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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 29, 2020 | 讬状讗 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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Eruvin 51

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ari Welner for a refuah shleima for Chaim David ben Chana Zelda and Rivka bat Ita.

The mishna states that one who is on the way can point out a distant place and acquire residence there. Rava limits it to a case where one could potentially arrive there before Shabbat by running. How does Rava read the mishna according to his explanation? The gemara brings a case of Raba and Rav Yosef where Raba knew of a particular tree and Rav Yosef did not. Raba was able to acquire residence for both of them, based on the Tosefta. From where in the Torah is the measurement of 2,000 cubits derived? From where do Rabbi Chanina and the rabbis derive their opinions regarding the shape of the 2,000 cubit measurement 鈥 circular or square? Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda disagree regarding the debate between Rabbi Meir (only allowed for a poor person, i.e. one who is travelling and got stuck) and Rabbi Yehuda (even for a rich person, one who is at home)鈥 are they arguing in a case where one says I want to acquire residence in the place that I am standing or in the case where one wants to acquire residence in a distance place. The gemara explain the different lines in the mishna according to each approach.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚讻讬 专讛讬讟 诇注讬拽专讜 诪讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讜 拽转谞讬


Rava said: This halakha applies only in a case where, were he to run to the trunk of the tree he could reach it before the onset of Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna state: And it grew dark while he was traveling, indicating that he is farther away than that?


讞砖讻讛 诇讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 诇注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讻讬 诪住讙讬 拽诇讬 拽诇讬 讗讘诇 专讛讬讟 诪讟讬


The Gemara answers: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling so that he can no longer return to his house before nightfall; however, he is able to go to the trunk of the tree before Shabbat. Some state a different version of the previous statement. Rava said: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling, so that were he to walk very slowly he could not reach his house; however, if he runs, he can still arrive before Shabbat.


专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转谞讜 转讜转讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚住讘讬诇 讗讞讜讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转讜转讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚驻专讬拽 诪专讬讛 诪讻专讙讗


Rabba and Rav Yosef were going together along the way. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: Our residence will be beneath the palm that carries its brother, the one with another palm tree leaning on it. And some say he said to him: Our residence will be beneath the palm that spared its owner from the land tax [karga], the palm which yielded enough dates for its owner to pay his entire land tax.


讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 注诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 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 讝讛 砖诪讻讬专 讗讜诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转谞讜 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬


Rabba asked: Does the Master know of that tree? Rav Yosef said to him: No, I do not know of it. He said to him: Then rely on me, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: If two people were walking together, one of whom is familiar with a particular location in the distance, and one 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.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽讘诇 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜:


The Gemara comments: But it is not so; that is not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabba only taught it as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei so that Rav Yosef would accept it from him, due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning accompanies his rulings, Since the halakha is usually in accordance with Rav Yosei鈥檚 opinion, Rav Yosef would be less likely to raise doubts with regard to the ruling.


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讜讻讜壮壮:


We learned in the mishna: 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, his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.


讛谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讬讻谉 讻转讬讘谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜 讗讬砖 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇 讬爪讗 讗讬砖 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讗诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara raises a fundamental question: These two thousand cubits, where are they written in the Torah? The Gemara answers that it is as it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淩emain every man in his place鈥 (Exodus 16:29); these are the four cubits, which constitute the minimum Shabbat limit, e.g., for one who ventured beyond his prescribed limit. 鈥淟et no man go out of his place鈥 (Exodus 16:29); these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit for one who remains in his place. Unless otherwise specified, the measure of one鈥檚 place is two thousand cubits.


诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪拽讜诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讜诪拽讜诐 诪谞讬住讛 讜谞讬住讛 诪谞讬住讛 讜谞讬住讛 诪讙讘讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讙讘讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讞讜抓 讜讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讚讜转诐 诪讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讗转 驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜讙讜壮


The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is the measure of one鈥檚 place? Rav 岣sda said: We derive this by means of a verbal analogy between the term place written here: 鈥淟et no man go out of his place,鈥 and from the term place written with regard to an unwitting murderer: 鈥淭hen I will appoint you a place to where he shall flee鈥 (Exodus 21:13). This last verse mentions both place and fleeing, and the term place is derived from the term fleeing. And the term fleeing is derived from the term fleeing, written in a different verse with regard to the unwitting murderer: 鈥淏ut if the slayer shall at any time come outside the border of the city of his refuge, whither he has fled鈥 (Numbers 35:26). And the term fleeing is derived from the term border, which appears in the same verse. And the term border is derived from the term border, as it states there: 鈥淎nd the avenger of blood find him outside [mi岣tz] the borders of the city of his refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:27). Since this verse mentions both the term border and the term outside, the term border is derived from the term outside. And the term outside is derived from the term outside, as it is written with regard to the Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge: 鈥淎nd you shall measure from outside [mi岣tz] the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits鈥 (Numbers 35:5). From this chain of identical terms, the meaning of the term place stated in connection with Shabbat is derived from the two thousand cubits mentioned with regard to the Levite cities.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪拽讬专 讛注讬专 讜讞讜爪讛 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜爪讛


The Gemara asks: But let us derive instead by means of a verbal analogy between the term outside in the verse: 鈥淥utside the borders of the city of refuge,鈥 and the term outside in the verse: 鈥淔rom the wall of the city outward [va岣tza] a thousand cubits鈥 (Numbers 35:4), that the Shabbat limit measures only a thousand cubits. The Gemara answers: One derives the meaning of the term outside [岣tz] by means of a verbal analogy from another instance of the term outside [岣tz], but one does not derive the meaning of the term outside from the term outward [岣tza].


讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is significant about the difference between the two terms? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; this is the same halakha with regard to coming; it is after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference of one letter between 岣tz and 岣tza, should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉:


Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it, rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical.


讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 注讙讜诇讜转: 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 驻讬讗讜转 讻转讬讘谉 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The tanna鈥檌m of the mishna disagree whether the two-thousand-cubit limit granted to a person in every direction is measured as a circle or as a square tablet. The Gemara poses a question: With regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigenos that the limit is measured as a circle, no matter what you say, it is difficult. If he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy from the verse written with regard to the Levite cities it is difficult, because sides is the term written, indicating squared boundaries. And if he is not of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, from where does he derive that the Shabbat limit is two thousand cubits?


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讙专砖讬 讛注专讬诐 诇讝讛 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 驻讬讗讜转 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 驻讬讗讜转 诇砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转


The Gemara answers: Actually, he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, but here, with regard to the Levite cities, it is different, as the verse says: 鈥淭his shall be to them the open space of the cities鈥 (Numbers 35:5), from which it is inferred: To this, the open space of the city, you should provide sides and square it, but you do not provide sides to those resting on Shabbat. Instead, those who establish Shabbat residence are provided with a circular, two-thousand-cubit limit.


讜专讘谞谉 转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转


The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand the emphasis placed on the word this in the verse? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that Rav 岣nanya says: Like this measure shall be the calculations of measures for all those who rest on Shabbat, i.e., square.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖诪注讘讬专 讛谉 讜讗诇讻住讜谞谉


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: One who carries an object four cubits in the public domain is only liable if he carries it four cubits with their diagonal. The four cubits mentioned in many places is only the basic measure by which the distance beyond which it is prohibited to carry is calculated. However, in practice, a person is liable only if he carries the object the length of the diagonal of a square with four-cubit sides.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 讛谉 讜讗诇讻住讜谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转:


Rav Pappa said that Rava once tested us by asking: With regard to a pillar in the public domain, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, must the width be four handbreadths with their diagonal in order to be regarded a private domain, or not? And we said to him: Is this not that which was taught by Rav 岣nanya? As it was taught in a baraita: Rav 岣nanya says: Like this measure shall be that of all those who rest on Shabbat, indicating that the diagonal is the determining measure for the halakhot of rest on Shabbat.


讜讝讛 讛讜讗 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 讜讻讜壮:


We learned in the mishna: And this is the meaning of that which the Sages said: A pauper can establish 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 acquire residence. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘驻转


Rav Na岣an said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a case where the person said: My residence is in my current location. As Rabbi Meir maintains: The primary ordinance and establishment of eiruv is with bread.


注谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 注砖讬专 诇讗


Therefore, it is only with regard to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals, that the Sages were lenient and permitted him to establish residence merely by saying: My residence is in my current location. However, with regard to a wealthy person in his own house who has bread, no, they did not permit him to do so.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘专讙诇 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗


And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: The primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot, i.e., by going and stating that he is establishing his residence in that location, and therefore it applies to both a pauper and a wealthy person. However, with regard a case when the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and he is not there, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that for a pauper on the road on a Shabbat eve, yes, an eiruv may be established in that manner; however, for a wealthy person, no, an eiruv may not be established in that manner.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And as for the mishna鈥檚 statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It refers to the previous statement: If he is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, and therefore is unaware that a residence can be established from a distance, and said: My residence is in my current location, he acquires two thousand cubits in each direction. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the option of establishing an eiruv by foot is available to the wealthy as well.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讚注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘专讙诇


Rav 岣sda, however, disagreed with Rav Na岣an and said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is with regard to a person who said: My residence is in such-and-such place, in which case his residence is neither acquired by foot nor with bread. As Rabbi Meir maintains: A pauper, yes, he establishes residence with an eiruv in that manner; however, a wealthy person, no, he does not. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Both a pauper and a wealthy person may establish an eiruv in that manner. However, in a case where one said: My residence is in my present location, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that an eiruv of this kind is effective both for a pauper and for a wealthy person, as everyone agrees agree that the primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讛讗 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


And as for the mishna鈥檚 statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv by foot, who is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It is referring to this clause: One who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he could have established an eiruv even if he was in his house. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, who is teaching it? Everyone agrees with this halakha, and it is taught according to both opinions.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘专讙诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to one who said: My residence is in my present location. It was stated in the baraita: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv with bread; however a wealthy person may not go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location, because the Sages said that one can establish an eiruv by foot only in the case of a person who was coming along the way and it grew dark while he was traveling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


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 诪注专讘讬谉 讘专讙诇 讜讬爪讗 注砖讬专 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 注讬专讜讘 讜讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诇讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讘谞讜 讘讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讜


Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv by foot. And a wealthy person will go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location. And this is the primary ordinance of eiruv. However, the Sages permitted a homeowner to send his eiruv in the hand of his servant, or in the hand of his son, or in the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient with him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. This baraita presents the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as it was delineated by Rav Na岣an.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 诪诪诇 讜讘讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讙讜专讬讜谉 讘讗专讜诪讗 砖讛讬讜 诪讞诇拽讬谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讜讘讗讬谉 注谞讬讬 讻驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 讜注谞讬讬 讻驻专 讞谞谞讬讛 讜诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇诪讞专转 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉


The baraita continues. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the members of the household of the Memel family and members of the household of Guryon family in the village of Aroma, who were distributing dried figs and raisins to the paupers in years of famine, and the paupers of the village of Si岣n and the paupers of the village of 岣nanya would come to the edge of the Shabbat limit at nightfall, which was also within the Shabbat limit of Aroma, and then go home. The following day they would rise early and go to receive their figs and raisins. Apparently, one can establish an eiruv by foot, if he says: My residence is in my present location.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 诇讬诇讱 诇注讬专 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诇讬诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Ashi said: The formulation of the mishna is also precise, in accordance with Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation, as it teaches: If on a Shabbat eve one set out to go to a city for which an eiruv is established enabling him to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


And we discussed this mishna and raised a difficulty: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other town while it is prohibited for the other residents to do so? And Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he has two houses, one in each city, and there is the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them.


讗讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注谞讬


With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intend to return to his first house, but to continue to his other house. Therefore, he can establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit by verbal means alone.


讜讛谞讱 注砖讬专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇诪讗 讻诇 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently, they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat. Apparently, everything stated with regard to one who says: My residence is in such-and-such place; to a pauper, yes, it applies to a wealthy person, no, it does not apply. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.


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 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


Rav 岣yya bar Ashi was teaching the mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav. He stated that this leniency applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Rav said to him: Conclude your statement also: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讗转讬 诪讗专讟讬讘谞讗 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗


The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav 岣nan was in the habit of coming from his home in Artibbena to Pumbedita on Shabbat.

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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 51

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚讻讬 专讛讬讟 诇注讬拽专讜 诪讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讜 拽转谞讬


Rava said: This halakha applies only in a case where, were he to run to the trunk of the tree he could reach it before the onset of Shabbat. Abaye said to him: But doesn鈥檛 the mishna state: And it grew dark while he was traveling, indicating that he is farther away than that?


讞砖讻讛 诇讘讬转讜 讗讘诇 诇注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讗讬诇谉 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞砖讻讛 诇讜 讻讬 诪住讙讬 拽诇讬 拽诇讬 讗讘诇 专讛讬讟 诪讟讬


The Gemara answers: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling so that he can no longer return to his house before nightfall; however, he is able to go to the trunk of the tree before Shabbat. Some state a different version of the previous statement. Rava said: The mishna means that it grew dark while he was traveling, so that were he to walk very slowly he could not reach his house; however, if he runs, he can still arrive before Shabbat.


专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转谞讜 转讜转讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚住讘讬诇 讗讞讜讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转讜转讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讚驻专讬拽 诪专讬讛 诪讻专讙讗


Rabba and Rav Yosef were going together along the way. Rabba said to Rav Yosef: Our residence will be beneath the palm that carries its brother, the one with another palm tree leaning on it. And some say he said to him: Our residence will be beneath the palm that spared its owner from the land tax [karga], the palm which yielded enough dates for its owner to pay his entire land tax.


讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住诪讜讱 注诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 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 讝讛 砖诪讻讬专 讗讜诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转谞讜 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬


Rabba asked: Does the Master know of that tree? Rav Yosef said to him: No, I do not know of it. He said to him: Then rely on me, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: If two people were walking together, one of whom is familiar with a particular location in the distance, and one 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.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬拽讘诇 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬诪讜拽讜 注诪讜:


The Gemara comments: But it is not so; that is not the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rabba only taught it as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei so that Rav Yosef would accept it from him, due to the fact that Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning accompanies his rulings, Since the halakha is usually in accordance with Rav Yosei鈥檚 opinion, Rav Yosef would be less likely to raise doubts with regard to the ruling.


讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讜讻讜壮壮:


We learned in the mishna: 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, his presence at his current location acquires for him the right to walk two thousand cubits in each direction.


讛谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛讬讻谉 讻转讬讘谉 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜 讗讬砖 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诇 讬爪讗 讗讬砖 诪诪拽讜诪讜 讗诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


The Gemara raises a fundamental question: These two thousand cubits, where are they written in the Torah? The Gemara answers that it is as it was taught in a baraita: 鈥淩emain every man in his place鈥 (Exodus 16:29); these are the four cubits, which constitute the minimum Shabbat limit, e.g., for one who ventured beyond his prescribed limit. 鈥淟et no man go out of his place鈥 (Exodus 16:29); these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat limit for one who remains in his place. Unless otherwise specified, the measure of one鈥檚 place is two thousand cubits.


诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇诪讚谞讜 诪拽讜诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讜诪拽讜诐 诪谞讬住讛 讜谞讬住讛 诪谞讬住讛 讜谞讬住讛 诪讙讘讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讙讘讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讞讜抓 讜讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讚讜转诐 诪讞讜抓 诇注讬专 讗转 驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜讙讜壮


The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this is the measure of one鈥檚 place? Rav 岣sda said: We derive this by means of a verbal analogy between the term place written here: 鈥淟et no man go out of his place,鈥 and from the term place written with regard to an unwitting murderer: 鈥淭hen I will appoint you a place to where he shall flee鈥 (Exodus 21:13). This last verse mentions both place and fleeing, and the term place is derived from the term fleeing. And the term fleeing is derived from the term fleeing, written in a different verse with regard to the unwitting murderer: 鈥淏ut if the slayer shall at any time come outside the border of the city of his refuge, whither he has fled鈥 (Numbers 35:26). And the term fleeing is derived from the term border, which appears in the same verse. And the term border is derived from the term border, as it states there: 鈥淎nd the avenger of blood find him outside [mi岣tz] the borders of the city of his refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:27). Since this verse mentions both the term border and the term outside, the term border is derived from the term outside. And the term outside is derived from the term outside, as it is written with regard to the Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge: 鈥淎nd you shall measure from outside [mi岣tz] the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits鈥 (Numbers 35:5). From this chain of identical terms, the meaning of the term place stated in connection with Shabbat is derived from the two thousand cubits mentioned with regard to the Levite cities.


讜谞讬诇祝 诪拽讬专 讛注讬专 讜讞讜爪讛 讗诇祝 讗诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜爪讛


The Gemara asks: But let us derive instead by means of a verbal analogy between the term outside in the verse: 鈥淥utside the borders of the city of refuge,鈥 and the term outside in the verse: 鈥淔rom the wall of the city outward [va岣tza] a thousand cubits鈥 (Numbers 35:4), that the Shabbat limit measures only a thousand cubits. The Gemara answers: One derives the meaning of the term outside [岣tz] by means of a verbal analogy from another instance of the term outside [岣tz], but one does not derive the meaning of the term outside from the term outward [岣tza].


讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜砖讘 讛讻讛谉 讜讘讗 讛讻讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讬讘讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讘讬讗讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is significant about the difference between the two terms? Didn鈥檛 the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall return [veshav]鈥 (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall come [uva]鈥 (Leviticus 14:44), from which it is derived that this is the halakha with regard to returning, i.e., it is after seven days; this is the same halakha with regard to coming; it is after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference of one letter between 岣tz and 岣tza, should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讬诇驻讬谞谉:


Gemara rejects this argument: This applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it, rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical.


讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 注讙讜诇讜转: 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 驻讬讗讜转 讻转讬讘谉 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The tanna鈥檌m of the mishna disagree whether the two-thousand-cubit limit granted to a person in every direction is measured as a circle or as a square tablet. The Gemara poses a question: With regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Antigenos that the limit is measured as a circle, no matter what you say, it is difficult. If he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy from the verse written with regard to the Levite cities it is difficult, because sides is the term written, indicating squared boundaries. And if he is not of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, from where does he derive that the Shabbat limit is two thousand cubits?


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讛诐 诪讙专砖讬 讛注专讬诐 诇讝讛 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 驻讬讗讜转 讜讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 驻讬讗讜转 诇砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转


The Gemara answers: Actually, he is of the opinion that there is a verbal analogy, but here, with regard to the Levite cities, it is different, as the verse says: 鈥淭his shall be to them the open space of the cities鈥 (Numbers 35:5), from which it is inferred: To this, the open space of the city, you should provide sides and square it, but you do not provide sides to those resting on Shabbat. Instead, those who establish Shabbat residence are provided with a circular, two-thousand-cubit limit.


讜专讘谞谉 转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转


The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis understand the emphasis placed on the word this in the verse? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita that Rav 岣nanya says: Like this measure shall be the calculations of measures for all those who rest on Shabbat, i.e., square.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛诪注讘讬专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖诪注讘讬专 讛谉 讜讗诇讻住讜谞谉


Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: One who carries an object four cubits in the public domain is only liable if he carries it four cubits with their diagonal. The four cubits mentioned in many places is only the basic measure by which the distance beyond which it is prohibited to carry is calculated. However, in practice, a person is liable only if he carries the object the length of the diagonal of a square with four-cubit sides.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 讛谉 讜讗诇讻住讜谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讬讛讜 讻诇 砖讜讘转讬 砖讘转:


Rav Pappa said that Rava once tested us by asking: With regard to a pillar in the public domain, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, must the width be four handbreadths with their diagonal in order to be regarded a private domain, or not? And we said to him: Is this not that which was taught by Rav 岣nanya? As it was taught in a baraita: Rav 岣nanya says: Like this measure shall be that of all those who rest on Shabbat, indicating that the diagonal is the determining measure for the halakhot of rest on Shabbat.


讜讝讛 讛讜讗 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 讜讻讜壮:


We learned in the mishna: And this is the meaning of that which the Sages said: A pauper can establish 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 acquire residence. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘驻转


Rav Na岣an said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a case where the person said: My residence is in my current location. As Rabbi Meir maintains: The primary ordinance and establishment of eiruv is with bread.


注谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 注砖讬专 诇讗


Therefore, it is only with regard to a pauper, who does not have food for two meals, that the Sages were lenient and permitted him to establish residence merely by saying: My residence is in my current location. However, with regard to a wealthy person in his own house who has bread, no, they did not permit him to do so.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘专讙诇 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗


And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: The primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot, i.e., by going and stating that he is establishing his residence in that location, and therefore it applies to both a pauper and a wealthy person. However, with regard a case when the person said: My residence is in such-and-such place, and he is not there, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that for a pauper on the road on a Shabbat eve, yes, an eiruv may be established in that manner; however, for a wealthy person, no, an eiruv may not be established in that manner.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


And as for the mishna鈥檚 statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv with his feet, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It refers to the previous statement: If he is not familiar with a tree or any other noticeable landmark, or if he is not an expert in the halakha, and therefore is unaware that a residence can be established from a distance, and said: My residence is in my current location, he acquires two thousand cubits in each direction. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only to be lenient with the wealthy person, who, which Sage, is teaching it? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that the option of establishing an eiruv by foot is available to the wealthy as well.


讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讚注讬拽专 注讬专讜讘 讘专讙诇


Rav 岣sda, however, disagreed with Rav Na岣an and said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna is with regard to a person who said: My residence is in such-and-such place, in which case his residence is neither acquired by foot nor with bread. As Rabbi Meir maintains: A pauper, yes, he establishes residence with an eiruv in that manner; however, a wealthy person, no, he does not. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Both a pauper and a wealthy person may establish an eiruv in that manner. However, in a case where one said: My residence is in my present location, everyone, both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, agrees that an eiruv of this kind is effective both for a pauper and for a wealthy person, as everyone agrees agree that the primary ordinance of eiruv is by foot.


讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗讛讬讬讗 拽讗讬 讗讛讗 诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


And as for the mishna鈥檚 statement: And this is what the Sages meant when they said that a pauper can establish an eiruv by foot, who is teaching it? It is Rabbi Meir. And to which clause of the mishna is it referring? It is referring to this clause: One who was coming along the way on Shabbat eve, and it grew dark while he was traveling. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he could have established an eiruv even if he was in his house. And as for the statement in the continuation of the mishna: The Sages said that one establishes an eiruv with bread only in order to be lenient with the wealthy person, who is teaching it? Everyone agrees with this halakha, and it is taught according to both opinions.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讜诇讗 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘专讙诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讘讗 讘讚专讱 讜讞砖讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who said that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to one who said: My residence is in my present location. It was stated in the baraita: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv with bread; however a wealthy person may not go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location, because the Sages said that one can establish an eiruv by foot only in the case of a person who was coming along the way and it grew dark while he was traveling. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


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 诪注专讘讬谉 讘专讙诇 讜讬爪讗 注砖讬专 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讗诪专 转讛讗 砖讘讬转转讬 讘诪拽讜诪讬 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 注讬专讜讘 讜讛转讬专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诇砖诇讞 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讘讬讚 讘谞讜 讘讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讛拽诇 注诇讬讜


Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a pauper and a wealthy person establish an eiruv by foot. And a wealthy person will go out beyond the Shabbat limit and say: My residence is in my present location. And this is the primary ordinance of eiruv. However, the Sages permitted a homeowner to send his eiruv in the hand of his servant, or in the hand of his son, or in the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient with him, so that he need not exert himself and go out and establish an eiruv by foot. This baraita presents the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as it was delineated by Rav Na岣an.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 诪诪诇 讜讘讗谞砖讬 讘讬转 讙讜专讬讜谉 讘讗专讜诪讗 砖讛讬讜 诪讞诇拽讬谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 诇注谞讬讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讜讘讗讬谉 注谞讬讬 讻驻专 砖讬讞讬谉 讜注谞讬讬 讻驻专 讞谞谞讬讛 讜诪讞砖讬讻讬谉 注诇 讛转讞讜诐 诇诪讞专转 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉


The baraita continues. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the members of the household of the Memel family and members of the household of Guryon family in the village of Aroma, who were distributing dried figs and raisins to the paupers in years of famine, and the paupers of the village of Si岣n and the paupers of the village of 岣nanya would come to the edge of the Shabbat limit at nightfall, which was also within the Shabbat limit of Aroma, and then go home. The following day they would rise early and go to receive their figs and raisins. Apparently, one can establish an eiruv by foot, if he says: My residence is in my present location.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 诇讬诇讱 诇注讬专 砖诪注专讘讬谉 诇讛 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 讞讘专讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转专 诇讬诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Ashi said: The formulation of the mishna is also precise, in accordance with Rav Na岣an鈥檚 explanation, as it teaches: If on a Shabbat eve one set out to go to a city for which an eiruv is established enabling him to go there on Shabbat, and another person caused him to return home, he himself is permitted to go to that city on Shabbat, and for all the other residents of the town it is prohibited to go there. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬讛讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 讘讬谞讬讛谉


And we discussed this mishna and raised a difficulty: What is different about him and what is different about them? Why is he permitted to proceed to the other town while it is prohibited for the other residents to do so? And Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he has two houses, one in each city, and there is the distance of two Shabbat limits, four thousand cubits, between them.


讗讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注谞讬


With regard to him, since he set out on his way, his legal status is that of a pauper, as he did not intend to return to his first house, but to continue to his other house. Therefore, he can establish residence at the end of his Shabbat limit by verbal means alone.


讜讛谞讱 注砖讬专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇诪讗 讻诇 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 注谞讬 讗讬谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


And the legal status of these other inhabitants of his city, is that of wealthy people, as they are in their houses and have food. Consequently, they can only establish residence at the end of their Shabbat limit by depositing food there prior the onset of Shabbat. Apparently, everything stated with regard to one who says: My residence is in such-and-such place; to a pauper, yes, it applies to a wealthy person, no, it does not apply. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.


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 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


Rav 岣yya bar Ashi was teaching the mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav. He stated that this leniency applies both to a pauper and to a wealthy person. Rav said to him: Conclude your statement also: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讗转讬 诪讗专讟讬讘谞讗 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗


The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav 岣nan was in the habit of coming from his home in Artibbena to Pumbedita on Shabbat.

Scroll To Top