara comments: This interpretation is also precise and implicit in Rav Na岣an鈥檚 answer, for Rav Na岣an said to Rav 岣sda: Establish a human partition for him, and let him reenter his Shabbat limit. Doesn鈥檛 the statement: Let him reenter, mean that he may reenter even without a partition along those two additional two cubits, i.e., that after he passes through the human partitions, he would still need to cross the remaining two cubits on his own without the benefit of a partition?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 谞驻诇 讚讜驻谞讛 诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 讘讛 讗讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讝拽讜祝 讗转 讛诪讟讛 诇驻专讜住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised an objection to the opinion of Rava with regard to the principle of making a human partition on Shabbat, from a baraita: If the wall of a sukka fell on a Festival or on Shabbat, thus rendering the sukka unfit for the mitzva, one may not position people, animals or utensils there in its place in order to form a wall, nor may one turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, which will thereby serve as a partition, because one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. This indicates that a human partition may not be erected on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讛讗 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讛讗 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜驻谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讻诇 讜讬砖转讛 讜讬砖谉 讜讬讝拽讜祝 讗转 讛诪讟讛 讜讬驻专讜住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转驻讜诇 讞诪讛 注诇 讛诪转 讜注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

Rava said to him: You state to me that this is prohibited from this baraita, but I can state to you that it is permitted from this other baraita: A person may position his fellow as a wall, so that he may eat, drink, and sleep in a sukka, and he is likewise permitted to turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, so that the sun should not beat down on a corpse, or on food.

拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara comments: If so, these two baraitot contradict one another. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this baraita that teaches that it is prohibited reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas this other baraita that teaches that it is permitted reflects the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter that is not fixed to the wall with hinges, Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is tied to the wall and hangs from the window, one may shut the window with it; but if not, one may not shut the window with it, since one may not erect a tent, even a temporary one, on Shabbat. But the Rabbis say: In either case, one may shut the window with it. This indicates that the Rabbis permit constructing a temporary wall of this sort on Shabbat, and they also permit the construction of a temporary wall in the case of a sukka.

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All agree that one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. The Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only with regard to adding a temporary tent to a permanent structure, as in the case of a window shutter. As Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add a temporary tent to a permanent structure even on a Festival; and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add a temporary tent to a permanent structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, this is permitted on a Festival. This indicates that there is no opinion that grants license to construct a temporary wall for the first time.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 注砖讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

Rather, the Gemara resolves the contradiction differently: This is not difficult, as this baraita that permits the positioning of an animal or a person as a wall was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this baraita that prohibits it was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who positions an animal to serve as the wall of a sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit, out of concern that the animal might leave, whereas Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 讛转诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 砖专讬 讚诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

Rabbi Meir, who deems the wall unfit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that a partition established from a living creature is not a partition and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, rule that it is permitted to construct such a wall, as he is not doing anything, since it is not considered actual construction.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 讛转诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 讗住专

However, Rabbi Yehuda, who deems the wall to be fit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that it is a proper partition; and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, prohibit the construction of such a partition.

讜转讬住讘专讗 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛诪讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And how can you understand it in that manner? Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deemed the sukka to be unfit in the case where an animal was used to serve as a partition, but did you hear that he deemed the sukka to be similarly unfit if a person or utensils were used as walls? The reason that an animal may not be used as a partition, according to his opinion, is because it might leave. This concern does not apply to people or utensils, since a person is under his own control and can remain standing, and utensils do not move themselves. Since the baraita validates partitions established with people and utensils as well as animals, it cannot be based on the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讛讜住讬祝 谞诪讬 讗住专

And furthermore, even if you do not differentiate as above, and instead assume that the consideration that the animal might leave is pertinent, according to whose opinion does Rabbi Meir state his opinion with regard to constructing a temporary tent on Shabbat? If it is according to the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Eliezer, this is difficult, as he even prohibited adding a window shutter, i.e., a temporary tent, to a permanent structure.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专

Rather, you must say that he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, even according to their opinion, say that the Rabbis only said that one is permitted to add a temporary tent to a permanent structure; but did they say that it is permitted to construct a partition or a tent for the first time?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讻诇讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚讜驻谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讛讗 讘讚讜驻谉 专讘讬注讬转

Rather, say that both this baraita and that baraita follow the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is the resolution of the various contradictions: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning utensils and the other ruling concerning utensils, this is not difficult, as this ruling that prohibits the construction of an additional wall refers to the third wall of a sukka, which renders it fit for the mitzva; whereas this other ruling that permits the construction of an additional wall refers to the fourth wall of a sukka, which is insignificant, as a sukka need not have four walls.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞驻诇 讚讜驻谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

This interpretation is also precise in the wording of the baraita, as the baraita that prohibits the construction of an additional wall uses the following phrase: If its wall fell. This indicates a wall that is significant, i.e., a wall that renders it fit for use, rather than any wall, as stated in the baraita that permits it. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the correct resolution is to differentiate between the third and fourth wall of a sukka.

讗诇讗 讗讚诐 讗讗讚诐 拽砖讬讗

However, with regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is difficult, for one baraita states that one may not use a person as the wall of a sukka, while the other says that one may use a person as a wall and even states explicitly that he may do this: So that he may eat, drink and sleep in the sukka. That implies that this is permitted even if it is the third wall that is missing.

讗讚诐 讗讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讚注转 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转

The Gemara answers: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is also not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, the baraita refers to a case where that person knowingly served as a partition; whereas here, where it is permitted, it refers to a case where that person unknowingly served as a partition, which is not the usual manner of building. This is not the case with regard to utilizing a utensil as a partition. Since the utensil lacks knowledge, it is considered a partition regardless of how it is placed, and it is prohibited in all cases.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诇讚注转 讛讜讛 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讛讜讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, the case involving Rabbi Ne岣mya, son of Rabbi 岣nilai, was a case where people knowingly served as a partition, as the people were instructed to go out and serve as a human partition. The Gemara answers: In fact, that was a case where people unknowingly served as a partition, i.e., they were unaware why they were called, and were made into a partition without their knowledge.

专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讚注转 讛讜讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讛讜讛:

The Gemara asks: However, Rav 岣sda, who gathered the people to that spot, was in any case present knowingly. The Gemara answers: While Rav 岣sda was there knowingly, he was not among the designated people who served as a partition.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讙谞谞讗 讚讗注讬诇讜 诪讬讗 讘诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讙讚讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讬讗诪专讜 诇讚注转

The Gemara relates that there were these members of a wedding party who engaged the many people present to bring water in on Shabbat from a public domain to a private domain through walls comprised of people who knew that they were being used as partitions for that purpose. Shmuel instructed that they should be flogged. He said with regard to this matter: If the Sages said that a partition is effective when the people act unknowingly, does this mean that they would also say that this is permitted ab initio when they knowingly serve as a partition?

讛谞讛讜 讝讬拽讬 讚讛讜讛 砖讚讬讬谉 讘专讬住转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讗 专讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讗注诇讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇砖讘转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讘注讬 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗住专 诇讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讚注转 讜讗住讜专

The Gemara relates that there were once these flasks lying in the market [ristaka] of Me岣za on Shabbat and could not be moved. When Rava was coming from his discourse accompanied by a throng of people, his attendants brought the flasks into his house, as the crowd of people created human partitions, upon which the attendants capitalized for this purpose. On another Shabbat they wanted to bring them in again, but Rava prohibited them from doing so, reasoning: This is like the case where the people knowingly served as partitions, for presumably the people now knew that they were being used for this purpose, and it is therefore prohibited.

诇讜讬 讗注讬诇讜 诇讬讛 转讬讘谞讗 讝注讬专讬 讗住驻住转讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讗:

The Gemara further relates that Levi was brought straw through human partitions comprised of people who were unknowingly used for this purpose, and in the same manner Ze鈥檈iri was brought fodder [aspasta], and Rav Shimi bar 岣yya was brought water.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻讘专 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

MISHNA: With regard to one who was permitted to leave his Shabbat limit, i.e., he went out to testify that he had seen the new moon or for some life-saving purpose, and they said to him along the way: The action has already been performed, and there is no need for you to travel for that purpose, he has two thousand cubits in each direction from the location where he was standing when this was told to him.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉:

If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had not left his limit, and he may return to his original location. The Sages formulated a principle: All who go out to battle and save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had never left? Given that he has not left his original boundary, it is clear that he remains within his original limit. Rabba said: The mishna is saying as follows: If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had never left his house. He is allowed to walk two thousand cubits in each direction from his house.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注拽专 注拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that if he remained within his limit, he is considered as if he were in his house. Why is this statement necessary? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that, since he moved from his place with intention to leave his limit and go elsewhere, he moved and nullified his original place of residence. If so, his original place of residence would no longer determine his Shabbat limit, and instead he would have two thousand cubits in each direction from the location where he was standing when he was told that he need not travel. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is nonetheless considered as if he had never left his house.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 转讞讜诪讬谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讘诇注讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 砖诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪转讞讜诪讜

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said that the mishna is saying as follows: If he left his original Shabbat limit, but the new limit of two thousand cubits in each direction that the Sages granted him is subsumed within his original limit, so that if he walks those two thousand cubits, he can return to within his original limit, then it is as if he had never left his original limit, and he may return to his house.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rav Shimi bar 岣yya disagree? One Sage, Rav Shimi, holds that the subsuming of Shabbat limits, i.e., if one鈥檚 original limit is subsumed within the new limit, one may pass from one to the other, is something significant and may be relied upon, whereas this Sage, Rabba, holds that it is nothing significant and cannot be relied upon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 砖讘转 讘诪注专讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讜注诇 讙讙讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛

Abaye said to Rabba: Do you not hold that the subsuming of Shabbat limits is something significant? And what if he established residence in a cave that has entrances at its two ends, which on the inside of the cave is four thousand cubits across, but atop its roof it is less than four thousand cubits across? Is it not the case that he may walk the entire length of the roof and two thousand cubits outside it in either direction? The entire interior of the cave is considered as if it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk another two thousand cubits in each direction from each of its entrances. Consequently, he is permitted to walk along the roof, two thousand cubits from the eastern entrance in the direction of the western entrance and vice versa. However, since the distance across the roof is less than four thousand cubits, these two limits are subsumed within one another, and he is permitted to walk the entire length of the roof, given that when two limits are subsumed within one another, one may pass from one to the other.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 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 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

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you not distinguish between a case where the person established residence within the airspace of partitions before Shabbat while it was still day, as in the case of the cave, and a case where he did not establish residence within the airspace of partitions before Shabbat while it was still day, as in the case of the mishna? The principle governing the Shabbat limits being subsumed in one another only applies in the former case, where both of the Shabbat limits were established before Shabbat, but not in the latter case, where the two limits were established at different times, one before Shabbat and one on Shabbat.

讜讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讘转 诇讗

Abaye raised a difficulty: And in a case where he did not acquire his place of residence within those partitions before Shabbat, does the principle governing the subsuming of limits not apply?

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 is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

goat

Testing Boundaries

The issue of techumin, one鈥檚 permitted amount of space on Shabbat, would not seem to be too connected to 聽Yom...
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 44: A Willingness to Help

Can you use living creatures as a partition? What if those creatures are human beings? Can a person become part...

Eruvin 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 44

讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel? Or perhaps we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people who had established an eiruv and were permitted to establish a human partition for Ne岣mya. In that case, there were enough people to establish partitions from where Ne岣mya was standing to within two cubits from the limit, and the dilemma that Rav 岣sda raised was: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that someone who went two cubits outside of his Shabbat limit may reenter it, or is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

驻砖讬讟讗 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讚诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜住驻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讘讚诇讗 诪诇讜 讙讘专讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is obvious that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, as if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could be fully filled with people, what is Rav 岣sda鈥檚 dilemma? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat? Rather, we must be dealing with a case where the space between Ne岣mya and the Shabbat limit could not be filled with people, and the dilemma that he raised was about the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讻谞住 诪讗讬 讬讻谞住 诇讗讜 讘诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara comments: This interpretation is also precise and implicit in Rav Na岣an鈥檚 answer, for Rav Na岣an said to Rav 岣sda: Establish a human partition for him, and let him reenter his Shabbat limit. Doesn鈥檛 the statement: Let him reenter, mean that he may reenter even without a partition along those two additional two cubits, i.e., that after he passes through the human partitions, he would still need to cross the remaining two cubits on his own without the benefit of a partition?

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 谞驻诇 讚讜驻谞讛 诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 讘讛 讗讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讝拽讜祝 讗转 讛诪讟讛 诇驻专讜住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised an objection to the opinion of Rava with regard to the principle of making a human partition on Shabbat, from a baraita: If the wall of a sukka fell on a Festival or on Shabbat, thus rendering the sukka unfit for the mitzva, one may not position people, animals or utensils there in its place in order to form a wall, nor may one turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, which will thereby serve as a partition, because one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. This indicates that a human partition may not be erected on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪讛讗 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪讛讗 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜驻谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讻诇 讜讬砖转讛 讜讬砖谉 讜讬讝拽讜祝 讗转 讛诪讟讛 讜讬驻专讜住 注诇讬讛 住讚讬谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转驻讜诇 讞诪讛 注诇 讛诪转 讜注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉

Rava said to him: You state to me that this is prohibited from this baraita, but I can state to you that it is permitted from this other baraita: A person may position his fellow as a wall, so that he may eat, drink, and sleep in a sukka, and he is likewise permitted to turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it, so that the sun should not beat down on a corpse, or on food.

拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞谉 驻拽拽 讛讞诇讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖拽砖讜专 讜转诇讜讬 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara comments: If so, these two baraitot contradict one another. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this baraita that teaches that it is prohibited reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas this other baraita that teaches that it is permitted reflects the opinion of the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a window shutter that is not fixed to the wall with hinges, Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is tied to the wall and hangs from the window, one may shut the window with it; but if not, one may not shut the window with it, since one may not erect a tent, even a temporary one, on Shabbat. But the Rabbis say: In either case, one may shut the window with it. This indicates that the Rabbis permit constructing a temporary wall of this sort on Shabbat, and they also permit the construction of a temporary wall in the case of a sukka.

讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讛诇 注专讗讬 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讜住讬祝 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All agree that one may not make a temporary tent for the first time on a Festival, and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. The Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only with regard to adding a temporary tent to a permanent structure, as in the case of a window shutter. As Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add a temporary tent to a permanent structure even on a Festival; and, needless to say, this is prohibited on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add a temporary tent to a permanent structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, this is permitted on a Festival. This indicates that there is no opinion that grants license to construct a temporary wall for the first time.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 注砖讗讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讚讜驻谉 诇住讜讻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专

Rather, the Gemara resolves the contradiction differently: This is not difficult, as this baraita that permits the positioning of an animal or a person as a wall was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and this baraita that prohibits it was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who positions an animal to serve as the wall of a sukka, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit, out of concern that the animal might leave, whereas Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽讗 驻住讬诇 讛转诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 砖专讬 讚诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

Rabbi Meir, who deems the wall unfit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that a partition established from a living creature is not a partition and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, rule that it is permitted to construct such a wall, as he is not doing anything, since it is not considered actual construction.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 讛转诐 讗诇诪讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 讗住专

However, Rabbi Yehuda, who deems the wall to be fit there, with regard to a sukka, apparently holds that it is a proper partition; and he would here, in the case of Shabbat, prohibit the construction of such a partition.

讜转讬住讘专讗 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讛诪讛 讗讚诐 讜讻诇讬诐 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And how can you understand it in that manner? Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deemed the sukka to be unfit in the case where an animal was used to serve as a partition, but did you hear that he deemed the sukka to be similarly unfit if a person or utensils were used as walls? The reason that an animal may not be used as a partition, according to his opinion, is because it might leave. This concern does not apply to people or utensils, since a person is under his own control and can remain standing, and utensils do not move themselves. Since the baraita validates partitions established with people and utensils as well as animals, it cannot be based on the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讛讜住讬祝 谞诪讬 讗住专

And furthermore, even if you do not differentiate as above, and instead assume that the consideration that the animal might leave is pertinent, according to whose opinion does Rabbi Meir state his opinion with regard to constructing a temporary tent on Shabbat? If it is according to the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Eliezer, this is difficult, as he even prohibited adding a window shutter, i.e., a temporary tent, to a permanent structure.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讛讜住讬祝 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诪讬 讗诪讜专

Rather, you must say that he stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, even according to their opinion, say that the Rabbis only said that one is permitted to add a temporary tent to a permanent structure; but did they say that it is permitted to construct a partition or a tent for the first time?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇讬诐 讗讻诇讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讚讜驻谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讛讗 讘讚讜驻谉 专讘讬注讬转

Rather, say that both this baraita and that baraita follow the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is the resolution of the various contradictions: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning utensils and the other ruling concerning utensils, this is not difficult, as this ruling that prohibits the construction of an additional wall refers to the third wall of a sukka, which renders it fit for the mitzva; whereas this other ruling that permits the construction of an additional wall refers to the fourth wall of a sukka, which is insignificant, as a sukka need not have four walls.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞驻诇 讚讜驻谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

This interpretation is also precise in the wording of the baraita, as the baraita that prohibits the construction of an additional wall uses the following phrase: If its wall fell. This indicates a wall that is significant, i.e., a wall that renders it fit for use, rather than any wall, as stated in the baraita that permits it. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that the correct resolution is to differentiate between the third and fourth wall of a sukka.

讗诇讗 讗讚诐 讗讗讚诐 拽砖讬讗

However, with regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is difficult, for one baraita states that one may not use a person as the wall of a sukka, while the other says that one may use a person as a wall and even states explicitly that he may do this: So that he may eat, drink and sleep in the sukka. That implies that this is permitted even if it is the third wall that is missing.

讗讚诐 讗讗讚诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讚注转 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转

The Gemara answers: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is also not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, the baraita refers to a case where that person knowingly served as a partition; whereas here, where it is permitted, it refers to a case where that person unknowingly served as a partition, which is not the usual manner of building. This is not the case with regard to utilizing a utensil as a partition. Since the utensil lacks knowledge, it is considered a partition regardless of how it is placed, and it is prohibited in all cases.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬诇讗讬 诇讚注转 讛讜讛 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讛讜讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, the case involving Rabbi Ne岣mya, son of Rabbi 岣nilai, was a case where people knowingly served as a partition, as the people were instructed to go out and serve as a human partition. The Gemara answers: In fact, that was a case where people unknowingly served as a partition, i.e., they were unaware why they were called, and were made into a partition without their knowledge.

专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讚注转 讛讜讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诇讗 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讛讜讛:

The Gemara asks: However, Rav 岣sda, who gathered the people to that spot, was in any case present knowingly. The Gemara answers: While Rav 岣sda was there knowingly, he was not among the designated people who served as a partition.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讙谞谞讗 讚讗注讬诇讜 诪讬讗 讘诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 谞讙讚讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讬讗诪专讜 诇讚注转

The Gemara relates that there were these members of a wedding party who engaged the many people present to bring water in on Shabbat from a public domain to a private domain through walls comprised of people who knew that they were being used as partitions for that purpose. Shmuel instructed that they should be flogged. He said with regard to this matter: If the Sages said that a partition is effective when the people act unknowingly, does this mean that they would also say that this is permitted ab initio when they knowingly serve as a partition?

讛谞讛讜 讝讬拽讬 讚讛讜讛 砖讚讬讬谉 讘专讬住转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讗 专讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讗注诇讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇砖讘转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讘注讬 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗住专 诇讛讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讚注转 讜讗住讜专

The Gemara relates that there were once these flasks lying in the market [ristaka] of Me岣za on Shabbat and could not be moved. When Rava was coming from his discourse accompanied by a throng of people, his attendants brought the flasks into his house, as the crowd of people created human partitions, upon which the attendants capitalized for this purpose. On another Shabbat they wanted to bring them in again, but Rava prohibited them from doing so, reasoning: This is like the case where the people knowingly served as partitions, for presumably the people now knew that they were being used for this purpose, and it is therefore prohibited.

诇讜讬 讗注讬诇讜 诇讬讛 转讬讘谞讗 讝注讬专讬 讗住驻住转讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讗:

The Gemara further relates that Levi was brought straw through human partitions comprised of people who were unknowingly used for this purpose, and in the same manner Ze鈥檈iri was brought fodder [aspasta], and Rav Shimi bar 岣yya was brought water.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讘专砖讜转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻讘专 谞注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞

MISHNA: With regard to one who was permitted to leave his Shabbat limit, i.e., he went out to testify that he had seen the new moon or for some life-saving purpose, and they said to him along the way: The action has already been performed, and there is no need for you to travel for that purpose, he has two thousand cubits in each direction from the location where he was standing when this was told to him.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗讬诐 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讜讝专讬谉 诇诪拽讜诪谉:

If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had not left his limit, and he may return to his original location. The Sages formulated a principle: All who go out to battle and save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讘转讜讱 转讞讜诐 砖诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讚诪讬

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement: If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had never left? Given that he has not left his original boundary, it is clear that he remains within his original limit. Rabba said: The mishna is saying as follows: If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had never left his house. He is allowed to walk two thousand cubits in each direction from his house.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注拽专 注拽专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that if he remained within his limit, he is considered as if he were in his house. Why is this statement necessary? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that, since he moved from his place with intention to leave his limit and go elsewhere, he moved and nullified his original place of residence. If so, his original place of residence would no longer determine his Shabbat limit, and instead he would have two thousand cubits in each direction from the location where he was standing when he was told that he need not travel. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is nonetheless considered as if he had never left his house.

专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 转讞讜诪讬谉 砖谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讘诇注讬谉 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 砖诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪转讞讜诪讜

Rav Shimi bar 岣yya said that the mishna is saying as follows: If he left his original Shabbat limit, but the new limit of two thousand cubits in each direction that the Sages granted him is subsumed within his original limit, so that if he walks those two thousand cubits, he can return to within his original limit, then it is as if he had never left his original limit, and he may return to his house.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to what principle do Rabba and Rav Shimi bar 岣yya disagree? One Sage, Rav Shimi, holds that the subsuming of Shabbat limits, i.e., if one鈥檚 original limit is subsumed within the new limit, one may pass from one to the other, is something significant and may be relied upon, whereas this Sage, Rabba, holds that it is nothing significant and cannot be relied upon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讛讘诇注转 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 砖讘转 讘诪注专讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讜注诇 讙讙讛 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛

Abaye said to Rabba: Do you not hold that the subsuming of Shabbat limits is something significant? And what if he established residence in a cave that has entrances at its two ends, which on the inside of the cave is four thousand cubits across, but atop its roof it is less than four thousand cubits across? Is it not the case that he may walk the entire length of the roof and two thousand cubits outside it in either direction? The entire interior of the cave is considered as if it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk another two thousand cubits in each direction from each of its entrances. Consequently, he is permitted to walk along the roof, two thousand cubits from the eastern entrance in the direction of the western entrance and vice versa. However, since the distance across the roof is less than four thousand cubits, these two limits are subsumed within one another, and he is permitted to walk the entire length of the roof, given that when two limits are subsumed within one another, one may pass from one to the other.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 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 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

Rabba said to Abaye: Do you not distinguish between a case where the person established residence within the airspace of partitions before Shabbat while it was still day, as in the case of the cave, and a case where he did not establish residence within the airspace of partitions before Shabbat while it was still day, as in the case of the mishna? The principle governing the Shabbat limits being subsumed in one another only applies in the former case, where both of the Shabbat limits were established before Shabbat, but not in the latter case, where the two limits were established at different times, one before Shabbat and one on Shabbat.

讜讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 砖讘转 诇讗

Abaye raised a difficulty: And in a case where he did not acquire his place of residence within those partitions before Shabbat, does the principle governing the subsuming of limits not apply?

Scroll To Top