Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2020 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״א

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 60

Today’s daf is dedicated by Gary Zeitlin in honor or Dr. Earl Zeitlin. Happy birthday and gratitude for his many years as a tirelessly devoted neurologist, father and grandfather. And to Ellen Segal in honor of her 60th birthday with love from your children and grandchildren. Ema, your devotion to Limmud Daf Yomi fills us with pride and inspiration. Your example teaches us that we should always make time in our busy lives for Torah and for learning. May Hashem bless us all with many more years with you, full of health, growth, happiness, and Limmud Torah.

Is a ladder considered like a wall (even though one can get over the wall with a ladder, it is still a wall) or like an opening (since it is now accessible)? Do we rule leniently in each situation? The gemara brings questions against those who say we are lenient in every case. Rav Yosef asked Abaye to make an eruv for the city of Kakonia which was originally ‘public’ and now a ‘private’ city. which meant that he needed to leave a part out of the city. Rav Yosef said to make sure to do it in a way that you don’t upset people. Because of that, Abaye thought and rethought the best way to do it until he reached the proper conclusion. In order to make an eruv techumim, one must be within 2,000 cubits at the start of Shabbat from the location of the eruv. The mishna brings a number of examples of this. If one makes an eruv in the 70 and 2/3 cubits around the city, it doesn’t add anything. If one leaves that space and puts the eruv outside there, whatever one gains in that direction, one loses in the other direction. The gemara raises a contradiction to that line and then resolves it by describing two different scenarios.

ולא עירבו אם יש לפניהם דקה ארבעה אינה אוסרת ואם לאו אוסרת

and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard from carrying, as each area is considered to be independent. And if not, the balcony prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying in the courtyard. This indicates that a ladder between two courtyards is always considered an entrance, even when that policy leads to a stringent ruling, unless the two areas are separated by a partition.

הכא במאי עסקינן בדלא גבוה מרפסת עשרה

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high from the ground. Consequently, it does not constitute a domain in its own right, and it is part of the courtyard.

ואי לא גבוה מרפסת עשרה כי קא עביד דקה מאי הוי במגופפת עד עשר אמות דכיון דעביד דקה איסתלוקי איסתלוק ליה מהכא

The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high and is therefore part of the courtyard, when one places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כותל שרצפה בסולמות אפילו ביתר מעשר תורת מחיצה עליו

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a wall that one lined with ladders, even along a length of more than ten cubits, it still retains the status of a partition. The ladders do not constitute an opening that is more than ten cubits wide, which would cause the wall to be regarded as breached and would invalidate the wall as a partition.

רמי ליה רב ברונא לרב יהודה במעצרתא דבי רב חנינא מי אמר שמואל תורת מחיצה עליו והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל אנשי מרפסת ואנשי חצר ששכחו ולא עירבו אם יש לפניה דקה ארבעה אינה אוסרת ואם לאו אוסרת

Rav Beruna raised a contradiction to Rav Yehuda in the winepress at Rav Ḥanina’s house: Did Shmuel actually say that such a wall has the status of a partition? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel said: With regard to the residents of a balcony and the residents of a courtyard who forgot and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard to carry; and if not, it prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying? This indicates that a ladder is considered an entrance, as the courtyard and the balcony are considered connected.

הכא במאי עסקינן דלא גבוה מרפסת עשרה ואי לא גבוה מרפסת עשרה כי עביד דקה מאי הוי במגופפת עד עשר אמות דכיון דעביד דקה איסתלוקי איסתלק מהכא

Rav Yehuda replied in the same manner as above: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, and that is why it is regarded as connected to the courtyard. The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, when he places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.

הנהו בני קקונאי דאתי לקמיה דרב יוסף אמרו ליה הב לן גברא דליערב לן מאתין אמר ליה לאביי זיל ערב להו וחזי דלא מצווחת עלה בבי מדרשא אזל חזא להנהו בתי דפתיחי לנהרא אמר הני להוי שיור למתא

The Gemara relates that certain residents of the city of Kakunya came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Provide us with someone who will establish an eiruv for our city. The city had originally been a public city and had turned into a private one, requiring that part of the city be excluded from the eiruv. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Go, establish an eiruv for them, and see to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall, i.e., make sure the eiruv is valid beyond any doubt. He went and saw that certain houses opened to the river and not to the city. He said: Let these houses serve as the section excluded from the eiruv for the city.

הדר אמר אין מערבין את כולה תנן [מכלל] דאי בעי לעירובי מצי מערבי אלא איעביד להו כווי דאי בעו לעירובי דרך חלונות מצו מערבי

Abaye subsequently retracted and said: This cannot be done, as we learned in the mishna: One may not establish an eiruv for all of it; by inference, if they wanted to establish an eiruv for the entire city, they would have been able to establish such an eiruv, if not for the requirement to exclude a section of the city from the eiruv. However, these houses, which do not open to the city, could not have joined in an eiruv with the rest of the city in any case, and therefore they cannot serve as the excluded section. Rather, I will create windows for them between the courtyards of their houses and the rest of the city, so that if they want to establish an eiruv with the rest of the city by way of the windows, they can establish such an eiruv, and then these houses will be fit to serve as the excluded section.

הדר אמר לא בעי דהא רבה בר אבוה מערב לה לכולה מחוזא ערסייתא ערסייתא משום פירא דבי תורי דכל חד וחד הוי שיור לחבריה ואף על גב דאי בעו לערובי בהדי הדדי לא מצו מערבי

He subsequently retracted again and said: This is not necessary, as Rabba bar Avuh established an eiruv for the entire city of Meḥoza, which was a public city that had become a private one, neighborhood by neighborhood, due to the fact that the neighborhoods were separated by ditches from which the cattle would feed. In other words, Rabba bar Avuh established a separate eiruv for each neighborhood without excluding any of them, as he maintained that each one was an excluded section for the other. And although the neighborhoods would not have been able to establish an eiruv together even if they wanted to, due to the ditches separating them, the neighborhoods were still able to serve as excluded areas for each other.

הדר אמר לא דמי התם אי בעי לערובי דרך גגות והני לא מערבי הילכך נעבדן כווי

He subsequently retracted once again and said: The two cases are not really comparable. There, in Meḥoza, if they wanted, they could have established a single eiruv by way of the roofs; but these houses cannot establish an eiruv with the other houses of the city, and therefore we must create windows for them.

הדר אמר כווי נמי לא בעי דההוא בי תיבנא דהוה ליה למר בר פופידתא מפומבדיתא ושויה שיור לפומבדיתא

He subsequently retracted yet again and said: Windows are also not necessary. As, that storehouse of straw which belonged to Mar bar Pofidata from Pumbedita was designated as the section excluded from the eiruv arranged for the city of Pumbedita, which proves that it is not necessary for the excluded section to be one that could have been included in an eiruv with the rest of the city.

אמר היינו דאמר לי מר חזי דלא מצווחת עלה בבי מדרשא:

Abaye said to himself: This is what the Master meant when he said to me: See to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall. Abaye now understood the many factors that had to be considered and how wary one must be of reaching a hasty conclusion.

אלא אם כן עשה חוצה לה כעיר חדשה: תניא אמר רבי יהודה עיר אחת היתה ביהודה וחדשה שמה והיו בה חמשים דיורים אנשים ונשים וטף ובה היו משערים חכמים והיא היתה שיור

The mishna stated that if a public city becomes a private city, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it unless he maintains an area outside the eiruv which is like the size of the city of Ḥadasha in Judea. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was a certain city in Judea and its name was Ḥadasha, and it had fifty residents including men, women, and children. And the Sages would use it to measure the size of the section that must be excluded from an eiruv, and it itself was the excluded section of the eiruv of a larger city that was adjacent to it.

איבעיא להו חדשה מהו חדשה כי היכי דאיהי הויא שיור לגדולה גדולה נמי הויא שיור לקטנה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for Ḥadasha, what is the halakha? Is it permissible to establish an eiruv for Ḥadasha itself without excluding a section of the city from the eiruv? The Gemara answers: With regard to Ḥadasha, just as it was the excluded section of the larger city, the larger city was also the excluded section of the smaller city.

אלא כעין חדשה מהו רב הונא ורב יהודה חד אמר בעיא שיור וחד אמר לא בעיא שיור:

Rather, the question pertains to a small city like Ḥadasha that stands by itself, not in proximity to a larger city: What is the halakha? Does a small city require an excluded section or not? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed about this issue. One said: It requires an excluded section; and one said: It does not require an excluded section.

רבי שמעון אומר שלש חצירות וכו׳: אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון רבי יצחק אמר אפילו בית אחד וחצר אחת חצר אחת סלקא דעתך אלא אימא בית אחד בחצר אחת

It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area must be large enough to include at least three courtyards with two houses each. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Even one house and one courtyard suffice. The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of this statement: Can it enter your mind that one courtyard even without a house is sufficient? Rather, correct it and say as follows: One house in one courtyard.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרבי יצחק גמרא או סברא אמר ליה מאי נפקא לן מינה אמר ליה גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that ruling of Rabbi Yitzḥak based on oral tradition or his own logic? Rav Yosef said to him: What practical difference does Rabbi Yitzḥak’s source make to us? Abaye said to him, quoting a well-known adage: When you study Talmud is it merely a song?; Is the material you study like the lyrics of a song that you do not understand? It is proper to investigate all aspects of the statements of the Sages, regardless of the practical ramifications.

מתני׳ מי שהיה במזרח ואמר לבנו ערב לי במערב במערב ואמר לבנו ערב לי במזרח אם יש הימנו ולביתו אלפים אמה ולעירובו יותר מכאן מותר לביתו ואסור לעירובו

MISHNA: One who was to the east of his home when Shabbat began, and he had said to his son before Shabbat: Establish an eiruv for me to the west; or, if he was to the west of his home and he had said to his son: Establish an eiruv for me to the east, the halakha is as follows: If there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, he is permitted to walk to his house, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, but it is prohibited for him to walk to the spot where his son had deposited his eiruv.

לעירובו אלפים אמה ולביתו יתר מכאן אסור לביתו ומותר לעירובו

If the distance from one’s current location to his eiruv is two thousand cubits, and the distance to his house is greater than this, he is prohibited from walking to his house, and he is permitted to walk to the spot of his eiruv, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction. In other words, with regard to the Shabbat limit, one’s place of residence for Shabbat cannot be more than two thousand cubits from his physical location when Shabbat begins.

הנותן את עירובו בעיבורה של עיר לא עשה ולא כלום

One who places his eiruv in the outskirts of the city, i.e., within an area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, it is as though he has not done anything. The two thousand cubits of one’s Shabbat limit are measured from the edge of the outskirts of the city even if there is no eiruv, and one therefore gains nothing from placing an eiruv within this area.

נתנו חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת

If, however, he placed his eiruv outside the city’s boundary, even if he placed it only one cubit beyond the city,

מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד:

what he gains in distance through his eiruv on one side of the city he loses on the other side.

גמ׳ קא סלקא דעתך למזרח למזרח ביתו למערב למערב ביתו

GEMARA: It might enter your mind to say that when the mishna states that one was standing to the east, it means that he was standing to the east of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the west of his house. Similarly, when it states that he was standing to the west, it means that he was positioned to the west of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the east of his house. In such a case, the person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.

בשלמא הימנו ולביתו אלפים אמה ולעירובו יתר מכאן משכחת לה דמטי לביתיה ולא מטי לעירובו אלא הימנו ולעירובו אלפים אמה ולביתו יתר מכאן היכי משכחת לה

If so, the question arises: Granted, the mishna’s case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, you can find, as it is possible that he can reach his house without traveling two thousand cubits and he cannot reach his eiruv. But where do you find a case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits between him and his eiruv, and the distance to his house is greater than this? The person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.

אמר רבי יצחק מי סברת למזרח למזרח ביתו למערב למערב ביתו לא למזרח למזרח בנו למערב למערב בנו

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Do you think that to the east means that he was standing to the east of his house, and to the west means that he was standing to the west of his house? No, to the east means to the east of his son, who is depositing his eiruv for him, and to the west means to the west of his son.

רבא בר רב שילא אמר אפילו תימא למזרח למזרח ביתו ולמערב למערב ביתו כגון דקאי ביתיה באלכסונא:

Rava bar Rav Sheila said: Even if you say that to the east means to the east of his house and to the west means to the west of his house, the mishna can be understood as referring to a case where his house stood along a diagonal line in relation to the person and his eiruv. In that case, although he is to the west of his house and the eiruv is located to its east, he can still be closer to his eiruv than he is to his house.

הנותן עירובו בתוך עיבורה וכו׳: חוץ לתחום סלקא דעתך אלא אימא חוץ לעיבורה:

We learned in the mishna: One who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city has not accomplished anything. However, if he places it outside the city limits, it is effective. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the mishna is dealing with a case where one placed his eiruv outside the Shabbat limit? If the eiruv is outside the Shabbat limit as measured from his physical location at the onset of Shabbat, he cannot access it on Shabbat; it is therefore ineffective in establishing his Shabbat residence. Rather, correct it and say as follows: If one placed his eiruv outside the city’s outskirts, i.e., beyond the area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, the eiruv is effective in establishing his Shabbat residence at that location.

מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד: מה שנשכר ותו לא והתניא הנותן את עירובו בתוך עיבורה של עיר לא עשה ולא כלום נתנו חוץ לעיבורה של עיר אפילו אמה אחת משתכר אותה אמה ומפסיד את כל העיר כולה מפני שמדת העיר עולה לו במדת התחום

We learned in the next clause of the mishna concerning one who places his eiruv even one cubit beyond the city’s boundary: That which he gains on one side of the city he loses on the other. The Gemara expresses surprise: Does that mean that only that which he gains on one side he loses on the other, and no more? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city, he has not done anything; if, however, he placed it outside the outskirts of the city, even one cubit outside, he gains that cubit and loses the entire city because the measure of the city is included in the measure of his Shabbat limit? If one’s Shabbat residence had been in the city, the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit would have been measured from the edge of the city’s outskirts; now that he has established his Shabbat residence outside the city, the city itself is included in the two thousand cubits, and he may lose far more on that side than he will gain on the other side.

לא קשיא כאן שכלתה מדתו בחצי העיר כאן שכלתה מדתו בסוף העיר

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the baraita is referring to a case where his measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the city; whereas there the mishna is referring to a case where his measure terminated at the far end of the city.

וכדרבי אידי דאמר רבי אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי היה מודד ובא וכלתה מדתו בחצי העיר אין לו אלא חצי העיר כלתה מדתו בסוף העיר נעשית לו העיר כולה כארבע אמות ומשלימין לו את השאר

And this is in accordance with the opinion stated by Rabbi Idi, as Rabbi Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If one was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the location of his Shabbat residence outside the city, and his measure terminated in the middle of the city, he has only half the city, i.e., he may walk only to the end of his two thousand cubits. If, however, his measure terminated at the far end of the city,the entire city is regarded as four cubits, and he completes the rest of the Shabbat limit on the other side of the city.

אמר רבי אידי אין אלו אלא דברי נביאות מה לי כלתה בחצי העיר מה לי כלתה בסוף העיר

Rabbi Idi said: These are nothing more than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement. What difference is it to me if the measure terminated in the middle of the city, or if it terminated at the far end of the city?

אמר רבא תרוייהו תננהי אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה

Rava said: They are not words of prophecy, as both cases were taught in the following mishna: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city that is fully included within its Shabbat limit; the small city is considered as though it were four cubits, and the rest of the Shabbat limit is measured from the other side of the city.

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

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...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 60: The Gemara Is Not Incomprehensible Song Lyrics!

Establishing eruvin for smaller cities and towns - a story of one town (Kankunya) that seeks expertise in calling in...

Eruvin 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 60

ולא עירבו אם יש לפניהם דקה ארבעה אינה אוסרת ואם לאו אוסרת

and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard from carrying, as each area is considered to be independent. And if not, the balcony prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying in the courtyard. This indicates that a ladder between two courtyards is always considered an entrance, even when that policy leads to a stringent ruling, unless the two areas are separated by a partition.

הכא במאי עסקינן בדלא גבוה מרפסת עשרה

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high from the ground. Consequently, it does not constitute a domain in its own right, and it is part of the courtyard.

ואי לא גבוה מרפסת עשרה כי קא עביד דקה מאי הוי במגופפת עד עשר אמות דכיון דעביד דקה איסתלוקי איסתלוק ליה מהכא

The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high and is therefore part of the courtyard, when one places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כותל שרצפה בסולמות אפילו ביתר מעשר תורת מחיצה עליו

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a wall that one lined with ladders, even along a length of more than ten cubits, it still retains the status of a partition. The ladders do not constitute an opening that is more than ten cubits wide, which would cause the wall to be regarded as breached and would invalidate the wall as a partition.

רמי ליה רב ברונא לרב יהודה במעצרתא דבי רב חנינא מי אמר שמואל תורת מחיצה עליו והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל אנשי מרפסת ואנשי חצר ששכחו ולא עירבו אם יש לפניה דקה ארבעה אינה אוסרת ואם לאו אוסרת

Rav Beruna raised a contradiction to Rav Yehuda in the winepress at Rav Ḥanina’s house: Did Shmuel actually say that such a wall has the status of a partition? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel said: With regard to the residents of a balcony and the residents of a courtyard who forgot and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard to carry; and if not, it prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying? This indicates that a ladder is considered an entrance, as the courtyard and the balcony are considered connected.

הכא במאי עסקינן דלא גבוה מרפסת עשרה ואי לא גבוה מרפסת עשרה כי עביד דקה מאי הוי במגופפת עד עשר אמות דכיון דעביד דקה איסתלוקי איסתלק מהכא

Rav Yehuda replied in the same manner as above: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, and that is why it is regarded as connected to the courtyard. The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, when he places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.

הנהו בני קקונאי דאתי לקמיה דרב יוסף אמרו ליה הב לן גברא דליערב לן מאתין אמר ליה לאביי זיל ערב להו וחזי דלא מצווחת עלה בבי מדרשא אזל חזא להנהו בתי דפתיחי לנהרא אמר הני להוי שיור למתא

The Gemara relates that certain residents of the city of Kakunya came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Provide us with someone who will establish an eiruv for our city. The city had originally been a public city and had turned into a private one, requiring that part of the city be excluded from the eiruv. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Go, establish an eiruv for them, and see to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall, i.e., make sure the eiruv is valid beyond any doubt. He went and saw that certain houses opened to the river and not to the city. He said: Let these houses serve as the section excluded from the eiruv for the city.

הדר אמר אין מערבין את כולה תנן [מכלל] דאי בעי לעירובי מצי מערבי אלא איעביד להו כווי דאי בעו לעירובי דרך חלונות מצו מערבי

Abaye subsequently retracted and said: This cannot be done, as we learned in the mishna: One may not establish an eiruv for all of it; by inference, if they wanted to establish an eiruv for the entire city, they would have been able to establish such an eiruv, if not for the requirement to exclude a section of the city from the eiruv. However, these houses, which do not open to the city, could not have joined in an eiruv with the rest of the city in any case, and therefore they cannot serve as the excluded section. Rather, I will create windows for them between the courtyards of their houses and the rest of the city, so that if they want to establish an eiruv with the rest of the city by way of the windows, they can establish such an eiruv, and then these houses will be fit to serve as the excluded section.

הדר אמר לא בעי דהא רבה בר אבוה מערב לה לכולה מחוזא ערסייתא ערסייתא משום פירא דבי תורי דכל חד וחד הוי שיור לחבריה ואף על גב דאי בעו לערובי בהדי הדדי לא מצו מערבי

He subsequently retracted again and said: This is not necessary, as Rabba bar Avuh established an eiruv for the entire city of Meḥoza, which was a public city that had become a private one, neighborhood by neighborhood, due to the fact that the neighborhoods were separated by ditches from which the cattle would feed. In other words, Rabba bar Avuh established a separate eiruv for each neighborhood without excluding any of them, as he maintained that each one was an excluded section for the other. And although the neighborhoods would not have been able to establish an eiruv together even if they wanted to, due to the ditches separating them, the neighborhoods were still able to serve as excluded areas for each other.

הדר אמר לא דמי התם אי בעי לערובי דרך גגות והני לא מערבי הילכך נעבדן כווי

He subsequently retracted once again and said: The two cases are not really comparable. There, in Meḥoza, if they wanted, they could have established a single eiruv by way of the roofs; but these houses cannot establish an eiruv with the other houses of the city, and therefore we must create windows for them.

הדר אמר כווי נמי לא בעי דההוא בי תיבנא דהוה ליה למר בר פופידתא מפומבדיתא ושויה שיור לפומבדיתא

He subsequently retracted yet again and said: Windows are also not necessary. As, that storehouse of straw which belonged to Mar bar Pofidata from Pumbedita was designated as the section excluded from the eiruv arranged for the city of Pumbedita, which proves that it is not necessary for the excluded section to be one that could have been included in an eiruv with the rest of the city.

אמר היינו דאמר לי מר חזי דלא מצווחת עלה בבי מדרשא:

Abaye said to himself: This is what the Master meant when he said to me: See to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall. Abaye now understood the many factors that had to be considered and how wary one must be of reaching a hasty conclusion.

אלא אם כן עשה חוצה לה כעיר חדשה: תניא אמר רבי יהודה עיר אחת היתה ביהודה וחדשה שמה והיו בה חמשים דיורים אנשים ונשים וטף ובה היו משערים חכמים והיא היתה שיור

The mishna stated that if a public city becomes a private city, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it unless he maintains an area outside the eiruv which is like the size of the city of Ḥadasha in Judea. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was a certain city in Judea and its name was Ḥadasha, and it had fifty residents including men, women, and children. And the Sages would use it to measure the size of the section that must be excluded from an eiruv, and it itself was the excluded section of the eiruv of a larger city that was adjacent to it.

איבעיא להו חדשה מהו חדשה כי היכי דאיהי הויא שיור לגדולה גדולה נמי הויא שיור לקטנה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for Ḥadasha, what is the halakha? Is it permissible to establish an eiruv for Ḥadasha itself without excluding a section of the city from the eiruv? The Gemara answers: With regard to Ḥadasha, just as it was the excluded section of the larger city, the larger city was also the excluded section of the smaller city.

אלא כעין חדשה מהו רב הונא ורב יהודה חד אמר בעיא שיור וחד אמר לא בעיא שיור:

Rather, the question pertains to a small city like Ḥadasha that stands by itself, not in proximity to a larger city: What is the halakha? Does a small city require an excluded section or not? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed about this issue. One said: It requires an excluded section; and one said: It does not require an excluded section.

רבי שמעון אומר שלש חצירות וכו׳: אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כרבי שמעון רבי יצחק אמר אפילו בית אחד וחצר אחת חצר אחת סלקא דעתך אלא אימא בית אחד בחצר אחת

It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area must be large enough to include at least three courtyards with two houses each. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Even one house and one courtyard suffice. The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of this statement: Can it enter your mind that one courtyard even without a house is sufficient? Rather, correct it and say as follows: One house in one courtyard.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרבי יצחק גמרא או סברא אמר ליה מאי נפקא לן מינה אמר ליה גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that ruling of Rabbi Yitzḥak based on oral tradition or his own logic? Rav Yosef said to him: What practical difference does Rabbi Yitzḥak’s source make to us? Abaye said to him, quoting a well-known adage: When you study Talmud is it merely a song?; Is the material you study like the lyrics of a song that you do not understand? It is proper to investigate all aspects of the statements of the Sages, regardless of the practical ramifications.

מתני׳ מי שהיה במזרח ואמר לבנו ערב לי במערב במערב ואמר לבנו ערב לי במזרח אם יש הימנו ולביתו אלפים אמה ולעירובו יותר מכאן מותר לביתו ואסור לעירובו

MISHNA: One who was to the east of his home when Shabbat began, and he had said to his son before Shabbat: Establish an eiruv for me to the west; or, if he was to the west of his home and he had said to his son: Establish an eiruv for me to the east, the halakha is as follows: If there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, he is permitted to walk to his house, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, but it is prohibited for him to walk to the spot where his son had deposited his eiruv.

לעירובו אלפים אמה ולביתו יתר מכאן אסור לביתו ומותר לעירובו

If the distance from one’s current location to his eiruv is two thousand cubits, and the distance to his house is greater than this, he is prohibited from walking to his house, and he is permitted to walk to the spot of his eiruv, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction. In other words, with regard to the Shabbat limit, one’s place of residence for Shabbat cannot be more than two thousand cubits from his physical location when Shabbat begins.

הנותן את עירובו בעיבורה של עיר לא עשה ולא כלום

One who places his eiruv in the outskirts of the city, i.e., within an area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, it is as though he has not done anything. The two thousand cubits of one’s Shabbat limit are measured from the edge of the outskirts of the city even if there is no eiruv, and one therefore gains nothing from placing an eiruv within this area.

נתנו חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת

If, however, he placed his eiruv outside the city’s boundary, even if he placed it only one cubit beyond the city,

מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד:

what he gains in distance through his eiruv on one side of the city he loses on the other side.

גמ׳ קא סלקא דעתך למזרח למזרח ביתו למערב למערב ביתו

GEMARA: It might enter your mind to say that when the mishna states that one was standing to the east, it means that he was standing to the east of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the west of his house. Similarly, when it states that he was standing to the west, it means that he was positioned to the west of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the east of his house. In such a case, the person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.

בשלמא הימנו ולביתו אלפים אמה ולעירובו יתר מכאן משכחת לה דמטי לביתיה ולא מטי לעירובו אלא הימנו ולעירובו אלפים אמה ולביתו יתר מכאן היכי משכחת לה

If so, the question arises: Granted, the mishna’s case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, you can find, as it is possible that he can reach his house without traveling two thousand cubits and he cannot reach his eiruv. But where do you find a case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits between him and his eiruv, and the distance to his house is greater than this? The person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.

אמר רבי יצחק מי סברת למזרח למזרח ביתו למערב למערב ביתו לא למזרח למזרח בנו למערב למערב בנו

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Do you think that to the east means that he was standing to the east of his house, and to the west means that he was standing to the west of his house? No, to the east means to the east of his son, who is depositing his eiruv for him, and to the west means to the west of his son.

רבא בר רב שילא אמר אפילו תימא למזרח למזרח ביתו ולמערב למערב ביתו כגון דקאי ביתיה באלכסונא:

Rava bar Rav Sheila said: Even if you say that to the east means to the east of his house and to the west means to the west of his house, the mishna can be understood as referring to a case where his house stood along a diagonal line in relation to the person and his eiruv. In that case, although he is to the west of his house and the eiruv is located to its east, he can still be closer to his eiruv than he is to his house.

הנותן עירובו בתוך עיבורה וכו׳: חוץ לתחום סלקא דעתך אלא אימא חוץ לעיבורה:

We learned in the mishna: One who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city has not accomplished anything. However, if he places it outside the city limits, it is effective. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the mishna is dealing with a case where one placed his eiruv outside the Shabbat limit? If the eiruv is outside the Shabbat limit as measured from his physical location at the onset of Shabbat, he cannot access it on Shabbat; it is therefore ineffective in establishing his Shabbat residence. Rather, correct it and say as follows: If one placed his eiruv outside the city’s outskirts, i.e., beyond the area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, the eiruv is effective in establishing his Shabbat residence at that location.

מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד: מה שנשכר ותו לא והתניא הנותן את עירובו בתוך עיבורה של עיר לא עשה ולא כלום נתנו חוץ לעיבורה של עיר אפילו אמה אחת משתכר אותה אמה ומפסיד את כל העיר כולה מפני שמדת העיר עולה לו במדת התחום

We learned in the next clause of the mishna concerning one who places his eiruv even one cubit beyond the city’s boundary: That which he gains on one side of the city he loses on the other. The Gemara expresses surprise: Does that mean that only that which he gains on one side he loses on the other, and no more? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city, he has not done anything; if, however, he placed it outside the outskirts of the city, even one cubit outside, he gains that cubit and loses the entire city because the measure of the city is included in the measure of his Shabbat limit? If one’s Shabbat residence had been in the city, the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit would have been measured from the edge of the city’s outskirts; now that he has established his Shabbat residence outside the city, the city itself is included in the two thousand cubits, and he may lose far more on that side than he will gain on the other side.

לא קשיא כאן שכלתה מדתו בחצי העיר כאן שכלתה מדתו בסוף העיר

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the baraita is referring to a case where his measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the city; whereas there the mishna is referring to a case where his measure terminated at the far end of the city.

וכדרבי אידי דאמר רבי אידי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי היה מודד ובא וכלתה מדתו בחצי העיר אין לו אלא חצי העיר כלתה מדתו בסוף העיר נעשית לו העיר כולה כארבע אמות ומשלימין לו את השאר

And this is in accordance with the opinion stated by Rabbi Idi, as Rabbi Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If one was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the location of his Shabbat residence outside the city, and his measure terminated in the middle of the city, he has only half the city, i.e., he may walk only to the end of his two thousand cubits. If, however, his measure terminated at the far end of the city,the entire city is regarded as four cubits, and he completes the rest of the Shabbat limit on the other side of the city.

אמר רבי אידי אין אלו אלא דברי נביאות מה לי כלתה בחצי העיר מה לי כלתה בסוף העיר

Rabbi Idi said: These are nothing more than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement. What difference is it to me if the measure terminated in the middle of the city, or if it terminated at the far end of the city?

אמר רבא תרוייהו תננהי אנשי עיר גדולה מהלכין את כל עיר קטנה

Rava said: They are not words of prophecy, as both cases were taught in the following mishna: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city that is fully included within its Shabbat limit; the small city is considered as though it were four cubits, and the rest of the Shabbat limit is measured from the other side of the city.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top