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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 24, 2020 | 讜壮 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 46

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ranana Dine in honor of Rabbi Dan Ross. To a great chevruta – thank you for supporting my Torah learning and supporting the Torah learning of women everywhere. And to my grandmother, Sonja Waschitz on her 95th birthday who has always been a role model to me. Wishing her more years of good health.聽

Why is rainwater that falls on Yom Tov not limited by laws of techumim even though they originated either in the ocean, which is outside the techum or from the clouds (does this mean that there are no laws of techumim above ten handbreadths)? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says both that we hold like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri regarding a person who slept when Shabbat came in and also that we rule leniently when it comes to eruvin. Why was there a need to say both? When we are lenient in rabbinic laws, are we also lenient and hold like an individual even if he goes against the majority? They bring a number of examples that show that we do not rule leniently like an individual when he rules against the majority. What are rules of which rabbis we hold like when they disagree with others?

讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 谞讜诇讚 讚讗住讬专讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the water was previously not in its current state, all the more so should it be considered as something that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and consequently it is prohibited to carry it. Something that came into being or assumed its present form on Shabbat or Festivals is considered set-aside [muktze] and may not be handled on Shabbat or Festivals.

讗诇讗 诪讬讗 讘注讘讬诐 诪讬谞讚 谞讬讬讚讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬拽砖讜 诇讱 诪讬讗 讘讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 谞诪讬 诪讬谞讚 谞讬讬讚讬 讜转谞讬讗 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

Rather, we should say: The water in clouds is in constant motion and therefore does not acquire residence there. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, the ocean should also not be difficult for you, as the water in the ocean is also in constant motion. And it was taught in a baraita: Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like the feet of all people, as their waters do not acquire residence in any particular place. The same law also applies to clouds and seas.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thousand cubits in every direction. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Did you hear this halakha explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you understand it by inference from some other ruling that he issued? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: I heard it explicitly from him.

诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘

The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv.

讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need both? Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to state both the general ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, and also the specific ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri on this issue?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘

Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Let him state only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. Why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This ruling was necessary as well, for had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it might have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only to disputes in which a single authority disagrees with another single authority, or several authorities disagree with several other authorities. But when a single authority maintains a lenient opinion against several authorities who maintain a more stringent position, you might have said that we do not rule in his favor. Hence, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri although he disputes the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讜诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rava said to Abaye: Now, since the laws of eiruvin are rabbinic in origin, what reason is there for me to differentiate between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 诇讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讬讛 砖注转讛

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating. If afterward she sees blood, it is enough that she be regarded as ritually impure due to menstruation from the time that she examined herself and saw that she had a discharge, rather than retroactively for up to twenty-four hours. The Rabbis, however, maintain that this halakha applies only to an older woman or to a woman after childbirth, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a normal young woman for whom three periods have passed without bleeding.

讜转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

And it was taught in a baraita: It once happened that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. After he remembered that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If you say that it means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar but rather in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then how could he rule in accordance with him even in exigent circumstances, given that the halakha had been decided against him?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rather, it must be that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And after he remembered that it was not a single authority who disagreed with Rabbi Elazar, but rather several authorities who disagreed with him, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. This demonstrates that even with a dispute that involves a rabbinic decree, such as whether a woman is declared ritually impure retroactively, there is room to distinguish between a disagreement of a single authority and a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority and several authorities.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讜讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Wasn鈥檛 it was taught in a baraita: If a person receives a proximate report that one of his close relatives has died, he practices all the customs of the intense seven day mourning period as well as the customs of the thirty day mourning period. But if he receives a distant report, he practices only one day of mourning.

讜讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 拽专讜讘讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

What is considered a proximate report, and what is considered a distant report? If the report arrives within thirty days of the close relative鈥檚 passing, it is regarded as proximate, and if it arrives after thirty days it is considered distant; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. But the Rabbis say: Both in the case of a proximate report and in the case of a distant report, the grieving relative practices the seven-day mourning period and the thirty-day mourning period.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪讬拽诇 讜专讘讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诪专讜讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬拽诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Wherever you find that a single authority is lenient with regard to a certain halakha and several other authorities are stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the words of the stringent authorities, who constitute the majority, except for here, where despite the fact that the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is lenient and the opinion of the Rabbis is more stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜住讘专 诇讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗讘诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds like Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to mourning practices, i.e., wherever there is a dispute with regard to mourning customs, the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion.

讘讗讘讬诇讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

From here the Gemara infers: It is only with regard to mourning practices that the Sages were lenient, but in general, with regard to other areas of halakha, even in the case of rabbinic laws there is a difference between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities. This being the case, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did well to rule explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, even though he is a single authority who ruled leniently in dispute with the Rabbis.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Rav Pappa said a different explanation for the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi made both statements: It was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, because had he said only that the halakha follows the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the laws governing the eiruv of courtyards, which are entirely rabbinic in origin. But with regard to the more stringent laws governing the eiruv of Shabbat limits, you would have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to make both statements.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诇注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we distinguish between an eiruv of courtyards and an eiruv of Shabbat limits? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said, that an eiruv may be established for another person only with his knowledge? It was said with regard to an eiruv of Shabbat limits, but with regard to an eiruv of courtyards, an eiruv may be established for another person whether with his knowledge or without his knowledge, as one may act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence; however, one may not act to a person鈥檚 disadvantage in his absence. One may act unilaterally on someone else鈥檚 behalf when the action is to that other person鈥檚 benefit; however, when it is to the other person鈥檚 detriment, or when there are both advantages and disadvantages to him, one may act on the other person鈥檚 behalf only if one has been explicitly appointed as an agent. Since an eiruv of courtyards is always to a person鈥檚 benefit, it can be established even without his knowledge. However, with regard to an eiruv of Shabbat limits, while it enables one to walk in one direction, it disallows him from walking in the opposite direction. Therefore, it can be established only with his knowledge.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 need to issue two rulings can be explained in another manner: It is necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as if he had said only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that had been properly established, where the concern is that it might subsequently have become invalid. But with regard to an initial eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that is just being established and has not yet taken effect, you might have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to issue both rulings.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 诇转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we distinguish between the remnants of an eiruv and an initial eiruv? As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said, that the Sages stipulated that a fixed quantity of food is necessary for establishing an eiruv? It is said with regard to an initial eiruv, i.e., when setting up an eiruv for the first time; however, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, i.e., on a subsequent Shabbat when the measure may have become diminished, even a minimal amount suffices.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讞爪讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转

And they said to establish an eiruv for courtyards only after all the inhabitants of the city merge their alleyways and become like the inhabitants of a single courtyard, so that the law of eiruv should not be forgotten by the children, who may not be aware of the arrangement that has been made with regard to the alleyways.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讞讘专讬讜 讜讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜

Since the Gemara discussed the principles cited with regard to halakhic decision-making, it cites additional principles. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Zerika said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in disputes with any individual Sage, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei even in disputes with other Sages, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with any individual Sage.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讟讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha do these principles apply, meaning, to what degree are they binding? Rabbi Asi said: This is considered binding halakha. And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: One is inclined toward such a ruling in cases where an individual asks, but does not issue it as a public ruling in all cases. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: It appears that one should rule this way, but it is not an established halakha that is considered binding with regard to issuing rulings.

讻诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛砖转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and, needless to say, in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As now, if in disputes with Rabbi Yehuda, the opinion of Rabbi Meir is not accepted as law, need it be stated that in disputes with Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion is rejected? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is not accepted in disputes with Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讜诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Asi said: I also learn based on the same principle that in a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In cases of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Now, if where it is opposed by Rabbi Yehuda the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is not accepted as law, where it is opposed by the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, with whom the halakha is in accordance against Rabbi Yehuda, is it necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara raises a dilemma: In a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha? No sources were found to resolve this dilemma, and it stands unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗

Rav Mesharshiya said: These principles of halakhic decision-making are not to be relied upon. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Mesharshiya derive this statement?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讬专讘讜 砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讝讜 注诐 讝讜

If you say that he derived it from that which we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is like three courtyards that open into one another, and also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, the residents of the middle one are permitted to carry to the two outer ones, and they are permitted to carry to it, but the residents of the two outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one to the other, as they did not establish an eiruv with one another.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讗谉 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讬转谞讛讜

And Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; and who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon on this matter? It is Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 you say: In disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rather, can we not conclude from this mishna that these principles should not be relied upon?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the difficulty posed by this ruling? Perhaps where it is stated explicitly to the contrary, it is stated, but where it is not stated explicitly to the contrary, it is not stated, and these principles apply.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注讜砖讛 讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讻注讬专 讞讚砖讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned elsewhere in a mishna: If a city that belongs to a single individual subsequently becomes one that belongs to many people, one may establish an eiruv of courtyards for all of it. But if the city belongs to many people, and it falls into the possession of a single individual, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it, unless he excludes from the eiruv an area the size of the town of 岣dasha in Judea, which contains fifty residents; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

Rabbi Shimon says:

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 45-51 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss key concepts in Daf 45-51 including if you fell asleep before Shabbat and woke up...

Eruvin 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 46

讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 谞讜诇讚 讚讗住讬专讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the water was previously not in its current state, all the more so should it be considered as something that came into being [nolad] on the Festival, and consequently it is prohibited to carry it. Something that came into being or assumed its present form on Shabbat or Festivals is considered set-aside [muktze] and may not be handled on Shabbat or Festivals.

讗诇讗 诪讬讗 讘注讘讬诐 诪讬谞讚 谞讬讬讚讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬拽砖讜 诇讱 诪讬讗 讘讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 谞诪讬 诪讬谞讚 谞讬讬讚讬 讜转谞讬讗 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 讜诪注讬讬谞讜转 讛谞讜讘注讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻专讙诇讬 讻诇 讗讚诐

Rather, we should say: The water in clouds is in constant motion and therefore does not acquire residence there. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, the ocean should also not be difficult for you, as the water in the ocean is also in constant motion. And it was taught in a baraita: Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like the feet of all people, as their waters do not acquire residence in any particular place. The same law also applies to clouds and seas.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thousand cubits in every direction. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Did you hear this halakha explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you understand it by inference from some other ruling that he issued? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: I heard it explicitly from him.

诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘

The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv.

讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I need both? Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to state both the general ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, and also the specific ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri on this issue?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘

Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: Let him state only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. Why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This ruling was necessary as well, for had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it might have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only to disputes in which a single authority disagrees with another single authority, or several authorities disagree with several other authorities. But when a single authority maintains a lenient opinion against several authorities who maintain a more stringent position, you might have said that we do not rule in his favor. Hence, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri although he disputes the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 注讬专讜讘讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讜诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rava said to Abaye: Now, since the laws of eiruvin are rabbinic in origin, what reason is there for me to differentiate between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 诇讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讗砖讛 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 注讜谞讜转 讚讬讬讛 砖注转讛

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating. If afterward she sees blood, it is enough that she be regarded as ritually impure due to menstruation from the time that she examined herself and saw that she had a discharge, rather than retroactively for up to twenty-four hours. The Rabbis, however, maintain that this halakha applies only to an older woman or to a woman after childbirth, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a normal young woman for whom three periods have passed without bleeding.

讜转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讜注砖讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

And it was taught in a baraita: It once happened that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. After he remembered that Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

诪讗讬 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If you say that it means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar but rather in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then how could he rule in accordance with him even in exigent circumstances, given that the halakha had been decided against him?

讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 诇讗讞专 砖谞讝讻专 讚诇讗讜 讬讞讬讚 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

Rather, it must be that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And after he remembered that it was not a single authority who disagreed with Rabbi Elazar, but rather several authorities who disagreed with him, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. This demonstrates that even with a dispute that involves a rabbinic decree, such as whether a woman is declared ritually impure retroactively, there is room to distinguish between a disagreement of a single authority and a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority and several authorities.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讜讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Wasn鈥檛 it was taught in a baraita: If a person receives a proximate report that one of his close relatives has died, he practices all the customs of the intense seven day mourning period as well as the customs of the thirty day mourning period. But if he receives a distant report, he practices only one day of mourning.

讜讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 专讞讜拽讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 拽专讜讘讛 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 专讞讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 拽专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 砖诪讜注讛 专讞讜拽讛 谞讜讛讙转 砖讘注讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐

What is considered a proximate report, and what is considered a distant report? If the report arrives within thirty days of the close relative鈥檚 passing, it is regarded as proximate, and if it arrives after thirty days it is considered distant; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. But the Rabbis say: Both in the case of a proximate report and in the case of a distant report, the grieving relative practices the seven-day mourning period and the thirty-day mourning period.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讬讞讬讚 诪讬拽诇 讜专讘讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诪专讜讘讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讝讜 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬拽诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讞诪讬专讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

And Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Wherever you find that a single authority is lenient with regard to a certain halakha and several other authorities are stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the words of the stringent authorities, who constitute the majority, except for here, where despite the fact that the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is lenient and the opinion of the Rabbis is more stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜住讘专 诇讛 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛诪讬拽诇 讘讗讘诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds like Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to mourning practices, i.e., wherever there is a dispute with regard to mourning customs, the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion.

讘讗讘讬诇讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬诐

From here the Gemara infers: It is only with regard to mourning practices that the Sages were lenient, but in general, with regard to other areas of halakha, even in the case of rabbinic laws there is a difference between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities. This being the case, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did well to rule explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, even though he is a single authority who ruled leniently in dispute with the Rabbis.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

Rav Pappa said a different explanation for the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi made both statements: It was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, because had he said only that the halakha follows the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the laws governing the eiruv of courtyards, which are entirely rabbinic in origin. But with regard to the more stringent laws governing the eiruv of Shabbat limits, you would have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to make both statements.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诇注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we distinguish between an eiruv of courtyards and an eiruv of Shabbat limits? As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said, that an eiruv may be established for another person only with his knowledge? It was said with regard to an eiruv of Shabbat limits, but with regard to an eiruv of courtyards, an eiruv may be established for another person whether with his knowledge or without his knowledge, as one may act in a person鈥檚 interest in his absence; however, one may not act to a person鈥檚 disadvantage in his absence. One may act unilaterally on someone else鈥檚 behalf when the action is to that other person鈥檚 benefit; however, when it is to the other person鈥檚 detriment, or when there are both advantages and disadvantages to him, one may act on the other person鈥檚 behalf only if one has been explicitly appointed as an agent. Since an eiruv of courtyards is always to a person鈥檚 benefit, it can be established even without his knowledge. However, with regard to an eiruv of Shabbat limits, while it enables one to walk in one direction, it disallows him from walking in the opposite direction. Therefore, it can be established only with his knowledge.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 need to issue two rulings can be explained in another manner: It is necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to inform us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as if he had said only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, it could have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that had been properly established, where the concern is that it might subsequently have become invalid. But with regard to an initial eiruv, i.e., an eiruv that is just being established and has not yet taken effect, you might have said that we should not rule leniently, and therefore it was necessary to issue both rulings.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 诇转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讬讜专讬 注讬专讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we distinguish between the remnants of an eiruv and an initial eiruv? As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said, that the Sages stipulated that a fixed quantity of food is necessary for establishing an eiruv? It is said with regard to an initial eiruv, i.e., when setting up an eiruv for the first time; however, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, i.e., on a subsequent Shabbat when the measure may have become diminished, even a minimal amount suffices.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讞爪讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转

And they said to establish an eiruv for courtyards only after all the inhabitants of the city merge their alleyways and become like the inhabitants of a single courtyard, so that the law of eiruv should not be forgotten by the children, who may not be aware of the arrangement that has been made with regard to the alleyways.

专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讞讘专讬讜 讜讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜

Since the Gemara discussed the principles cited with regard to halakhic decision-making, it cites additional principles. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and Rabbi Zerika said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in disputes with any individual Sage, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei even in disputes with other Sages, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with any individual Sage.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讟讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 谞专讗讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha do these principles apply, meaning, to what degree are they binding? Rabbi Asi said: This is considered binding halakha. And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: One is inclined toward such a ruling in cases where an individual asks, but does not issue it as a public ruling in all cases. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: It appears that one should rule this way, but it is not an established halakha that is considered binding with regard to issuing rulings.

讻诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛砖转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; and, needless to say, in the case of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As now, if in disputes with Rabbi Yehuda, the opinion of Rabbi Meir is not accepted as law, need it be stated that in disputes with Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion is rejected? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is not accepted in disputes with Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讜诪讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛砖转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬转讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rav Asi said: I also learn based on the same principle that in a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In cases of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Now, if where it is opposed by Rabbi Yehuda the opinion of Rabbi Shimon is not accepted as law, where it is opposed by the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, with whom the halakha is in accordance against Rabbi Yehuda, is it necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara raises a dilemma: In a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha? No sources were found to resolve this dilemma, and it stands unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗

Rav Mesharshiya said: These principles of halakhic decision-making are not to be relied upon. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Mesharshiya derive this statement?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讬专讘讜 砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讜转 讝讜 注诐 讝讜

If you say that he derived it from that which we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is like three courtyards that open into one another, and also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, the residents of the middle one are permitted to carry to the two outer ones, and they are permitted to carry to it, but the residents of the two outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one to the other, as they did not establish an eiruv with one another.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讗谉 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讬转谞讛讜

And Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; and who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon on this matter? It is Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 you say: In disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rather, can we not conclude from this mishna that these principles should not be relied upon?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转诪专 诇讗 讗讬转诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the difficulty posed by this ruling? Perhaps where it is stated explicitly to the contrary, it is stated, but where it is not stated explicitly to the contrary, it is not stated, and these principles apply.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注讜砖讛 讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讻注讬专 讞讚砖讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned elsewhere in a mishna: If a city that belongs to a single individual subsequently becomes one that belongs to many people, one may establish an eiruv of courtyards for all of it. But if the city belongs to many people, and it falls into the possession of a single individual, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it, unless he excludes from the eiruv an area the size of the town of 岣dasha in Judea, which contains fifty residents; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top