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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 28, 2020 | 讬壮 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 50

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Marvin Stokar, a”h Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi on his first yahrzeit (Yom Kippur). Marvin was dedicated to his family and his learning, and was so proud of completing the Daf Yomi cycle. Like the postal service, he let nothing stand in his way! We miss our honorary Zaidy Marvin so much. May our learning be a zechut for him and 转讘讚诇 诇讞讬讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 our precious Bubby Fran. And by Tova Kestenbaum in memory of her grandfather Refael Zeev ben Yisrael and Esther Feigel a鈥漢 who passed away during Neilah, Yom Kippur 5733. He, together with my grandmother,聽sacrificed so much to keep Shabbat, and to ensure that their children had a Torah education. They would be so proud to see so many generations continuing to make Torah values and study a part of their daily lives.

The gemara brings two versions of Raba explaining why Rav thinks that one who says 鈥渕y shvita will be under a tree鈥 didn鈥檛 succeed in doing anything. The second explanation is questioned based on a number of sources 鈥 from laws of tithing produce, animal tithes and the forty loaves of the thanksgiving offering. How wide is the space under the tree in the case of the mishna 鈥 12 cubits or 8? Two braitot are brought 鈥 one which supports Rav and one which supports Shmuel.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛

Rabba said: What is the reason for Rav鈥檚 statement that one who declares his intention to establish residence beneath a tree has said nothing at all? It is because the place he designated is not precisely defined. Since he did not establish his residence in one particular location, he did not establish it at all.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜

And some say an alternative version of Rabba鈥檚 statement. Rabba said: What is the reason for the statement of Rav? It is Because he maintains: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially, due to halakhic or practical considerations, even simultaneously, cannot be accomplished, as one negates the other. In this case, since one cannot establish residence in an area of four cubits on one side of a tree and proceed to establish residence in an area of four cubits on the other side of the tree, neither can he simultaneously establish residence beneath a tree greater than four cubits.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽谞讜 诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讙讜 砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions of Rabba鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where he said: Let residence be acquired for me in four cubits of the eight or more cubits beneath that tree.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛

According to the one who said that it is because the place he designated is not precisely defined, here too, the place he designated is not precisely defined, as he failed to specify the precise location of the four cubits in which to establish his residence.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 讚讛讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专

And according to the one who said it is because anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished, this is considered as if he established his residence in four cubits, as here he stated that he is designated only four cubits as his place of residence.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讛诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter of Rabba鈥檚 statement itself. Rabba said: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished. Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba based on the Tosefta: One who increases tithes, i.e., he tithes two-tenths instead of one-tenth, the remainder of his produce is rendered fit for consumption, as he properly tithed it; however, his tithes are ruined, as the additional tenth is neither a tithe nor is it tithed produce. It is not a tithe because tithe status applies only to one tenth, and neither is it tithed produce as it was not tithed. Since it is unclear which of the two-tenths is the actual tithe and which is not, this produce may neither be treated as a tithe nor as tithed produce.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜

According to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, the question arises: Why should the produce be rendered fit for consumption? Let us say and apply his principle: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially; even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished. Since one may not designate two tenths sequentially, one tenth followed by a second tenth, likewise, he should be precluded from simultaneously designating two tenths of his produce as a tithe. Accordingly, it should be considered as though he had not designated any tithe at all, and therefore his produce should not be regarded as tithed.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚讗讬 讗诪专 转拽讚讜砖 驻诇讙讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讞讬讟转讗 拽讚砖讛

Gemara answers: The case of a tithe is different, as tithe status takes effect partially, i.e., on less than a unit of produce. As if one said: Let half of each grain of wheat be designated as tithed, it is designated. Just as one can designate an entire grain of wheat as a tithe, he can likewise designate half a grain. In this case too, when one tithes two tenths of the produce, the ruling is not that one tenth is actual tithe and the other tenth is untithed produce mixed with the tithe. Instead, half of each grain of the set-aside portion is designated as a tithe, while the other half of each grain is not. Accordingly, the remainder of the produce is tithed, as one tenth of the total has been designated as first tithe. However, the portion designated as the tithe is ruined, because it is impossible to identify which part of each grain is designated.

诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Another objection was raised against Rabba鈥檚 opinion: Yet there is the case of the animal tithe, which does take effect partially, as one cannot consecrate half an animal for his tithe. Three times a year, the owner of a herd of kosher animals would gather all the animals born during the preceding period into an enclosure and let them out one by one. Every tenth animal would be marked with red paint to indicate that it was sacred. Only an entire animal could be consecrated as animal tithe, not a part of an animal.

讜讗诪专 (专讘讛) 讬爪讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讘注砖讬专讬 讜拽专讗谉 注砖讬专讬 注砖讬专讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

And Rabba said: If two animals emerged from the enclosure together as the tenth, and he designated them both as the tenth, the tenth and eleventh animals are intermingled with each other. One is sacred with the sanctity of the animal tithe, while the other remains a peace-offering, but there is no way to determine which is which. The question arises: If the principle that anything which cannot be accomplished sequentially; even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished applies, neither animal is consecrated, as one cannot designate both the tenth and the eleventh animals as the animal tithe, one after the other.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讟注讜转

The Gemara answers: The animal tithe is different, as two animals can indeed be designated as animal tithe one after the other in the case of an error. Although one cannot designate the tenth and eleventh animals as the animal tithe ab initio, if he did so in error they are both consecrated.

讚转谞谉 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖诇砖转谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬谉

As we learned in a mishna: If one erred and designated the ninth animal as the tenth, and erred again and designated the tenth as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth, all three animals are consecrated. The first is consecrated because it was designated as the tenth, the second because it actually is the tenth, while the third is also consecrated because it was designated as the tenth. Apparently, more than one animal can be consecrated as the animal tithe, if designated in error. Here too, a modicum of sanctity applies to the two animals that emerged together and were together designated as the tenth.

讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讬转讛 讘讟注讜转 讜诇讬转讛 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讗讬转诪专 转讜讚讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 注诇 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讞诇讜转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 注诇讛 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 注诇讛 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection to Rabba鈥檚 principle. But there is the case of the forty loaves that accompany a thanks-offering, which are not consecrated if they were designated in error, and likewise are not consecrated if two sets of loaves were designated for the same offering one after the other. And yet it is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a thanks-offering that was slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves, twice the required amount. 岣zkiya said: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, even though their identity cannot be determined; Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated. It would appear that these amora鈥檌m disagree whether or not sanctity that cannot take effect in sequence can take effect simultaneously.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 (讝讬专讗) 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖讬 诇讗 讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讚砖讜 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讜

The Gemara rejects this contention. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira said: Everyone, both 岣zkiya and Rabbi Yo岣nan, concedes that in a case where the donor said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that the forty are consecrated; and in a case where he said: Let forty loaves only be consecrated if all eighty are consecrated, everyone agrees that they are not consecrated. This is in accordance with Rabba鈥檚 opinion.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住转诪讗 诪专 住讘专 诇讗讞专讬讜转 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜注诇 转谞讗讬 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜

When 岣zkiya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree is with regard a case where the donor designated eighty loaves without stipulation how many he wants consecrated. One Sage, 岣zkiya, maintains: Although he designated eighty loaves, he seeks to consecrate only forty, and when he sets aside eighty loaves, he merely intends to ensure that he will have forty, and he therefore brought the extra loaves on condition that if the first forty loaves are lost or become ritually impure, the second forty will be consecrated in their place. Consequently, the first forty loaves are consecrated.

讜诪专 住讘专 诇拽专讘谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

And the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, maintains: He intends to bring a large offering of eighty loaves, and therefore none of the loaves are consecrated.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讛专讬 诪拽爪转 讘讬转讜 谞讬讻专

Abaye said: They only taught Rav鈥檚 ruling that one cannot establish residence beneath a tree without precisely defining a particular location, with regard to a tree beneath which there are at least twelve cubits. However, with regard to a tree beneath which there are not twelve cubits, he can establish residence there, as at least part of his residence is conspicuous. In that case, there is a partial overlap between the middle four cubits beneath the tree and the four cubits nearest him and the four cubits farthest from him, and consequently each necessarily contains at least part of his residence.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗专讘注讬 诪爪讬注转讗 拽讗 诪住讬讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讘讗专讘注讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 拽诪住讬讬诐

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, strongly objects to this: From where is it ascertained that he designates his residence in the four middle cubits, so that there is a partial overlap with both the nearest and the farthest cubits; perhaps he designates it in the four cubits on this side or in the four cubits on the other side? Since he does not know which location he designated as his residence, he did not establish residence anywhere beneath the tree.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖讘注 讗诪讜转 讛专讬 诪拽爪转 讘讬转讜 谞讬讻专

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Abaye鈥檚 statement must be emended. They taught this only with regard to a tree that has at least eight cubits beneath it. However, with regard to a tree that has only seven cubits beneath it, even if one did not establish a particular location, he acquires residence, as at least part of his residence is conspicuous, as any four cubits must include at least one cubit of his residence.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

With regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara notes that one baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav and another baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 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 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛

The Gemara elaborates. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav: 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 within two thousand cubits of his current location, and he said: My residence is beneath that tree, he has not said anything of legal consequence. However, if he said: My residence is in such-and-such place, he walks until he reaches that place. Once he reached that place that he established as his residence, he walks through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐

In what case are these matters, that he establishes four cubits as his residence, and another two thousand cubits in each direction, stated? In a case where he selected a well-defined, clearly demarcated place, i.e., a case where he established residence on a mound ten handbreadths high, and its area ranges from a minimum of four cubits to a maximum of two beit se鈥檃.

讜讻谉 讘拽注讛 砖讛讬讗 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜讬讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And, likewise, that is the halakha when he establishes residence on a plain ten handbreadths deeper than the surrounding area, and its area ranges from a minimum of four cubits to a maximum of two beit se鈥檃. However, if he selected a place that is not defined, e.g., in the middle of a plain, he does not establish residence, and accordingly he has only four cubits in which to move.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讻讬专 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诪讜住专 砖讘讬转转讜 诇诪讻讬专 讜讛诪讻讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

If two people were walking together, one of whom is familiar with a particular location in the distance, and one of whom is not familiar with it, the one who is not familiar with it entrusts his right to designate his residence to the one who is familiar with it, and the one who is familiar with it says: My residence is in such-and-such place.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖拽讘注 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖拽讘注 诇讗 讬讝讜讝 诪诪拽讜诪讜

In what case are these matters, that he acquires four cubits as his residence and another two thousand cubits in each direction, stated? In a case where he defined the four cubits that he seeks to establish as his residence. However, if he did not define the four cubits that he seeks to establish as his residence, he may not move from his current place, as neither did he seek to establish residence there, nor did he acquire it in the location he sought to establish residence. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that one who fails to designate the four cubits he seeks to establish as residence has no residence at all.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪拽讜诐 专讙诇讬讜 讜注讚 注讬拽专讜 转专讬 讗诇驻讬 讜讗专讘注 讙专诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讜拽诪讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗讬诇谉 拽诐 诇讬讛 诇讘专 诪转讞讜诪讗

Gemara poses a question: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers: There is no difficulty, as Shmuel could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a special case, where from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree there is a distance of two thousand and four cubits, so that if you were to establish residence on the other side of the tree, it would be situated outside his Shabbat limit.

讗讬 住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇

Consequently, if he designated his four cubits on the near side of the tree he may go there; and if not, he may not go from the place he is standing. In other words, since he did not establish residence in a particular location, the concern is that he sought to establish it beyond his two thousand cubit limit.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讟注讛 讜注讬专讘 诇砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 诇砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇注讘讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜注专讘讜 诇讬 讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 诪讛诇讱 诇爪驻讜谉 讻注讬专讜讘讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讻注讬专讜讘讜 诇爪驻讜谉

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. If one erred and established an eiruv in two directions at once, for example, if in his ignorance he imagined that it is permitted to establish an eiruv in two directions, that he may extend the distance that he may walk on Shabbat in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants: Go out and establish an eiruv for me, without specifying the direction, and one established an eiruv for him to the north, and one established an eiruv for him to the south, he may walk to the north as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the south, and he may walk to the south as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the north. In other words, the assumption is that he established residence in both directions based on the eiruv in each direction, and he must therefore take both into consideration before moving.

讜讗诐 诪讬爪注讜 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转讞讜诐 诇讗 讬讝讜讝 诪诪拽讜诪讜

And consequently, if each eiruv was placed two thousand cubits in opposite directions placing him in the middle of the limit, he may not move from his current location, as it is prohibited to venture beyond either limit. Apparently, even if one did not establish residence in a particular location, as in this case he has acquired residence in both places, nonetheless, the halakha is that residence has been established in his current location, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 专讘 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙:

The Gemara poses a question: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: This baraita indeed differs with Rav鈥檚 ruling. Nevertheless, his opinion is not disqualified, as Rav himself had tanna status and therefore, unlike later amora鈥檌m, could disagree with opinions of tanna鈥檌m.

讗诪专 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 诇讘讬转讜 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:

We learned in the mishna that if, however, he said: My residence is at the trunk of the tree, he established residence there, and he may walk from the place that he is standing to the trunk of the tree, up to two thousand cubits, and from the trunk of the tree to his house another two thousand cubits. Ultimately, he may walk after nightfall a total distance of four thousand cubits.

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...
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 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 50

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛

Rabba said: What is the reason for Rav鈥檚 statement that one who declares his intention to establish residence beneath a tree has said nothing at all? It is because the place he designated is not precisely defined. Since he did not establish his residence in one particular location, he did not establish it at all.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜

And some say an alternative version of Rabba鈥檚 statement. Rabba said: What is the reason for the statement of Rav? It is Because he maintains: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially, due to halakhic or practical considerations, even simultaneously, cannot be accomplished, as one negates the other. In this case, since one cannot establish residence in an area of four cubits on one side of a tree and proceed to establish residence in an area of four cubits on the other side of the tree, neither can he simultaneously establish residence beneath a tree greater than four cubits.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽谞讜 诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讙讜 砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions of Rabba鈥檚 statement? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a case where he said: Let residence be acquired for me in four cubits of the eight or more cubits beneath that tree.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪住讬讬诐 讗转专讬讛

According to the one who said that it is because the place he designated is not precisely defined, here too, the place he designated is not precisely defined, as he failed to specify the precise location of the four cubits in which to establish his residence.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讻讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚诪讬 讚讛讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 拽讗诪专

And according to the one who said it is because anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished, this is considered as if he established his residence in four cubits, as here he stated that he is designated only four cubits as his place of residence.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讛诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter of Rabba鈥檚 statement itself. Rabba said: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished. Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba based on the Tosefta: One who increases tithes, i.e., he tithes two-tenths instead of one-tenth, the remainder of his produce is rendered fit for consumption, as he properly tithed it; however, his tithes are ruined, as the additional tenth is neither a tithe nor is it tithed produce. It is not a tithe because tithe status applies only to one tenth, and neither is it tithed produce as it was not tithed. Since it is unclear which of the two-tenths is the actual tithe and which is not, this produce may neither be treated as a tithe nor as tithed produce.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜

According to Rabba鈥檚 opinion, the question arises: Why should the produce be rendered fit for consumption? Let us say and apply his principle: Anything that cannot be accomplished sequentially; even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished. Since one may not designate two tenths sequentially, one tenth followed by a second tenth, likewise, he should be precluded from simultaneously designating two tenths of his produce as a tithe. Accordingly, it should be considered as though he had not designated any tithe at all, and therefore his produce should not be regarded as tithed.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚讗讬 讗诪专 转拽讚讜砖 驻诇讙讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讞讬讟转讗 拽讚砖讛

Gemara answers: The case of a tithe is different, as tithe status takes effect partially, i.e., on less than a unit of produce. As if one said: Let half of each grain of wheat be designated as tithed, it is designated. Just as one can designate an entire grain of wheat as a tithe, he can likewise designate half a grain. In this case too, when one tithes two tenths of the produce, the ruling is not that one tenth is actual tithe and the other tenth is untithed produce mixed with the tithe. Instead, half of each grain of the set-aside portion is designated as a tithe, while the other half of each grain is not. Accordingly, the remainder of the produce is tithed, as one tenth of the total has been designated as first tithe. However, the portion designated as the tithe is ruined, because it is impossible to identify which part of each grain is designated.

诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Another objection was raised against Rabba鈥檚 opinion: Yet there is the case of the animal tithe, which does take effect partially, as one cannot consecrate half an animal for his tithe. Three times a year, the owner of a herd of kosher animals would gather all the animals born during the preceding period into an enclosure and let them out one by one. Every tenth animal would be marked with red paint to indicate that it was sacred. Only an entire animal could be consecrated as animal tithe, not a part of an animal.

讜讗诪专 (专讘讛) 讬爪讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讘注砖讬专讬 讜拽专讗谉 注砖讬专讬 注砖讬专讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖专 诪注讜专讘讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

And Rabba said: If two animals emerged from the enclosure together as the tenth, and he designated them both as the tenth, the tenth and eleventh animals are intermingled with each other. One is sacred with the sanctity of the animal tithe, while the other remains a peace-offering, but there is no way to determine which is which. The question arises: If the principle that anything which cannot be accomplished sequentially; even simultaneously it cannot be accomplished applies, neither animal is consecrated, as one cannot designate both the tenth and the eleventh animals as the animal tithe, one after the other.

砖讗谞讬 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讟注讜转

The Gemara answers: The animal tithe is different, as two animals can indeed be designated as animal tithe one after the other in the case of an error. Although one cannot designate the tenth and eleventh animals as the animal tithe ab initio, if he did so in error they are both consecrated.

讚转谞谉 拽专讗 诇转砖讬注讬 注砖讬专讬 讜诇注砖讬专讬 转砖讬注讬 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 注砖讬专讬 砖诇砖转谉 诪拽讜讚砖讬谉

As we learned in a mishna: If one erred and designated the ninth animal as the tenth, and erred again and designated the tenth as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth, all three animals are consecrated. The first is consecrated because it was designated as the tenth, the second because it actually is the tenth, while the third is also consecrated because it was designated as the tenth. Apparently, more than one animal can be consecrated as the animal tithe, if designated in error. Here too, a modicum of sanctity applies to the two animals that emerged together and were together designated as the tenth.

讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讬转讛 讘讟注讜转 讜诇讬转讛 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讗讬转诪专 转讜讚讛 砖谞砖讞讟讛 注诇 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讞诇讜转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 注诇讛 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 注诇讛 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection to Rabba鈥檚 principle. But there is the case of the forty loaves that accompany a thanks-offering, which are not consecrated if they were designated in error, and likewise are not consecrated if two sets of loaves were designated for the same offering one after the other. And yet it is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a thanks-offering that was slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves, twice the required amount. 岣zkiya said: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, even though their identity cannot be determined; Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated. It would appear that these amora鈥檌m disagree whether or not sanctity that cannot take effect in sequence can take effect simultaneously.

讛讗 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 (讝讬专讗) 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖讬 诇讗 讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽讚砖讜 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讜

The Gemara rejects this contention. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira said: Everyone, both 岣zkiya and Rabbi Yo岣nan, concedes that in a case where the donor said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that the forty are consecrated; and in a case where he said: Let forty loaves only be consecrated if all eighty are consecrated, everyone agrees that they are not consecrated. This is in accordance with Rabba鈥檚 opinion.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘住转诪讗 诪专 住讘专 诇讗讞专讬讜转 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜注诇 转谞讗讬 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜

When 岣zkiya and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree is with regard a case where the donor designated eighty loaves without stipulation how many he wants consecrated. One Sage, 岣zkiya, maintains: Although he designated eighty loaves, he seeks to consecrate only forty, and when he sets aside eighty loaves, he merely intends to ensure that he will have forty, and he therefore brought the extra loaves on condition that if the first forty loaves are lost or become ritually impure, the second forty will be consecrated in their place. Consequently, the first forty loaves are consecrated.

讜诪专 住讘专 诇拽专讘谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

And the other Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, maintains: He intends to bring a large offering of eighty loaves, and therefore none of the loaves are consecrated.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讛专讬 诪拽爪转 讘讬转讜 谞讬讻专

Abaye said: They only taught Rav鈥檚 ruling that one cannot establish residence beneath a tree without precisely defining a particular location, with regard to a tree beneath which there are at least twelve cubits. However, with regard to a tree beneath which there are not twelve cubits, he can establish residence there, as at least part of his residence is conspicuous. In that case, there is a partial overlap between the middle four cubits beneath the tree and the four cubits nearest him and the four cubits farthest from him, and consequently each necessarily contains at least part of his residence.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讗专讘注讬 诪爪讬注转讗 拽讗 诪住讬讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘讗专讘注讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讘讗专讘注讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 拽诪住讬讬诐

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, strongly objects to this: From where is it ascertained that he designates his residence in the four middle cubits, so that there is a partial overlap with both the nearest and the farthest cubits; perhaps he designates it in the four cubits on this side or in the four cubits on the other side? Since he does not know which location he designated as his residence, he did not establish residence anywhere beneath the tree.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诇谉 砖转讞转讬讜 砖讘注 讗诪讜转 讛专讬 诪拽爪转 讘讬转讜 谞讬讻专

Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Abaye鈥檚 statement must be emended. They taught this only with regard to a tree that has at least eight cubits beneath it. However, with regard to a tree that has only seven cubits beneath it, even if one did not establish a particular location, he acquires residence, as at least part of his residence is conspicuous, as any four cubits must include at least one cubit of his residence.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

With regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara notes that one baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav and another baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 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 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 讛讙讬注 诇讗讜转讜 诪拽讜诐 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讜 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛

The Gemara elaborates. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav: 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 within two thousand cubits of his current location, and he said: My residence is beneath that tree, he has not said anything of legal consequence. However, if he said: My residence is in such-and-such place, he walks until he reaches that place. Once he reached that place that he established as his residence, he walks through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讛诪住讜讬讬诐 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讘转 讘转诇 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐

In what case are these matters, that he establishes four cubits as his residence, and another two thousand cubits in each direction, stated? In a case where he selected a well-defined, clearly demarcated place, i.e., a case where he established residence on a mound ten handbreadths high, and its area ranges from a minimum of four cubits to a maximum of two beit se鈥檃.

讜讻谉 讘拽注讛 砖讛讬讗 注诪讜拽讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讬讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪住讜讬讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And, likewise, that is the halakha when he establishes residence on a plain ten handbreadths deeper than the surrounding area, and its area ranges from a minimum of four cubits to a maximum of two beit se鈥檃. However, if he selected a place that is not defined, e.g., in the middle of a plain, he does not establish residence, and accordingly he has only four cubits in which to move.

讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讻讬专 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讝讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 诪讜住专 砖讘讬转转讜 诇诪讻讬专 讜讛诪讻讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

If two people were walking together, one of whom is familiar with a particular location in the distance, and one of whom is not familiar with it, the one who is not familiar with it entrusts his right to designate his residence to the one who is familiar with it, and the one who is familiar with it says: My residence is in such-and-such place.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖拽讘注 讗讘诇 诇讗 住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖拽讘注 诇讗 讬讝讜讝 诪诪拽讜诪讜

In what case are these matters, that he acquires four cubits as his residence and another two thousand cubits in each direction, stated? In a case where he defined the four cubits that he seeks to establish as his residence. However, if he did not define the four cubits that he seeks to establish as his residence, he may not move from his current place, as neither did he seek to establish residence there, nor did he acquire it in the location he sought to establish residence. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that one who fails to designate the four cubits he seeks to establish as residence has no residence at all.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪拽讜诐 专讙诇讬讜 讜注讚 注讬拽专讜 转专讬 讗诇驻讬 讜讗专讘注 讙专诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讜拽诪讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗讬诇谉 拽诐 诇讬讛 诇讘专 诪转讞讜诪讗

Gemara poses a question: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers: There is no difficulty, as Shmuel could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a special case, where from the place he is standing to the trunk of the tree there is a distance of two thousand and four cubits, so that if you were to establish residence on the other side of the tree, it would be situated outside his Shabbat limit.

讗讬 住讬讬诐 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇

Consequently, if he designated his four cubits on the near side of the tree he may go there; and if not, he may not go from the place he is standing. In other words, since he did not establish residence in a particular location, the concern is that he sought to establish it beyond his two thousand cubit limit.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讟注讛 讜注讬专讘 诇砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 诇砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇注讘讚讬讜 爪讗讜 讜注专讘讜 诇讬 讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诇讚专讜诐 诪讛诇讱 诇爪驻讜谉 讻注讬专讜讘讜 诇讚专讜诐 讜诇讚专讜诐 讻注讬专讜讘讜 诇爪驻讜谉

A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. If one erred and established an eiruv in two directions at once, for example, if in his ignorance he imagined that it is permitted to establish an eiruv in two directions, that he may extend the distance that he may walk on Shabbat in two opposite directions, or if he said to his servants: Go out and establish an eiruv for me, without specifying the direction, and one established an eiruv for him to the north, and one established an eiruv for him to the south, he may walk to the north as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the south, and he may walk to the south as far as he is permitted go based on his eiruv to the north. In other words, the assumption is that he established residence in both directions based on the eiruv in each direction, and he must therefore take both into consideration before moving.

讜讗诐 诪讬爪注讜 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转讞讜诐 诇讗 讬讝讜讝 诪诪拽讜诪讜

And consequently, if each eiruv was placed two thousand cubits in opposite directions placing him in the middle of the limit, he may not move from his current location, as it is prohibited to venture beyond either limit. Apparently, even if one did not establish residence in a particular location, as in this case he has acquired residence in both places, nonetheless, the halakha is that residence has been established in his current location, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 专讘 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讜驻诇讬讙:

The Gemara poses a question: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers: This baraita indeed differs with Rav鈥檚 ruling. Nevertheless, his opinion is not disqualified, as Rav himself had tanna status and therefore, unlike later amora鈥檌m, could disagree with opinions of tanna鈥檌m.

讗诪专 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 诇讘讬转讜 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:

We learned in the mishna that if, however, he said: My residence is at the trunk of the tree, he established residence there, and he may walk from the place that he is standing to the trunk of the tree, up to two thousand cubits, and from the trunk of the tree to his house another two thousand cubits. Ultimately, he may walk after nightfall a total distance of four thousand cubits.

Scroll To Top