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

Daf Yomi

September 27, 2020 | 讟壮 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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 49

This week’s learning is sponsored by Leora and Marty Fineberg in memory of their mother and mother in law, Miriam Ruda Adler, z”l, Miriam Ruda bat Yitzchak and Chana Zissel on her second yahrzeit, which will take place on Yom Kippur. And by Medinah Korn in memory of her beloved teacher and mentor Rav Reuven Aberman, Harav Reuven ben Tzvi Aryeh ve-Rivka zt”l, on his fifth yahrzeit. He dedicated his life to advanced Torah study for women and inspired so many toward personal and halakhic integrity with his wisdom, caring and sense of humor. Yehi zichro baruch.

Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding their understanding of the debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis in the three courtyards. The gemara brings a braita to strengthen Shmuel’s position and also another similar halacha in the name of Shmuel regarding a courtyard situated in between two alleys. Other laws are quoted in the name of Shmuel regarding an eruv that is split or one in which one of the participants won’t allow others to eat his food. Shmuel and Raba debate whether an eruv chatzerot works via kinyan, acquisition, or does it work by dira, it is as if they are all living in the same space. What are the halachic ramifications of the different approaches? One who is on the way and is not within 2,000 cubits of one’s home – can one specify a location within 2,000 cubits on the way and designate that for shvita to allow he/she to arrive at home. On what does it depend? Are the 2,000 cubits measured as a circle or a square from one’s location? Can only a poor person acquire shvita聽with one’s body instead of food or also a rich person? The mishna says that if one who is on the way says “I want to acquire shvita under a particular tree” it is ineffective. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what the mishna means when it says it is ineffective.

讗祝 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖转谉 讗住讜专讜转


This teaching, that carrying objects from either of the outer courtyards into the middle courtyard is permitted, is also the statement of, i.e., in accordance with, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But the Rabbis say: All three courtyards are prohibited, that is to say, carrying is prohibited from any of the courtyards to any of the others.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 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 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讝讜 诪讘讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讜讝讜 诪讘讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讝讜 诪讞讝专转 诪讜转专讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讝讜 诪讞讝专转 诪讜转专讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讛


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to three courtyards that open into one another, and that also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, a resident of one of the outer courtyards may bring food from a house in that courtyard and eat it in the middle courtyard, and likewise a resident of the other courtyard may bring food from a house in that courtyard and eat it in the middle courtyard. And similarly, this resident may bring leftovers from the house where he ate back into the house in that courtyard, and that resident may bring leftovers from the house where he ate back into the house in this courtyard.


讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖转谉 讗住讜专讜转


However, the Rabbis say: All three courtyards are prohibited. Since the residents of the outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one outer courtyard to the other, this results in a place where carrying is prohibited, and such a place prohibits carrying in all three courtyards.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐


The Gemara notes that Shmuel follows his line of reasoning that he used elsewhere, as Shmuel said: With regard to a courtyard that is between two alleyways, if that courtyard established an eiruv with both alleyways, it is prohibited with both of them. Since the residents of the two alleyways are prohibited to carry from one to the other and the eiruv enables the residents of the two alleyways to carry in the courtyard, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard into the alleyways, so that the residents of the alleyways do not transfer objects from one alleyway to the other via the courtyard.


诇讗 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讜住专转 注诇 砖谞讬讛谉


If the courtyard did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, it prohibits one to carry in both of them. Since the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing both alleyways and did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, the result is that each alleyway has a courtyard that did not establish an eiruv, which prohibits carrying from the courtyard into either alleyway.


讛讬转讛 讘讗讞讚 专讙讬诇讛 讜讘讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讝讛 砖专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 讗住讜专 讜讝讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 诪讜转专


If, however, the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing only one alleyway, while they are not accustomed to utilizing one alleyway, then with regard to the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, it is prohibited to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard did not establish an eiruv with it. But with regard to the alleyway which they are not accustomed to utilizing, it is permitted to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard are not considered residents of that alleyway.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 讛讜转专 专讙讬诇讛 诇注爪诪讜


Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With regard to residents of a courtyard who established an eiruv with the alleyway which they were not accustomed to utilizing, the alleyway which they were accustomed to utilizing is permitted to establish an eiruv on its own without the courtyard. The residents of the courtyard have demonstrated their intention to use the other alleyway, despite their not being accustomed to doing so.


讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 注讬专讘讛 专讙讬诇讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 诇讗 注讬专讘 讜讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗爪诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜


And Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: If the alleyway which the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing established an eiruv on its own without the courtyard, while the alleyway which they were not accustomed to utilizing did not establish an eiruv, and also the courtyard itself did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, we divert the residents of the courtyard to use the alleyway which they are not accustomed to utilizing. This is because there is one alleyway in which it is prohibited to carry due to the lack of an eiruv, and a second alleyway in which it is permitted to carry; while it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry. As explained above, were they to utilize the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, the other residents of the alleyway would also be prohibited to carry from their courtyards into the alleyway, despite having established an eiruv for their own alleyway. However, if they use the other alleyway, the residents of that alleyway will not lose anything; since they did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited for them to carry in that alleyway regardless.


讜讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐


In a case such as this, one compels another to refrain from behavior characteristic of Sodom. We force a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. If one denies another use of his possessions, even though he would incur no loss or damage by granting use of his property, his conduct is considered to be characteristic of Sodom. The courts may sometimes compel such a person to waive his legal rights.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪拽驻讬讚 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讛 砖诪讜 注讬专讜讘 砖诪讜


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, i.e., that the other people should not eat of the food he contributed, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. After all, what is its name? Joining [eiruv] is its name, indicating that it must be jointly owned [me鈥檜rav] by all the participants in the eiruv. If one person does not allow the other participants to eat of it, it does not belong to all of them and cannot be called an eiruv.


专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗 诪讗谞砖讬 讜专讚讬谞讗


Rabbi 岣nina said: Even in that case, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, however, that person is called one of the men of Vardina. The men of Vardina were renowned misers, meaning that he is considered to be like them.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讞讜诇拽 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘


Rav Yehuda also said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who divides his eiruv into two parts, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. This is for the aforementioned reason that, by definition, an eiruv needs to be indicative of joining, and this eiruv is separated into different parts.


讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Shmuel state this teaching? Could it be in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to five people who collected their eiruv and placed it in two separate utensils, Beit Shammai say: This is not a valid eiruv, whereas Beit Hillel say: This is an eiruv. It does not stand to reason that Shmuel would follow Beit Shammai, whose opinion is not accepted as normative law.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪诇讬讬谉 诇诪谞讗 讜讗讬讬转专 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讙讬讛 诪讬驻诇讙 诇讗


The Gemara answers: Even if you say that Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, Beit Hillel stated their opinion only there, where the first utensil was filled and there was still some food left over, and therefore, some of the leftover food had to be placed in a second utensil. But where they divided it from the outset, even Beit Hillel agree that the eiruv is not valid.


讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽驻讬讚 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Why do I need two rulings that are based on the same principle, i.e., that an eiruv must demonstrate joining? The Gemara answers: Both rulings were necessary. As, had the Gemara taught us the ruling only there, with regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, one might have said that the eiruv is not valid because the person is particular and expressly does not desire that his eiruv be eaten by others. However here, with regard to one who divides the eiruv into different parts, one might say that his portion should not be considered as separated from the rest.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻诇讙讬讛 诪讬驻诇讙 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had the Gemara taught us the ruling only here, with regard to one who divides his eiruv, one might have said that the eiruv is not valid because he divided it up, thereby physically separating himself from the others. However there, with regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, one might say that his portion should not be considered as separated from the rest, since no act of separation was performed. Consequently, both rulings were necessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘讬 诪注爪专转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讝讻讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讞讜诇拽 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛驻转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讞 讘住诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讛讻讗 讚诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讞 讘住诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讛讻讗 讚诪讬


Rabbi Abba said to Rav Yehuda in the olive press in Rav Zakkai鈥檚 house: Did Shmuel actually say that in the case of one who divides his eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say elsewhere: The house in which the eiruv is placed need not contribute bread for the eiruv. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Is it not because Shmuel maintains that since there is bread lying in a basket somewhere in the house, it is regarded as if it were placed here with the rest of the eiruv? Here too, one should say that since the bread is placed in a basket, i.e., in one of the two utensils containing the eiruv, it is regarded as if it were placed here with the rest of the eiruv.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 讚讬讬专讬


Rav Yehuda said to him: There Shmuel validates the eiruv although there is no bread in the house in which the eiruv is deposited. And what is the reason for his ruling? It is because by placing food in a particular house, all the residents of the courtyard are regarded as living here. Therefore, those living in that house need not contribute bread for the eiruv, as they are certainly residents of the house.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 拽谞讬谉


Shmuel said: An eiruv that is deposited in a house is effective due to the principle of acquisition, as each person who contributes a portion of food acquires the right to a certain use of the residence and is considered one of its residents.


讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讘诪注讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转


And if you say: Why then can one not acquire this right through payment of a coin such as a ma鈥檃, but rather only through bread? It is because a ma鈥檃 is not always available on Shabbat eve, as many people spend all of their available money for the necessities of Shabbat, and it is difficult to find money available at that hour.


讛讬讻讗 讚注讬专讘 诪讬讛讜 诇拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: If so, according to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, in a case where he established an eiruv with money, it should nonetheless acquire, i.e., be valid. According to his opinion, there is no fundamental reason to invalidate the acquisition of rights in the residence through the payment of money, yet there is no indication that this position is valid.


讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪注讛 注讬拽专 讜讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪注讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜讘讬 讘驻转 讚讗转讬 注讬专讜讘 诇讗讬拽诇拽讜诇讬


The Gemara answers: Even Shmuel did not permit one to establish an eiruv with money, due to a decree lest people say that a ma鈥檃 is essential, and sometimes a ma鈥檃 will not be available, and they will not come to prepare an eiruv with bread, and the halakhic category of eiruv will be forgotten.


专讘讛 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讬专讛


Rabba disagreed with Shmuel and said: An eiruv is effective due to the principle of residence. Each person who contributes a portion of food is considered as if he resides, for that Shabbat, in the residence in which the food is deposited.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬


The Gemara asks: What is the practical, halakhic difference between these two understandings? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the question of whether an eiruv may be established with a utensil. If an eiruv is effective based on the principle of acquisition, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, then one should be able to establish an eiruv with a utensil; whereas, this would not constitute a valid eiruv, according to the opinion of Rabba.


讜驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


And another practical difference between them is with regard to whether an eiruv may be established with food that is less than the value of a peruta. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, this would not be a valid eiruv, as there is no acquisition with something less than the value of a peruta; whereas according to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, since an eiruv is effective by establishing a person鈥檚 residence, this can be done even with an amount of food worth less than a peruta.


讜拽讟谉


And there is another practical difference between them with regard to the question whether a minor may collect the eiruv from the residents of the courtyard and deposit it in one of the houses. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, this would not be a valid eiruv, for a minor cannot serve as an agent to effect acquisition, whereas according to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, the eiruv is valid, as the food itself establishes the common residence for all the residents.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖讛诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 诇讻讜诇谉 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讜转讜 诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚拽讗 讚讬讬专 讜转讜 诇讗


Abaye said to Rabba: It is difficult according to your opinion that an eiruv is effective based on the principle of residence, and it is difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel that it is effective based on the principle of acquisition. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to five people who collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere, in order to establish an eiruv together with another courtyard, one person may take it there for all of them. This indicates that it is only that person who acquires rights, and nobody else, and it is only that person who gains residence, and nobody else. In that case, how can the others rely on this eiruv?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 讜诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 砖诇讬讞讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 拽讗 注讘讬讚


Rabba said to him: It is neither difficult according to my opinion, nor is it difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel, as, the person who takes the eiruv acts as an agent, effecting acquisition or determining residence on behalf of all of them.


讗诪专 专讘讛 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:


With regard to the case of the three courtyards addressed above, Rabba said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that it is permitted to carry from the middle courtyard into either of the two outer ones; and vice versa, however, it is prohibited to carry from one outer courtyard to the other.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讜讛讬讛 诪讻讬专 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 转讞转讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


MISHNA: With regard to one who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling, and he was familiar with a tree or a fence located two thousand cubits from his current location, and two thousand cubits from his house, and he said: My residence is beneath that tree, rather than in his present location, he has not said anything, as he did not establish a fixed location as his residence.


砖讘讬转转讬 讘注讬拽专讜 诪讛诇讱 诪诪拽讜诐 专讙诇讬讜 讜注讚 注讬拽专讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪注讬拽专讜 讜注讚 讘讬转讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 谞诪爪讗 诪讛诇讱 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


If, however, he said: My residence is at the tree鈥檚 trunk, he acquired residence there, and he may therefore walk from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree two thousand cubits away, and from the trunk of the tree to his house, an additional two thousand cubits. Consequently, he walks after nightfall a total of four thousand cubits.


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讜讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讝讻讛 诇讜 诪拽讜诪讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞


If one is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, unaware that residence can be established from a distance, and he said: My residence is at my current location, then his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.


注讙讜诇讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪专讜讘注讜转 讻讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讛 谞砖讻专 诇讝讜讬讜转


The manner in which the two thousand cubits are measured is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. These cubits are measured circularly, i.e., as a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigenos. And the Rabbis say: These are measured squarely, i.e., as a square tablet, with each side measuring four thousand cubits, so that he gains the corners. He is permitted to walk from the middle to the corners of the square as well, a distance of approximately 2,800 cubits.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讛注谞讬 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讬 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:


And this is the meaning of that which the Sages said: The pauper establishes an eiruv with his feet, i.e., one who does not have the bread required to establish an eiruv may walk anywhere within his Shabbat limit and declare: This is my residence, and his Shabbat limit is measured from that location. Rabbi Meir said: We have this leniency in effect only for a pauper, who does not have food for two meals. However, one who has bread may only establish residence with bread. Rabbi Yehuda says: This leniency is in effect for both a pauper and a wealthy person. The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet. Instead, he can appoint an agent to place bread for him in that location. This, however, does not negate the option of personally going to that location in order to establish residence without bread.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one who declares his intention to establish residence beneath a tree, without specifying the precise location, has not said anything. The Gemara asks: What is the precise meaning of he has not said anything?


讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇


Rav said: He has not said anything at all, and has failed to establish residence anywhere, and he may not even go to the place beneath that tree. His failure to specify a particular location prevents him from establishing residence beneath the tree. The fact that he sought to establish residence someplace other than his present location prevents him from establishing residence at his present location. Accordingly, he may walk no more than four cubits from the place that he is standing.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诇讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 诇转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇


And Shmuel said: He has not said anything with regard to going to his home, if it is two thousand cubits past the tree; however, with regard to the area beneath the tree, if its bough is entirely within two thousand cubits of his present location he may indeed go there.


讜谞注砖讛 转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讞诪专 讙诪诇


And when we learned in the mishna that he did not establish residence, it means that the legal status of the area beneath the tree becomes comparable to both a donkey driver, who walks behind the animal and prods it, and a camel driver, who walks before the animal and leads it in the sense that the tree is pulling him in both directions. Since he did not specify a particular location as his residence, any part of the area beneath the tree could be the place where he established residence.


讘讗 诇诪讚讜讚 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讘讗 诇诪讚讜讚 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉


Therefore, if he comes to measure two thousand cubits from the north of the tree in order to ascertain whether or not he may go to his home, because of the uncertainty with regard to the precise location where he established residence, one measures the distance for him stringently from the south. And likewise, if he comes to measure the distance to his home from the south, one measures the distance for him from the north.


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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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...
alon shvut women

Shmuel vs Rav

Eruvin Daf 49 Regarding the case where their are 3 courtyards and alleyways between them - the Gemara looks at...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 49: The Moral Lesson of Eruv

The traits of Sodom. And other ways that eruvin may or may not take hold, but aren't really in the...
Weaving Wisdom

Distance, Cooperation and Coronavirus

Distance, Cooperation and Coronavirus On Erev Yom Kippur 2020, the Daf Yomi once more miraculously guides us in how to...

Eruvin 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 49

讗祝 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖转谉 讗住讜专讜转


This teaching, that carrying objects from either of the outer courtyards into the middle courtyard is permitted, is also the statement of, i.e., in accordance with, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But the Rabbis say: All three courtyards are prohibited, that is to say, carrying is prohibited from any of the courtyards to any of the others.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 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 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讝讜 诪讘讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讜讝讜 诪讘讬讗讛 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讝讜 诪讞讝专转 诪讜转专讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜讝讜 诪讞讝专转 诪讜转专讛 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讛


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable? It is comparable to three courtyards that open into one another, and that also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, a resident of one of the outer courtyards may bring food from a house in that courtyard and eat it in the middle courtyard, and likewise a resident of the other courtyard may bring food from a house in that courtyard and eat it in the middle courtyard. And similarly, this resident may bring leftovers from the house where he ate back into the house in that courtyard, and that resident may bring leftovers from the house where he ate back into the house in this courtyard.


讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇砖转谉 讗住讜专讜转


However, the Rabbis say: All three courtyards are prohibited. Since the residents of the outer courtyards are prohibited to carry from one outer courtyard to the other, this results in a place where carrying is prohibited, and such a place prohibits carrying in all three courtyards.


讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐


The Gemara notes that Shmuel follows his line of reasoning that he used elsewhere, as Shmuel said: With regard to a courtyard that is between two alleyways, if that courtyard established an eiruv with both alleyways, it is prohibited with both of them. Since the residents of the two alleyways are prohibited to carry from one to the other and the eiruv enables the residents of the two alleyways to carry in the courtyard, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard into the alleyways, so that the residents of the alleyways do not transfer objects from one alleyway to the other via the courtyard.


诇讗 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讜住专转 注诇 砖谞讬讛谉


If the courtyard did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, it prohibits one to carry in both of them. Since the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing both alleyways and did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, the result is that each alleyway has a courtyard that did not establish an eiruv, which prohibits carrying from the courtyard into either alleyway.


讛讬转讛 讘讗讞讚 专讙讬诇讛 讜讘讗讞讚 讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讝讛 砖专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 讗住讜专 讜讝讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 诪讜转专


If, however, the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing only one alleyway, while they are not accustomed to utilizing one alleyway, then with regard to the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, it is prohibited to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard did not establish an eiruv with it. But with regard to the alleyway which they are not accustomed to utilizing, it is permitted to carry there, as the residents of the courtyard are not considered residents of that alleyway.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专讘讛 注诐 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 讛讜转专 专讙讬诇讛 诇注爪诪讜


Rabba bar Rav Huna said: With regard to residents of a courtyard who established an eiruv with the alleyway which they were not accustomed to utilizing, the alleyway which they were accustomed to utilizing is permitted to establish an eiruv on its own without the courtyard. The residents of the courtyard have demonstrated their intention to use the other alleyway, despite their not being accustomed to doing so.


讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 注讬专讘讛 专讙讬诇讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜 诇讗 注讬专讘 讜讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讚讜讞讬谉 讗讜转讛 讗爪诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讙讬诇讛 讘讜


And Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: If the alleyway which the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing established an eiruv on its own without the courtyard, while the alleyway which they were not accustomed to utilizing did not establish an eiruv, and also the courtyard itself did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, we divert the residents of the courtyard to use the alleyway which they are not accustomed to utilizing. This is because there is one alleyway in which it is prohibited to carry due to the lack of an eiruv, and a second alleyway in which it is permitted to carry; while it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry. As explained above, were they to utilize the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, the other residents of the alleyway would also be prohibited to carry from their courtyards into the alleyway, despite having established an eiruv for their own alleyway. However, if they use the other alleyway, the residents of that alleyway will not lose anything; since they did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited for them to carry in that alleyway regardless.


讜讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐


In a case such as this, one compels another to refrain from behavior characteristic of Sodom. We force a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. If one denies another use of his possessions, even though he would incur no loss or damage by granting use of his property, his conduct is considered to be characteristic of Sodom. The courts may sometimes compel such a person to waive his legal rights.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪拽驻讬讚 注诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讛 砖诪讜 注讬专讜讘 砖诪讜


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, i.e., that the other people should not eat of the food he contributed, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. After all, what is its name? Joining [eiruv] is its name, indicating that it must be jointly owned [me鈥檜rav] by all the participants in the eiruv. If one person does not allow the other participants to eat of it, it does not belong to all of them and cannot be called an eiruv.


专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗 诪讗谞砖讬 讜专讚讬谞讗


Rabbi 岣nina said: Even in that case, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, however, that person is called one of the men of Vardina. The men of Vardina were renowned misers, meaning that he is considered to be like them.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讞讜诇拽 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘


Rav Yehuda also said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who divides his eiruv into two parts, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. This is for the aforementioned reason that, by definition, an eiruv needs to be indicative of joining, and this eiruv is separated into different parts.


讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讝讛 注讬专讜讘 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 注讬专讜讘


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Shmuel state this teaching? Could it be in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to five people who collected their eiruv and placed it in two separate utensils, Beit Shammai say: This is not a valid eiruv, whereas Beit Hillel say: This is an eiruv. It does not stand to reason that Shmuel would follow Beit Shammai, whose opinion is not accepted as normative law.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪诇讬讬谉 诇诪谞讗 讜讗讬讬转专 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚驻诇讙讬讛 诪讬驻诇讙 诇讗


The Gemara answers: Even if you say that Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, Beit Hillel stated their opinion only there, where the first utensil was filled and there was still some food left over, and therefore, some of the leftover food had to be placed in a second utensil. But where they divided it from the outset, even Beit Hillel agree that the eiruv is not valid.


讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚拽驻讬讚 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara asks: Why do I need two rulings that are based on the same principle, i.e., that an eiruv must demonstrate joining? The Gemara answers: Both rulings were necessary. As, had the Gemara taught us the ruling only there, with regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, one might have said that the eiruv is not valid because the person is particular and expressly does not desire that his eiruv be eaten by others. However here, with regard to one who divides the eiruv into different parts, one might say that his portion should not be considered as separated from the rest.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻诇讙讬讛 诪讬驻诇讙 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And had the Gemara taught us the ruling only here, with regard to one who divides his eiruv, one might have said that the eiruv is not valid because he divided it up, thereby physically separating himself from the others. However there, with regard to one who is particular about his eiruv, one might say that his portion should not be considered as separated from the rest, since no act of separation was performed. Consequently, both rulings were necessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘讬 诪注爪专转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讝讻讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讞讜诇拽 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛驻转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讞 讘住诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讛讻讗 讚诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讞 讘住诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讛讻讗 讚诪讬


Rabbi Abba said to Rav Yehuda in the olive press in Rav Zakkai鈥檚 house: Did Shmuel actually say that in the case of one who divides his eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv? Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say elsewhere: The house in which the eiruv is placed need not contribute bread for the eiruv. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Is it not because Shmuel maintains that since there is bread lying in a basket somewhere in the house, it is regarded as if it were placed here with the rest of the eiruv? Here too, one should say that since the bread is placed in a basket, i.e., in one of the two utensils containing the eiruv, it is regarded as if it were placed here with the rest of the eiruv.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讛讻讗 讚讬讬专讬


Rav Yehuda said to him: There Shmuel validates the eiruv although there is no bread in the house in which the eiruv is deposited. And what is the reason for his ruling? It is because by placing food in a particular house, all the residents of the courtyard are regarded as living here. Therefore, those living in that house need not contribute bread for the eiruv, as they are certainly residents of the house.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 拽谞讬谉


Shmuel said: An eiruv that is deposited in a house is effective due to the principle of acquisition, as each person who contributes a portion of food acquires the right to a certain use of the residence and is considered one of its residents.


讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 拽讜谞讬谉 讘诪注讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转


And if you say: Why then can one not acquire this right through payment of a coin such as a ma鈥檃, but rather only through bread? It is because a ma鈥檃 is not always available on Shabbat eve, as many people spend all of their available money for the necessities of Shabbat, and it is difficult to find money available at that hour.


讛讬讻讗 讚注讬专讘 诪讬讛讜 诇拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: If so, according to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, in a case where he established an eiruv with money, it should nonetheless acquire, i.e., be valid. According to his opinion, there is no fundamental reason to invalidate the acquisition of rights in the residence through the payment of money, yet there is no indication that this position is valid.


讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪注讛 注讬拽专 讜讝诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诪注讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬注专讜讘讬 讘驻转 讚讗转讬 注讬专讜讘 诇讗讬拽诇拽讜诇讬


The Gemara answers: Even Shmuel did not permit one to establish an eiruv with money, due to a decree lest people say that a ma鈥檃 is essential, and sometimes a ma鈥檃 will not be available, and they will not come to prepare an eiruv with bread, and the halakhic category of eiruv will be forgotten.


专讘讛 讗诪专 注讬专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讬专讛


Rabba disagreed with Shmuel and said: An eiruv is effective due to the principle of residence. Each person who contributes a portion of food is considered as if he resides, for that Shabbat, in the residence in which the food is deposited.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讬


The Gemara asks: What is the practical, halakhic difference between these two understandings? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the question of whether an eiruv may be established with a utensil. If an eiruv is effective based on the principle of acquisition, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, then one should be able to establish an eiruv with a utensil; whereas, this would not constitute a valid eiruv, according to the opinion of Rabba.


讜驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛


And another practical difference between them is with regard to whether an eiruv may be established with food that is less than the value of a peruta. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, this would not be a valid eiruv, as there is no acquisition with something less than the value of a peruta; whereas according to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, since an eiruv is effective by establishing a person鈥檚 residence, this can be done even with an amount of food worth less than a peruta.


讜拽讟谉


And there is another practical difference between them with regard to the question whether a minor may collect the eiruv from the residents of the courtyard and deposit it in one of the houses. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, this would not be a valid eiruv, for a minor cannot serve as an agent to effect acquisition, whereas according to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, the eiruv is valid, as the food itself establishes the common residence for all the residents.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖讛诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讞讚 诪讜诇讬讱 诇讻讜诇谉 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚拽讗 拽谞讬 讜转讜 诇讗 讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 讚拽讗 讚讬讬专 讜转讜 诇讗


Abaye said to Rabba: It is difficult according to your opinion that an eiruv is effective based on the principle of residence, and it is difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel that it is effective based on the principle of acquisition. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to five people who collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere, in order to establish an eiruv together with another courtyard, one person may take it there for all of them. This indicates that it is only that person who acquires rights, and nobody else, and it is only that person who gains residence, and nobody else. In that case, how can the others rely on this eiruv?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 讜诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 砖诇讬讞讜转 讚讻讜诇讛讜 拽讗 注讘讬讚


Rabba said to him: It is neither difficult according to my opinion, nor is it difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel, as, the person who takes the eiruv acts as an agent, effecting acquisition or determining residence on behalf of all of them.


讗诪专 专讘讛 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:


With regard to the case of the three courtyards addressed above, Rabba said that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that it is permitted to carry from the middle courtyard into either of the two outer ones; and vice versa, however, it is prohibited to carry from one outer courtyard to the other.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讜讛讬讛 诪讻讬专 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讜讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 转讞转讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


MISHNA: With regard to one who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling, and he was familiar with a tree or a fence located two thousand cubits from his current location, and two thousand cubits from his house, and he said: My residence is beneath that tree, rather than in his present location, he has not said anything, as he did not establish a fixed location as his residence.


砖讘讬转转讬 讘注讬拽专讜 诪讛诇讱 诪诪拽讜诐 专讙诇讬讜 讜注讚 注讬拽专讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诪注讬拽专讜 讜注讚 讘讬转讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 谞诪爪讗 诪讛诇讱 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 讗专讘注转 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


If, however, he said: My residence is at the tree鈥檚 trunk, he acquired residence there, and he may therefore walk from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree two thousand cubits away, and from the trunk of the tree to his house, an additional two thousand cubits. Consequently, he walks after nightfall a total of four thousand cubits.


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讜讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讝讻讛 诇讜 诪拽讜诪讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞


If one is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, unaware that residence can be established from a distance, and he said: My residence is at my current location, then his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.


注讙讜诇讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪专讜讘注讜转 讻讟讘诇讗 诪专讜讘注转 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讬讛 谞砖讻专 诇讝讜讬讜转


The manner in which the two thousand cubits are measured is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. These cubits are measured circularly, i.e., as a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigenos. And the Rabbis say: These are measured squarely, i.e., as a square tablet, with each side measuring four thousand cubits, so that he gains the corners. He is permitted to walk from the middle to the corners of the square as well, a distance of approximately 2,800 cubits.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 讛注谞讬 诪注专讘 讘专讙诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讬 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:


And this is the meaning of that which the Sages said: The pauper establishes an eiruv with his feet, i.e., one who does not have the bread required to establish an eiruv may walk anywhere within his Shabbat limit and declare: This is my residence, and his Shabbat limit is measured from that location. Rabbi Meir said: We have this leniency in effect only for a pauper, who does not have food for two meals. However, one who has bread may only establish residence with bread. Rabbi Yehuda says: This leniency is in effect for both a pauper and a wealthy person. The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv with his feet. Instead, he can appoint an agent to place bread for him in that location. This, however, does not negate the option of personally going to that location in order to establish residence without bread.


讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one who declares his intention to establish residence beneath a tree, without specifying the precise location, has not said anything. The Gemara asks: What is the precise meaning of he has not said anything?


讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讻诇 注讬拽专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇


Rav said: He has not said anything at all, and has failed to establish residence anywhere, and he may not even go to the place beneath that tree. His failure to specify a particular location prevents him from establishing residence beneath the tree. The fact that he sought to establish residence someplace other than his present location prevents him from establishing residence at his present location. Accordingly, he may walk no more than four cubits from the place that he is standing.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诇讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 诇转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇


And Shmuel said: He has not said anything with regard to going to his home, if it is two thousand cubits past the tree; however, with regard to the area beneath the tree, if its bough is entirely within two thousand cubits of his present location he may indeed go there.


讜谞注砖讛 转讞转讬讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 讞诪专 讙诪诇


And when we learned in the mishna that he did not establish residence, it means that the legal status of the area beneath the tree becomes comparable to both a donkey driver, who walks behind the animal and prods it, and a camel driver, who walks before the animal and leads it in the sense that the tree is pulling him in both directions. Since he did not specify a particular location as his residence, any part of the area beneath the tree could be the place where he established residence.


讘讗 诇诪讚讜讚 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 讘讗 诇诪讚讜讚 诪谉 讛讚专讜诐 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讜 诪谉 讛爪驻讜谉


Therefore, if he comes to measure two thousand cubits from the north of the tree in order to ascertain whether or not he may go to his home, because of the uncertainty with regard to the precise location where he established residence, one measures the distance for him stringently from the south. And likewise, if he comes to measure the distance to his home from the south, one measures the distance for him from the north.


Scroll To Top