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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2020 | 讝壮 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Eruvin 47

Today’s daf is dedicated by Heather Stone in memory of her mother, Ellie Stone, Esther Bina bat Rachel and Avraham HaLevi z”l. And by Ilana Mushkin in memory of her father, Rav Pinhas Shmuel Laderman z”l, on his fifth 5th yahrzeit on the 8th of Tishrei. My father was a well loved Rav, a social activist and a scholar who completed the Daf Yomi cycle 2.5 times. I learn every morning in his memory and am grateful for Hadran for enabling me to do so.

The gemara brings sources to prove from where Rav Mesharshia decided that we don’t hold by the rules stated previosuly about who to hold like when various rabbis disagree. Each source is rejected and the gemara explains Rav Mesharshia in a different way. There is a debate regarding items that belong to a non Jew – do laws of techumim apply to them or not? How do these opinions relate to the debate regarding ownerless possessions (Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri and the rabbis)?

砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 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

The excluded area need not be so large; rather, three courtyards each containing two houses are sufficient for this purpose. 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 a case where Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This teaches that one should not rely on these principles.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 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 as well: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps here, too, where it is stated explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is stated, but where it is not stated explicitly, it is not stated, and the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda applies.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讗讞讚 谞讻专讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住专 诇讘谞讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned elsewhere in a mishna: With regard to one who left his house without making an eiruv of courtyards, and established residence for Shabbat in a different town, whether he was a gentile or a Jew, his lack of participation prohibits the other residents of the courtyards in which he has a share to carry objects from their houses to the courtyard, because he did not establish an eiruv with them, and failure to include a house in the eiruv imposes restrictions upon all the residents of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻专讬 讗讜住专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讱 讬砖专讗诇 诇讘讗 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇砖讘讜转 讗爪诇 讘转讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 砖讻讘专 讛住讬讞 讚注转讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: His lack of participation does not prohibit the others to carry, since he is not present there. Rabbi Yosei says: Lack of participation in an eiruv by a gentile who is away prohibits the others to carry, because he might return on Shabbat; but lack of participation by a Jew who is not present does not prohibit the others to carry, as it is not the way of a Jew to return on Shabbat once he has already established his residence elsewhere. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he left his house and established residence for Shabbat with his daughter in the same town, his lack of participation does not prohibit the residents of his courtyard to carry, even though he is permitted to return home, because he has already removed it, i.e., returning, from his mind.

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

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 him? It is Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 you say: When there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This teaches that one cannot rely upon these principles.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 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 again: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps here, too, where it is explicitly stated that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is stated; but where such a ruling is not stated, it is not stated, and the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is relied upon.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讗诪专讜 讛注谞讬 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讬

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned in the mishna. And that is what the Sages meant when they said: A pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet; that is to say, he may walk to a place within his Shabbat limit and declare: Here shall be my place of residence, and then his Shabbat limit is measured from that spot. Rabbi Meir says: We apply this law only to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals; only such a person is permitted to establish his eiruv by walking to the spot that he wishes to acquire as his place of residence.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讛注砖讬专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讬注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Indeed, they said that one can establish an eiruv with bread only in order to make placing an eiruv easier for a wealthy person, so that he need not trouble himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet, but the basic eiruv is established by walking to the spot one will acquire as his place of residence.

讜诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住讬讬诐 讘讛 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rav 岣yya bar Ashi once taught this law to 岣yya bar Rav in the presence of Rav, saying: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person, and Rav said to him: When you teach this law, conclude also with this ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a second ruling? Didn鈥檛 you already say: When there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The fact that Rav needed to specify that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda on this matter indicates that he does not accept the general principle that when there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps Rav does not accept these principles, but the other Sages accept them.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬讘诪讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜抓 讜诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Rather, the Gemara brings a proof from that which we learned in another mishna with regard to a woman waiting for her brother-in-law, i.e., a woman whose husband died without children but who is survived by a brother. The brother-in-law is obligated by Torah law either to perform levirate marriage with his deceased brother鈥檚 widow, or to free her to marry others by participating in 岣litza. The woman waiting for her brother-in-law may neither participate in 岣litza nor undergo levirate marriage until three months have passed following her husband鈥檚 death, due to concern that she may be pregnant from him, in which case she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza. After the three-month waiting period it will become clear whether she is pregnant from her husband.

讜讻谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讜诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讞讚 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞讚 讘注讜诇讜转 讗讞讚 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙专讜砖讜转 讗讞讚 讗专讜住讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讗讜转

And similarly, all other women may not be married or even betrothed until three months have passed following their divorce or the death of their husbands, whether they are virgins or non-virgins, whether they are widows or divorcees, and whether they became widowed or divorced when they were betrothed or married. In all cases, the woman may not marry for three months. Otherwise, if she is within the first three months of her pregnancy from her first husband, and she gives birth six months later, a doubt would arise as to the identity of the father. The Sages did not differentiate between cases where this concern is applicable and where it is not; rather, they fixed a principle that applies universally.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞砖讜讗讜转 讬转讗专住讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman who had been married when she became widowed or divorced may be betrothed immediately, as couples do not have relations during the period of their betrothal. However, she may not marry until three months have passed, in order to differentiate between any possible offspring from the first and second husband.

讜讗专讜住讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讞讜抓 诪讗专讜住讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

A woman who had only been betrothed when she became widowed or divorced may be married immediately, as it may be assumed that the couple did not have relations during the period of their betrothal. This is except for a betrothed woman in Judea, because there the bridegroom鈥檚 heart is bold, as it was customary for couples to be alone together during the period of betrothal, and consequently there is a suspicion that they might have had relations, in which case she might be carrying his child. However, no similar concern applies in other places.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇

Rabbi Yosei says: All the women listed above may be betrothed immediately, because the decree applies only with regard to marriage; this is except for a widow, who must wait for a different reason, because of the mourning for her deceased husband.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 注诇 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讬讞讬讚讗讛 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛

And we said with regard to this: It once happened that Rabbi Eliezer did not come to the study hall. He met Rabbi Asi, who was standing, and said to him: What did they say today in the study hall? He said to him that Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Eliezer asked: By inference, can it be inferred from the fact that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion that only a single authority disagrees with him?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 讻注住 注诐 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讛 注拽专讛 讝拽谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬诇讚 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讛诪驻诇转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

Rabbi Asi answered: Yes, and so it was taught in the following baraita: If a woman was eager to go to her father鈥檚 house and did not remain with her husband during his final days, or if she was angry with her husband and they separated, or if her husband was elderly or sick and could not father children, or if she was sick, or barren, or an elderly woman, or a minor, or a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children, or a woman who was unfit to give birth for any other reason, or if her husband was imprisoned in jail, or if she had miscarried after the death of her husband, so that there is no longer any concern that she might be pregnant from him, all these women must wait three months before remarrying or even becoming betrothed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that this decree applies to all women, even when the particular situation renders it unnecessary. In all these cases Rabbi Yosei permits the woman to be betrothed and to marry immediately.

诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara resumes its question: Why do I need Rabbi Yo岣nan to state that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei? Didn鈥檛 you say: In a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and therefore the halakha should be in accordance with him here as well? This implies that the principle is not to be relied upon.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙讝讬专讜转讬讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps this ruling comes to exclude what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: Although there are many cases in which the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, nonetheless, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with respect to his decrees, i.e., in those cases where he imposed a restriction in a particular case due to its similarity to another case. For this reason Rabbi Yo岣nan had to say that the halakha here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, notwithstanding its opposition to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 decree.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讬专讬讚 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞讬诐 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讘转讬诐 砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚谉

Rather, the proof that these principles do not apply is from that which was taught in the following baraita: One may go to a fair of idolatrous gentiles and buy animals, slaves, and maidservants from them, as the purchase raises them to a more sanctified state; and he may buy houses, fields, and vineyards from them, due to the mitzva to settle Eretz Yisrael; and he may write the necessary deeds and confirm them in their gentile courts with an official seal, even though this involves an acknowledgement of their authority, because it is as though he were rescuing his property from their hands, as the court鈥檚 confirmation and stamp of approval prevents the sellers from appealing the sale and retracting it.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讚讜谉 讜诇注专注专 注诪讛谉 讜讻砖诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讱 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

And if he is a priest, he may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, where the earth and air are impure, in order to litigate with them and to contest their claims. And just as a priest may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, so may he become ritually impure for this purpose by entering into a cemetery.

讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara interrupts its presentation of the baraita to express surprise at this last ruling: Can it enter your mind to say that a priest may enter a cemetery? This would make him ritually impure by Torah law. How could the Sages permit a priest to become ritually impure by Torah law?

讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

Rather, the baraita is referring to an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], owing to the fact that a grave had been unwittingly plowed over, and the bones may have become scattered throughout the field. Such a field imparts ritual impurity only by rabbinic law.

讜诪讟诪讗 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讘诇 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: And a priest may likewise become ritually impure and leave Eretz Yisrael in order to marry a woman or to study Torah there. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this allowance apply? When he cannot find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael. But if the priest can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael, he may not become ritually impure by leaving the country.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 诇驻讬

Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, he may also leave the country and become ritually impure, because

砖讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讻诇 讝讜讻讛 讗讚诐 诇诇诪讜讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住祝 讛讻讛谉 砖讛诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讜 诇爪讬讚谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛

a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the only suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yosei reported in support of his position: It once happened that Yosef the priest went to his teacher in Tzeidan, outside Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah, although the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to issue this ruling? Didn鈥檛 you say: In disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and so it should be obvious that this halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Apparently, this principle is not accepted.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 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 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: It was nonetheless necessary to issue this ruling, it could have entered your mind to say that this principle applies only with regard to disputes in the Mishna. But with regard to disputes in a baraita, say no, the principle does not apply. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan is teaching us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讛讗 专讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬:

Since no proof has been found to support Rav Mesharshiya鈥檚 statement that there are no principles for issuing halakhic rulings, the Gemara emends his statement. Rather, this is what Rav Mesharshiya is saying: These principles were not accepted by all authorities, as in fact Rav did not accept these principles, as demonstrated above.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

The Gemara returns to addressing acquisition of residence. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence and do not have a Shabbat limit, either on their own account or due to the ownership of the gentile. Accordingly, if they were brought into a town from outside its limits, a Jew may carry them two thousand cubits in each direction.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this statement made? If you say that it was made in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious. Now, if unclaimed objects, which do not have owners, do not acquire residence, is it necessary to say that a gentile鈥檚 objects, which have an owner, do not acquire residence?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗

Rather, this statement must have been made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, and Shmuel is teaching us that when we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said that objects acquire residence, this applies only to unclaimed objects, which have no owners; but it does not apply to objects belonging to a gentile, which have owners.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻谉 讛诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 诇谞讻专讬 讻诇讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讻诇讬诐 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜谞讻专讬 砖讛讘讬讗 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a Jew who borrowed a utensil from a gentile on a Festival, and similarly with regard to a Jew who lent a utensil to a gentile on the eve of a Festival and the gentile returned it to him on the Festival, and likewise utensils or bins that acquired residence within the city鈥檚 Shabbat limit, in all these cases the utensils have, i.e., can be moved, two thousand cubits in each direction. But if a gentile brought the Jew produce from outside the Shabbat limit, the Jew may not move it from its place.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗

Granted if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, one can say that this baraita is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that even a gentile鈥檚 objects acquire residence.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

However, if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is neither in accordance with that of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri nor that of the Rabbis.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that a gentile鈥檚 objects acquire residence, and that Shmuel, who said that they do not acquire residence, spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And with regard to that which you said, that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious that a gentile鈥檚 objects do not acquire residence, so this ruling need not have been stated at all. The Gemara answers: That is incorrect, as you might have said that the Sages should issue a decree in the case of gentile owners that his objects acquire residence in his location and that they may not be carried beyond two thousand cubits from that spot, lest people carry objects belonging to a Jewish owners beyond their two-thousand-cubit limit. Therefore, it is teaching us that no decree was issued.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇

Rav 岣yya bar Avin, however, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Objects that belong to a gentile indeed acquire residence, due to the aforementioned decree issued in the case of gentile owners due to the case of Jewish owners.

讛谞讛讜 讚讻专讬 讚讗转讜 诇诪讘专讻转讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates that certain rams were brought to the town of Mavrakhta on Shabbat. Rava permitted the residents of Me岣za to purchase them and take them home, although Mavrakhta was outside the Shabbat limit of Me岣za and could be reached by the residents of Me岣za only by way of an eiruv of Shabbat limits.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning in permitting these rams? You must rely upon that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, and so they are permitted even if they were brought to Me岣za from outside the Shabbat limit.

讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇

Isn鈥檛 the principle, in disputes between Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? And Rav 岣yya bar Avin already said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, based on a decree in the case of a gentile owner, due to the case of a Jewish owner. The halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讝讚讘谞讜 诇讘谞讬 诪讘专讻转讗 讚讻讜诇讛 诪讘专讻转讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬讗

Rava reconsidered and said: Let the rams be sold only to the residents of Mavrakhta. Although the rams acquired residence, and may be moved only four cubits as they were taken beyond their Shabbat limit, the legal status of all Mavrakhta is like four cubits for them. However, they may not be sold to the residents of Me岣za, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞专诐 砖讘讬谉 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 爪专讬讱

Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: A water-filled ditch [岣rem] that lies between two Shabbat limits requires

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 47: Those Red-blooded Young Men of Judea

The halakhah discussion that is framed by the methodology question of rules of thumb of whose p'sak holds away. Cases...

Eruvin 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 47

砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 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

The excluded area need not be so large; rather, three courtyards each containing two houses are sufficient for this purpose. 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 a case where Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This teaches that one should not rely on these principles.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 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 as well: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps here, too, where it is stated explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is stated, but where it is not stated explicitly, it is not stated, and the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda applies.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讗讞讚 谞讻专讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住专 诇讘谞讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned elsewhere in a mishna: With regard to one who left his house without making an eiruv of courtyards, and established residence for Shabbat in a different town, whether he was a gentile or a Jew, his lack of participation prohibits the other residents of the courtyards in which he has a share to carry objects from their houses to the courtyard, because he did not establish an eiruv with them, and failure to include a house in the eiruv imposes restrictions upon all the residents of the courtyard. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讻专讬 讗讜住专 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讱 讬砖专讗诇 诇讘讗 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇砖讘讜转 讗爪诇 讘转讜 讘讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 砖讻讘专 讛住讬讞 讚注转讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: His lack of participation does not prohibit the others to carry, since he is not present there. Rabbi Yosei says: Lack of participation in an eiruv by a gentile who is away prohibits the others to carry, because he might return on Shabbat; but lack of participation by a Jew who is not present does not prohibit the others to carry, as it is not the way of a Jew to return on Shabbat once he has already established his residence elsewhere. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he left his house and established residence for Shabbat with his daughter in the same town, his lack of participation does not prohibit the residents of his courtyard to carry, even though he is permitted to return home, because he has already removed it, i.e., returning, from his mind.

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

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 him? It is Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 you say: When there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? This teaches that one cannot rely upon these principles.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 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 again: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps here, too, where it is explicitly stated that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it is stated; but where such a ruling is not stated, it is not stated, and the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is relied upon.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜讝讛讜 砖讗诪专讜 讛注谞讬 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讬

Rather, the proof is from that which we learned in the mishna. And that is what the Sages meant when they said: A pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet; that is to say, he may walk to a place within his Shabbat limit and declare: Here shall be my place of residence, and then his Shabbat limit is measured from that spot. Rabbi Meir says: We apply this law only to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals; only such a person is permitted to establish his eiruv by walking to the spot that he wishes to acquire as his place of residence.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讛注砖讬专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讬注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Indeed, they said that one can establish an eiruv with bread only in order to make placing an eiruv easier for a wealthy person, so that he need not trouble himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet, but the basic eiruv is established by walking to the spot one will acquire as his place of residence.

讜诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住讬讬诐 讘讛 谞诪讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rav 岣yya bar Ashi once taught this law to 岣yya bar Rav in the presence of Rav, saying: This allowance applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person, and Rav said to him: When you teach this law, conclude also with this ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a second ruling? Didn鈥檛 you already say: When there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The fact that Rav needed to specify that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda on this matter indicates that he does not accept the general principle that when there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 专讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps Rav does not accept these principles, but the other Sages accept them.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬讘诪讛 诇讗 转讞诇讜抓 讜诇讗 转转讬讬讘诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐

Rather, the Gemara brings a proof from that which we learned in another mishna with regard to a woman waiting for her brother-in-law, i.e., a woman whose husband died without children but who is survived by a brother. The brother-in-law is obligated by Torah law either to perform levirate marriage with his deceased brother鈥檚 widow, or to free her to marry others by participating in 岣litza. The woman waiting for her brother-in-law may neither participate in 岣litza nor undergo levirate marriage until three months have passed following her husband鈥檚 death, due to concern that she may be pregnant from him, in which case she is exempt from levirate marriage and 岣litza. After the three-month waiting period it will become clear whether she is pregnant from her husband.

讜讻谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讜诇讗 讬转讗专住讜 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讗讞讚 讘转讜诇讜转 讜讗讞讚 讘注讜诇讜转 讗讞讚 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讗讞讚 讙专讜砖讜转 讗讞讚 讗专讜住讜转 讜讗讞讚 谞砖讜讗讜转

And similarly, all other women may not be married or even betrothed until three months have passed following their divorce or the death of their husbands, whether they are virgins or non-virgins, whether they are widows or divorcees, and whether they became widowed or divorced when they were betrothed or married. In all cases, the woman may not marry for three months. Otherwise, if she is within the first three months of her pregnancy from her first husband, and she gives birth six months later, a doubt would arise as to the identity of the father. The Sages did not differentiate between cases where this concern is applicable and where it is not; rather, they fixed a principle that applies universally.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞砖讜讗讜转 讬转讗专住讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: A woman who had been married when she became widowed or divorced may be betrothed immediately, as couples do not have relations during the period of their betrothal. However, she may not marry until three months have passed, in order to differentiate between any possible offspring from the first and second husband.

讜讗专讜住讜转 讬谞砖讗讜 讞讜抓 诪讗专讜住讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛

A woman who had only been betrothed when she became widowed or divorced may be married immediately, as it may be assumed that the couple did not have relations during the period of their betrothal. This is except for a betrothed woman in Judea, because there the bridegroom鈥檚 heart is bold, as it was customary for couples to be alone together during the period of betrothal, and consequently there is a suspicion that they might have had relations, in which case she might be carrying his child. However, no similar concern applies in other places.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转讗专住讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗诇诪谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讬讘讜诇

Rabbi Yosei says: All the women listed above may be betrothed immediately, because the decree applies only with regard to marriage; this is except for a widow, who must wait for a different reason, because of the mourning for her deceased husband.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 注诇 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讻诇诇 讚讬讞讬讚讗讛 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛

And we said with regard to this: It once happened that Rabbi Eliezer did not come to the study hall. He met Rabbi Asi, who was standing, and said to him: What did they say today in the study hall? He said to him that Rabbi Yo岣nan said as follows: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Eliezer asked: By inference, can it be inferred from the fact that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion that only a single authority disagrees with him?

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 讻注住 注诐 讘注诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讛讬讗 讞讜诇讛 注拽专讛 讝拽谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讜砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讬诇讚 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 讞讘讜砖 讘讘讬转 讛讗住讜专讬谉 讛诪驻诇转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讘注诇讛 讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

Rabbi Asi answered: Yes, and so it was taught in the following baraita: If a woman was eager to go to her father鈥檚 house and did not remain with her husband during his final days, or if she was angry with her husband and they separated, or if her husband was elderly or sick and could not father children, or if she was sick, or barren, or an elderly woman, or a minor, or a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children, or a woman who was unfit to give birth for any other reason, or if her husband was imprisoned in jail, or if she had miscarried after the death of her husband, so that there is no longer any concern that she might be pregnant from him, all these women must wait three months before remarrying or even becoming betrothed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that this decree applies to all women, even when the particular situation renders it unnecessary. In all these cases Rabbi Yosei permits the woman to be betrothed and to marry immediately.

诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara resumes its question: Why do I need Rabbi Yo岣nan to state that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei? Didn鈥檛 you say: In a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and therefore the halakha should be in accordance with him here as well? This implies that the principle is not to be relied upon.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙讝讬专讜转讬讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps this ruling comes to exclude what Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: Although there are many cases in which the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, nonetheless, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir with respect to his decrees, i.e., in those cases where he imposed a restriction in a particular case due to its similarity to another case. For this reason Rabbi Yo岣nan had to say that the halakha here is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, notwithstanding its opposition to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 decree.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇讬专讬讚 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讜诇讜拽讞讬诐 诪讛谉 讘讛诪讛 讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讘转讬诐 砖讚讜转 讜讻专诪讬诐 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚谉

Rather, the proof that these principles do not apply is from that which was taught in the following baraita: One may go to a fair of idolatrous gentiles and buy animals, slaves, and maidservants from them, as the purchase raises them to a more sanctified state; and he may buy houses, fields, and vineyards from them, due to the mitzva to settle Eretz Yisrael; and he may write the necessary deeds and confirm them in their gentile courts with an official seal, even though this involves an acknowledgement of their authority, because it is as though he were rescuing his property from their hands, as the court鈥檚 confirmation and stamp of approval prevents the sellers from appealing the sale and retracting it.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讚讜谉 讜诇注专注专 注诪讛谉 讜讻砖诐 砖诪讟诪讗 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻讱 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

And if he is a priest, he may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, where the earth and air are impure, in order to litigate with them and to contest their claims. And just as a priest may become ritually impure by going outside Eretz Yisrael, so may he become ritually impure for this purpose by entering into a cemetery.

讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara interrupts its presentation of the baraita to express surprise at this last ruling: Can it enter your mind to say that a priest may enter a cemetery? This would make him ritually impure by Torah law. How could the Sages permit a priest to become ritually impure by Torah law?

讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讛驻专住 讚专讘谞谉

Rather, the baraita is referring to an area where there is uncertainty with regard to the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], owing to the fact that a grave had been unwittingly plowed over, and the bones may have become scattered throughout the field. Such a field imparts ritual impurity only by rabbinic law.

讜诪讟诪讗 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讘诇 诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

The baraita continues: And a priest may likewise become ritually impure and leave Eretz Yisrael in order to marry a woman or to study Torah there. Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this allowance apply? When he cannot find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael. But if the priest can find a place to study in Eretz Yisrael, he may not become ritually impure by leaving the country.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜爪讗 诇诇诪讜讚 谞诪讬 讬讟诪讗 诇驻讬

Rabbi Yosei says: Even when he can find a place to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael, he may also leave the country and become ritually impure, because

砖讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讻诇 讝讜讻讛 讗讚诐 诇诇诪讜讚 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘讬讜住祝 讛讻讛谉 砖讛诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讜 诇爪讬讚谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛

a person does not merit to learn from everyone, and it is possible that the only suitable teacher for him lives outside of Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yosei reported in support of his position: It once happened that Yosef the priest went to his teacher in Tzeidan, outside Eretz Yisrael, to learn Torah, although the preeminent Sage of his generation, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, lived in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 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

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said about this: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yo岣nan to issue this ruling? Didn鈥檛 you say: In disputes between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and so it should be obvious that this halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Apparently, this principle is not accepted.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 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 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: It was nonetheless necessary to issue this ruling, it could have entered your mind to say that this principle applies only with regard to disputes in the Mishna. But with regard to disputes in a baraita, say no, the principle does not apply. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan is teaching us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in this case as well.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讛讗 专讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬:

Since no proof has been found to support Rav Mesharshiya鈥檚 statement that there are no principles for issuing halakhic rulings, the Gemara emends his statement. Rather, this is what Rav Mesharshiya is saying: These principles were not accepted by all authorities, as in fact Rav did not accept these principles, as demonstrated above.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

The Gemara returns to addressing acquisition of residence. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence and do not have a Shabbat limit, either on their own account or due to the ownership of the gentile. Accordingly, if they were brought into a town from outside its limits, a Jew may carry them two thousand cubits in each direction.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this statement made? If you say that it was made in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious. Now, if unclaimed objects, which do not have owners, do not acquire residence, is it necessary to say that a gentile鈥檚 objects, which have an owner, do not acquire residence?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讞驻爪讬 讛驻拽专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗

Rather, this statement must have been made in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, and Shmuel is teaching us that when we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said that objects acquire residence, this applies only to unclaimed objects, which have no owners; but it does not apply to objects belonging to a gentile, which have owners.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜讗诇 讻诇讬 诪谉 讛谞讻专讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讻谉 讛诪砖讗讬诇 诇讜 诇谞讻专讬 讻诇讬 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讻诇讬诐 讜讛讗讜爪专讜转 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 讜谞讻专讬 砖讛讘讬讗 诇讜 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to a Jew who borrowed a utensil from a gentile on a Festival, and similarly with regard to a Jew who lent a utensil to a gentile on the eve of a Festival and the gentile returned it to him on the Festival, and likewise utensils or bins that acquired residence within the city鈥檚 Shabbat limit, in all these cases the utensils have, i.e., can be moved, two thousand cubits in each direction. But if a gentile brought the Jew produce from outside the Shabbat limit, the Jew may not move it from its place.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗

Granted if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, one can say that this baraita is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, that even a gentile鈥檚 objects acquire residence.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

However, if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is neither in accordance with that of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri nor that of the Rabbis.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讞驻爪讬 讛谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诇专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that a gentile鈥檚 objects acquire residence, and that Shmuel, who said that they do not acquire residence, spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And with regard to that which you said, that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it is obvious that a gentile鈥檚 objects do not acquire residence, so this ruling need not have been stated at all. The Gemara answers: That is incorrect, as you might have said that the Sages should issue a decree in the case of gentile owners that his objects acquire residence in his location and that they may not be carried beyond two thousand cubits from that spot, lest people carry objects belonging to a Jewish owners beyond their two-thousand-cubit limit. Therefore, it is teaching us that no decree was issued.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇

Rav 岣yya bar Avin, however, said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Objects that belong to a gentile indeed acquire residence, due to the aforementioned decree issued in the case of gentile owners due to the case of Jewish owners.

讛谞讛讜 讚讻专讬 讚讗转讜 诇诪讘专讻转讗 砖专讗 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讘谞讬 诪讞讜讝讗 诇诪讬讝讘谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates that certain rams were brought to the town of Mavrakhta on Shabbat. Rava permitted the residents of Me岣za to purchase them and take them home, although Mavrakhta was outside the Shabbat limit of Me岣za and could be reached by the residents of Me岣za only by way of an eiruv of Shabbat limits.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛

Ravina said to Rava: What is your reasoning in permitting these rams? You must rely upon that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Objects belonging to a gentile do not acquire residence, and so they are permitted even if they were brought to Me岣za from outside the Shabbat limit.

讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞驻爪讬 谞讻专讬 拽讜谞讬谉 砖讘讬转讛 讙讝讬专讛 讘注诇讬诐 讚谞讻专讬 讗讟讜 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬砖专讗诇

Isn鈥檛 the principle, in disputes between Shmuel and Rabbi Yo岣nan, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? And Rav 岣yya bar Avin already said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Objects that belong to a gentile acquire residence, based on a decree in the case of a gentile owner, due to the case of a Jewish owner. The halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讬讝讚讘谞讜 诇讘谞讬 诪讘专讻转讗 讚讻讜诇讛 诪讘专讻转讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬讗

Rava reconsidered and said: Let the rams be sold only to the residents of Mavrakhta. Although the rams acquired residence, and may be moved only four cubits as they were taken beyond their Shabbat limit, the legal status of all Mavrakhta is like four cubits for them. However, they may not be sold to the residents of Me岣za, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞专诐 砖讘讬谉 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 爪专讬讱

Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita: A water-filled ditch [岣rem] that lies between two Shabbat limits requires

Scroll To Top