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

Daf Yomi

October 7, 2020 | 讬状讟 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.

Eruvin 59

Today’s daf is dedicated by Gitta and David Neufeld as a zechut for our dear friend and mentor, Chaya bat Osna Rachel, a fierce advocate for Jewish education, 讘转讜讱 砖讗专 讞讜诇讬 讬砖专讗诇. We are blessed by her friendship and leadership.

Map of Ra’anana

One can be lenient with mistakes in measurements regarding techum since alws of techum are rabbinic. Also one can accept testimony of people whose testimony regarding the location of the techum is not usually accepted. The mishna moves into issues of eruv for carrying purposes. They distinguish between a city that was an individual (what exactly does that mean) and became public and a city that was the reverse. In what cases and how can one make an eruv? Does one need to leave a section out of the eruv?聽Can the city be split? If so, how?

讙诪壮 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬注讟 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讬讘讛:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does this mean that in a place where he extended the limit, yes, the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are accepted, but in a place where he reduced the limit, no, his measurements are not accepted? If his extended measurement is accepted, his shortened measurement should certainly be accepted as well. The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are accepted even in a place where he extended the limit, without concern that he might have erred (Tosafot), and that the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are certainly accepted in places where he reduced the Shabbat limit.


专讬讘讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 诇讗讞讚 讻讜壮: 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讬讘讛 讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 讗讞讚 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讝讛 砖专讬讘讛


We learned in the mishna: If the surveyor extended the limit for one and reduced it for another, one accepts the extended measurement. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This clause is the same as that previous clause in the mishna. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna said: If two surveyors measured the Shabbat limit and one extended the Shabbat limit and one reduced it, one accepts the measurements of the surveyor who extended it.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讘讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讚转 讛注讬专 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讗:


Abaye said: The measurements of the surveyor who extended the limit are accepted only as long as he does not extend the limit more than the difference between the measure of the Shabbat limit of the city calculated as a diagonal line from the corner of the city and as calculated as a straight line from the side of the city. If, however, the difference in measurements exceeds that amount, the Shabbat limit must be measured again.


砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇: 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专


We learned in the mishna: As the Sages did not state the matter, the laws of Shabbat limits, to be stringent, but rather to be lenient. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita: The Sages did not state the matter, the laws of Shabbat limits, to be lenient but rather to be stringent?


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉:


Ravina said that there is no contradiction between these two statements: The very institution of Shabbat limits was enacted not to be more lenient than Torah law, but rather to be stringent beyond Torah law. Nonetheless, since Shabbat limits are rabbinic law, the Sages permitted certain leniencies with regard to how the Shabbat limits are measured.


诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛


MISHNA: Although this chapter as a whole deals with halakhot governing the joining of Shabbat boundaries, this mishna returns to the halakhot governing a joining of courtyards. If a private city, which does not have many residents, grows and becomes a heavily populated public city, one may establish a joining of the courtyards for all of it, as long as it does not include a public domain as defined by Torah law.


讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讛 讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讻注讬专 讞讚砖讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐:


And if a public city loses residents over time and becomes a private city, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it unless one maintains an area outside the eiruv that is like the size of the city of 岣dasha in Judea, which has fifty residents. Carrying within the eiruv is permitted, but it remains prohibited to carry in the area excluded from the eiruv. The reason for this requirement is to ensure that the laws of eiruv will not be forgotten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area need not be so large; rather, it is sufficient to exclude three courtyards with two houses each.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬住拽专转讗 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a private city that becomes a public city? Rav Yehuda said: For example, the Exilarch鈥檚 village [de鈥檌skarta] was a small village set aside for the Exilarch鈥檚 family and attendants; since it was frequented by many people, it turned into a public city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙讘讬 讛专诪谞讗 诪讚讻专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘爪驻专讗 讚砖讘转讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬住拽专转讗 讚谞转讝讜讗讬


Rav Na岣an said to him: What is the reason for bringing this example? If you say that because large numbers of people are to be found at the residence of the governor [harmana] in order to request licenses and authorizations, and they remind each other of the reason it is permissible to establish an eiruv there, and consequently they will not arrive at mistaken conclusions with regard to other places, then every city should have the same status, as the entire Jewish people are also found together on Shabbat morning when they come to pray. Rather, Rav Na岣an said: For example, the village of Natzu鈥檌 was a private city belonging to a single individual before a large influx of residents turned it into a public city.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘转讜讻讛 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


The Sages taught in a baraita: If a private city becomes public, and a bona fide public domain passes through it, how does one establish an eiruv for it? He places a side post from here, one side of the public domain, and side post from there, the other side; or, he places a cross beam from here, one side of the public domain, and another cross beam from there, the other side. He may then carry items and place them between these symbolic partitions, as the public domain is now considered like one of the courtyards of the city. And one may not establish an eiruv for half the city; rather, one may establish either one eiruv for all of it or separate ones for each alleyway separately without including the other sections of the city.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇 专讘讬诐


The baraita continues: If it was originally a public city, and it remains a public city,


讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛


and it has only one entrance, as it is surrounded by a wall or enclosed by houses on all sides, one may establish an eiruv for all of it.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诪讬注专讘讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱


The Gemara raises a question concerning this baraita: Who is the tanna who holds that an eiruv may be established for a public domain in this manner? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high post from here, on one side, and an additional post from there, the other side. This creates symbolic walls that provide the public domain with the legal status of a private domain. Or, one may place a beam extending from here, one end of the house, and a beam from there, the other end of the house, thereby creating symbolic partitions across the width of the street. In that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not establish an eiruv in the public domain in that way.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讗专讻讛 讗讘诇 诇专讞讘讛 诪注专讘讬谉


The Master said in the baraita quoted above: And one may not establish an eiruv for half the city. Rav Pappa said: They said this only in a case where one wishes to divide the city according to its length. Generally, a city had a public domain that ran straight across it, from the entrance on one side of the city to the entrance on its other side. The baraita rules that it is prohibited to establish an eiruv separately for the residents of each side of the public domain. But if one wants to divide the city according to its width, he may establish an eiruv for half the city. This distinction is made because in the first case the public domain that runs between the two halves is used by the residents of both halves, and therefore it joins the two into a single unit; in the second case, the residents of each half use only the half of the public domain located on their side and not the half of the public domain located on the other side.


讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讙诇 讛诪讜转专转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讗讜住专转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讛


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say that a foot that is permitted in its own place prohibits carrying even in a place that is not its own? Rabbi Akiva holds the following in the case of outer and inner courtyards, in which the residents of each courtyard established their own, independent eiruv: Since the residents of the inner courtyard, who are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, may not carry in the outer courtyard despite the fact that they have rights of passage there, it is prohibited even for the residents of the outer courtyard to carry there. By the same logic, since the residents of each half of the city are prohibited to carry in the public domain of the city鈥檚 other half, despite the fact that they may travel there, it should be prohibited for everyone to carry there, and the eiruv should not be functional.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 讚驻谞讬诪讬转 诇讬转 诇讛 驻讬转讞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讬 谞驻拽讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 讜讛谞讬 谞驻拽讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion there only in a case of two courtyards, one farther inside than the other, as the inner courtyard has no other entrance. Since the residents of the inner courtyard have no choice but to pass through the outer courtyard, the residents of the outer courtyard deny the residents of the inner courtyard exclusive use of their own courtyard; therefore, they can impose restrictions upon them. But here, in the case of two halves of the city, these may go out through this part of the public domain on their side of the city, leading to one entrance to the city, and these may go out through this other part of the public domain, leading to the other entrance to the city. Since the residents of each half do not have to use the portion of the public domain located in the other half, they do not impose any restrictions on the residents of the other half, even if they do in fact use it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讗专讻讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇专讞讘讛 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讞讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注专讘讬谉


Some say a different version of the previous discussion. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that it is only if the city is divided according to its length that one may not establish an eiruv for half the city, but if the city is divided according to its width, one may establish a separate eiruv for each half. Rather, even if the city is divided according to its width, one may not establish an eiruv for half the city.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 讚驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讞讚讗 诇讚砖讗 讜诪砖转诪砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 诪爪讜 诪住诇拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讻讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is possible that the Rabbis stated their opinion there only in the case of two courtyards, one inside the other, as the residents of the inner courtyard can close the door to the outer courtyard and use only their own courtyard. In doing so, they impose no restrictions on the residents of the outer courtyard. But here, with regard to the division of a city, are they able to move the public domain from here? Since the residents of each half cannot be prevented from using the public domain located in the other half, even the Rabbis would agree that the eiruv is ineffective.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讜 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚诇讗 讚讗住专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 讗住专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


The Master said in the previously cited baraita that an eiruv must either be established for all of it or for each alleyway separately. The Gemara asks: What is different about an eiruv for half the city, which is not permissible? The residents of each half prohibit residents of the other from carrying, due to the fact that all the residents may use both halves. Similarly, even if they establish a separate eiruv for each alleyway, the residents should still prohibit residents of the other from carrying, as residents of one alleyway commonly enter other alleyways as well.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讜讚 讚拽讛 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖注砖讛 讚拽讛 诇驻转讞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 注诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬:


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the residents erected a partition at the entrance to the alleyway as an indication that they do not want to be connected to the other alleyways. And it is like that which Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav 岣sda said: One of the residents of an alleyway, who made a partition for his entrance to the alleyway as a sign that he does not intend to carry from his house to the alleyway, does not prohibit the other residents of the alleyway from carrying there if he does not join in their eiruv. The reason for this is that this resident has demonstrated his desire to renounce his share of the alleyway.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讜壮: 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注专讘讛 诇诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜诇讗 砖讘拽 诇讛 砖讬讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬


It was taught in the baraita: If it was originally a public city and it is still a public city, and it has only one entrance to the public domain, one may establish an eiruv for the entire city. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira established an eiruv for Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 city and did not leave any section of the city out of the eiruv. Abaye said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Why didn鈥檛 you exclude a section of the city from the eiruv, as required in a public city?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘讬 讚讬讚讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 诪注专讘 讻讜诇讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讛讬讗


Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: The city Elders told me that Rav 岣yya bar Asi used to establish an eiruv for the entire city without excluding any section of it, and I said to myself: If he would establish an eiruv for the whole city, I can learn from this that it was originally a private city and later becomes a public one. Therefore, it is permitted to establish an eiruv for the entire city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛谞讛讜 住讘讬 讛讛讬讗 讗砖驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讛 诪讞讚 讙讬住讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讬驻谞讬讗 诇讛 讗砖驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讛 讻砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讜讗住讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬


Abaye said to him: Those same Elders told me that the reason was different: There was a particular garbage dump on one side of the public domain, which blocked one of the entrances, leaving only one entrance to the public domain. However, now that the garbage dump has been cleared away, it has two entrances, and it is therefore prohibited to establish an eiruv for the whole city without excluding a section from the eiruv. Rabbi Zeira said to him: It was not on my mind, i.e., I was unaware that this was the situation.


讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 讛专驻谞讗讛 诪专讘讛 住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜


Rav Ami bar Adda from Harpanya raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a public domain has a ladder on one side, to allow people to scale the wall that blocks it, and an entrance on the other side, what is the halakha? Is it considered a public domain that is open on both sides? Rabba said to him that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance, and therefore the public domain is considered open on both sides.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜 讘住讜诇诐 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 专爪讜 讗讞讚 诪注专讘 专爪讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉


Rav Na岣an said to them: Do not listen to him. Rav Adda said that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance in certain cases, and it has the status of a partition in other cases. It has the status of a partition in the case that we mentioned, where there is a ladder at the end of a public domain. In this case, the ladder is not considered an entrance and therefore the public domain is considered closed at that end. It has the status of an entrance in the case of a ladder between two courtyards. If the residents of the courtyards wish, they may join the two courtyards by means of the ladder and establish one eiruv; if they wish, the two courtyards may each establish a separate eiruv.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜


The Gemara asks: Did Rav Na岣an actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said: With regard to residents of the ground floor of a courtyard and residents of a balcony, i.e., the floor above the ground floor, who forgot


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.

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 59-65 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 59-65 including making an eruv in public vs. private cities, are ladders...

Eruvin 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 59

讙诪壮 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬注讟 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇诪拽讜诐 砖专讬讘讛:


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Does this mean that in a place where he extended the limit, yes, the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are accepted, but in a place where he reduced the limit, no, his measurements are not accepted? If his extended measurement is accepted, his shortened measurement should certainly be accepted as well. The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are accepted even in a place where he extended the limit, without concern that he might have erred (Tosafot), and that the surveyor鈥檚 measurements are certainly accepted in places where he reduced the Shabbat limit.


专讬讘讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 诇讗讞讚 讻讜壮: 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讬讘讛 讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 讗讞讚 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讝讛 砖专讬讘讛


We learned in the mishna: If the surveyor extended the limit for one and reduced it for another, one accepts the extended measurement. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This clause is the same as that previous clause in the mishna. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna said: If two surveyors measured the Shabbat limit and one extended the Shabbat limit and one reduced it, one accepts the measurements of the surveyor who extended it.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬专讘讛 讬讜转专 诪诪讚转 讛注讬专 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讗:


Abaye said: The measurements of the surveyor who extended the limit are accepted only as long as he does not extend the limit more than the difference between the measure of the Shabbat limit of the city calculated as a diagonal line from the corner of the city and as calculated as a straight line from the side of the city. If, however, the difference in measurements exceeds that amount, the Shabbat limit must be measured again.


砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讛讞诪讬专 讗诇讗 诇讛拽诇: 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讛讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专


We learned in the mishna: As the Sages did not state the matter, the laws of Shabbat limits, to be stringent, but rather to be lenient. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 the opposite taught in a baraita: The Sages did not state the matter, the laws of Shabbat limits, to be lenient but rather to be stringent?


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 诇讛拽诇 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜转讞讜诪讬谉 讚专讘谞谉:


Ravina said that there is no contradiction between these two statements: The very institution of Shabbat limits was enacted not to be more lenient than Torah law, but rather to be stringent beyond Torah law. Nonetheless, since Shabbat limits are rabbinic law, the Sages permitted certain leniencies with regard to how the Shabbat limits are measured.


诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛


MISHNA: Although this chapter as a whole deals with halakhot governing the joining of Shabbat boundaries, this mishna returns to the halakhot governing a joining of courtyards. If a private city, which does not have many residents, grows and becomes a heavily populated public city, one may establish a joining of the courtyards for all of it, as long as it does not include a public domain as defined by Torah law.


讜砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讛 讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讻注讬专 讞讚砖讛 砖讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讚讬讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐:


And if a public city loses residents over time and becomes a private city, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it unless one maintains an area outside the eiruv that is like the size of the city of 岣dasha in Judea, which has fifty residents. Carrying within the eiruv is permitted, but it remains prohibited to carry in the area excluded from the eiruv. The reason for this requirement is to ensure that the laws of eiruv will not be forgotten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area need not be so large; rather, it is sufficient to exclude three courtyards with two houses each.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬住拽专转讗 讚专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a private city that becomes a public city? Rav Yehuda said: For example, the Exilarch鈥檚 village [de鈥檌skarta] was a small village set aside for the Exilarch鈥檚 family and attendants; since it was frequented by many people, it turned into a public city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讙讘讬 讛专诪谞讗 诪讚讻专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讘爪驻专讗 讚砖讘转讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讬住拽专转讗 讚谞转讝讜讗讬


Rav Na岣an said to him: What is the reason for bringing this example? If you say that because large numbers of people are to be found at the residence of the governor [harmana] in order to request licenses and authorizations, and they remind each other of the reason it is permissible to establish an eiruv there, and consequently they will not arrive at mistaken conclusions with regard to other places, then every city should have the same status, as the entire Jewish people are also found together on Shabbat morning when they come to pray. Rather, Rav Na岣an said: For example, the village of Natzu鈥檌 was a private city belonging to a single individual before a large influx of residents turned it into a public city.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘转讜讻讛 讻讬爪讚 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


The Sages taught in a baraita: If a private city becomes public, and a bona fide public domain passes through it, how does one establish an eiruv for it? He places a side post from here, one side of the public domain, and side post from there, the other side; or, he places a cross beam from here, one side of the public domain, and another cross beam from there, the other side. He may then carry items and place them between these symbolic partitions, as the public domain is now considered like one of the courtyards of the city. And one may not establish an eiruv for half the city; rather, one may establish either one eiruv for all of it or separate ones for each alleyway separately without including the other sections of the city.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇 专讘讬诐


The baraita continues: If it was originally a public city, and it remains a public city,


讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪注专讘讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇讛


and it has only one entrance, as it is surrounded by a wall or enclosed by houses on all sides, one may establish an eiruv for all of it.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诪讬注专讘讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱


The Gemara raises a question concerning this baraita: Who is the tanna who holds that an eiruv may be established for a public domain in this manner? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high post from here, on one side, and an additional post from there, the other side. This creates symbolic walls that provide the public domain with the legal status of a private domain. Or, one may place a beam extending from here, one end of the house, and a beam from there, the other end of the house, thereby creating symbolic partitions across the width of the street. In that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One may not establish an eiruv in the public domain in that way.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 诇讗专讻讛 讗讘诇 诇专讞讘讛 诪注专讘讬谉


The Master said in the baraita quoted above: And one may not establish an eiruv for half the city. Rav Pappa said: They said this only in a case where one wishes to divide the city according to its length. Generally, a city had a public domain that ran straight across it, from the entrance on one side of the city to the entrance on its other side. The baraita rules that it is prohibited to establish an eiruv separately for the residents of each side of the public domain. But if one wants to divide the city according to its width, he may establish an eiruv for half the city. This distinction is made because in the first case the public domain that runs between the two halves is used by the residents of both halves, and therefore it joins the two into a single unit; in the second case, the residents of each half use only the half of the public domain located on their side and not the half of the public domain located on the other side.


讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讙诇 讛诪讜转专转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讗讜住专转 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讛


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn鈥檛 he say that a foot that is permitted in its own place prohibits carrying even in a place that is not its own? Rabbi Akiva holds the following in the case of outer and inner courtyards, in which the residents of each courtyard established their own, independent eiruv: Since the residents of the inner courtyard, who are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, may not carry in the outer courtyard despite the fact that they have rights of passage there, it is prohibited even for the residents of the outer courtyard to carry there. By the same logic, since the residents of each half of the city are prohibited to carry in the public domain of the city鈥檚 other half, despite the fact that they may travel there, it should be prohibited for everyone to carry there, and the eiruv should not be functional.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 讚驻谞讬诪讬转 诇讬转 诇讛 驻讬转讞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讬 谞驻拽讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 讜讛谞讬 谞驻拽讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion there only in a case of two courtyards, one farther inside than the other, as the inner courtyard has no other entrance. Since the residents of the inner courtyard have no choice but to pass through the outer courtyard, the residents of the outer courtyard deny the residents of the inner courtyard exclusive use of their own courtyard; therefore, they can impose restrictions upon them. But here, in the case of two halves of the city, these may go out through this part of the public domain on their side of the city, leading to one entrance to the city, and these may go out through this other part of the public domain, leading to the other entrance to the city. Since the residents of each half do not have to use the portion of the public domain located in the other half, they do not impose any restrictions on the residents of the other half, even if they do in fact use it.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讗专讻讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诇专讞讘讛 诪注专讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讞讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪注专讘讬谉


Some say a different version of the previous discussion. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that it is only if the city is divided according to its length that one may not establish an eiruv for half the city, but if the city is divided according to its width, one may establish a separate eiruv for each half. Rather, even if the city is divided according to its width, one may not establish an eiruv for half the city.


讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讜 讚驻谞讬诪讬转 讗讞讚讗 诇讚砖讗 讜诪砖转诪砖讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 诪爪讜 诪住诇拽讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讻讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is possible that the Rabbis stated their opinion there only in the case of two courtyards, one inside the other, as the residents of the inner courtyard can close the door to the outer courtyard and use only their own courtyard. In doing so, they impose no restrictions on the residents of the outer courtyard. But here, with regard to the division of a city, are they able to move the public domain from here? Since the residents of each half cannot be prevented from using the public domain located in the other half, even the Rabbis would agree that the eiruv is ineffective.


讗诪专 诪专 讗讜 讻讜诇讛 讗讜 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚诇讗 讚讗住专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 讗住专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


The Master said in the previously cited baraita that an eiruv must either be established for all of it or for each alleyway separately. The Gemara asks: What is different about an eiruv for half the city, which is not permissible? The residents of each half prohibit residents of the other from carrying, due to the fact that all the residents may use both halves. Similarly, even if they establish a separate eiruv for each alleyway, the residents should still prohibit residents of the other from carrying, as residents of one alleyway commonly enter other alleyways as well.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讜讚 讚拽讛 讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖注砖讛 讚拽讛 诇驻转讞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 注诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬:


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the residents erected a partition at the entrance to the alleyway as an indication that they do not want to be connected to the other alleyways. And it is like that which Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav 岣sda said: One of the residents of an alleyway, who made a partition for his entrance to the alleyway as a sign that he does not intend to carry from his house to the alleyway, does not prohibit the other residents of the alleyway from carrying there if he does not join in their eiruv. The reason for this is that this resident has demonstrated his desire to renounce his share of the alleyway.


讛讬转讛 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讜壮: 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注专讘讛 诇诪转讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜诇讗 砖讘拽 诇讛 砖讬讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚 诪专 讛讻讬


It was taught in the baraita: If it was originally a public city and it is still a public city, and it has only one entrance to the public domain, one may establish an eiruv for the entire city. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira established an eiruv for Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 city and did not leave any section of the city out of the eiruv. Abaye said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Why didn鈥檛 you exclude a section of the city from the eiruv, as required in a public city?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讘讬 讚讬讚讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗住讬 诪注专讘 讻讜诇讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讬专 砖诇 讬讞讬讚 讜谞注砖讬转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讛讬讗


Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: The city Elders told me that Rav 岣yya bar Asi used to establish an eiruv for the entire city without excluding any section of it, and I said to myself: If he would establish an eiruv for the whole city, I can learn from this that it was originally a private city and later becomes a public one. Therefore, it is permitted to establish an eiruv for the entire city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讛谞讛讜 住讘讬 讛讛讬讗 讗砖驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讛 诪讞讚 讙讬住讗 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讬驻谞讬讗 诇讛 讗砖驻讛 讛讜讛 诇讛 讻砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 讜讗住讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬


Abaye said to him: Those same Elders told me that the reason was different: There was a particular garbage dump on one side of the public domain, which blocked one of the entrances, leaving only one entrance to the public domain. However, now that the garbage dump has been cleared away, it has two entrances, and it is therefore prohibited to establish an eiruv for the whole city without excluding a section from the eiruv. Rabbi Zeira said to him: It was not on my mind, i.e., I was unaware that this was the situation.


讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 讘专 讗讚讗 讛专驻谞讗讛 诪专讘讛 住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜


Rav Ami bar Adda from Harpanya raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a public domain has a ladder on one side, to allow people to scale the wall that blocks it, and an entrance on the other side, what is the halakha? Is it considered a public domain that is open on both sides? Rabba said to him that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance, and therefore the public domain is considered open on both sides.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜 讜转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讜 转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 转讜专转 驻转讞 注诇讬讜 讘住讜诇诐 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 专爪讜 讗讞讚 诪注专讘 专爪讜 砖谞讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉


Rav Na岣an said to them: Do not listen to him. Rav Adda said that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance in certain cases, and it has the status of a partition in other cases. It has the status of a partition in the case that we mentioned, where there is a ladder at the end of a public domain. In this case, the ladder is not considered an entrance and therefore the public domain is considered closed at that end. It has the status of an entrance in the case of a ladder between two courtyards. If the residents of the courtyards wish, they may join the two courtyards by means of the ladder and establish one eiruv; if they wish, the two courtyards may each establish a separate eiruv.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜


The Gemara asks: Did Rav Na岣an actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said: With regard to residents of the ground floor of a courtyard and residents of a balcony, i.e., the floor above the ground floor, who forgot


Scroll To Top