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

Daf Yomi

October 9, 2020 | 讻状讗 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.

Eruvin 61

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi brings two cases – if one acquired residence outside the city and measured the techum from there and it ended in the middle of a city, one’s limit ends there. But if it ended at the end of the city, the entire city is like 4 cubits and one continues counting from the other side of the city. Rav Idi questions Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levy as there is no basis for saying this. Is there really no basis? Rav Yosef explains the law in a city that borders on a ravine. Is this considered a city or not for the purposes of measuring techum? Rav Yosef brings a proof from a ruling of Rebbi聽 regarding people going in between two particular cities, but the gemara explains the reason in a different way and rejects the proof. If there are two cities – one smalla dn one large, if one is in one at the start of Shabbat but has an eruv in the other, does one get 2,000 cubits from the eruv or from the outskirts of the city? Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis disagree. They all agree in the case of an eruv in a cave that one counts 2,000 cubits from the eruv – but in what circumstances? What if one’s eruv was outside and the 2,000 cubits ended in the middle of the cave? Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar disagree regarding acquiring residence in a desolate city. Would there be a distinction between one who acquired residence by being there physically or by putting food there? Are there proofs for Shmuel’s approach? What are the laws of eruv chatzerot in a courtyard where there are non-Jews?

讜讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛


And the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 讻诇转讛 诪讚转谉 讘讞爪讬 讛注讬专 讜讛谞讬 讻诇转讛 诪讚转谉 讘住讜祝 讛注讬专


What is the reason for this difference? Is it not because these, the residents of the small city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the large city, and therefore they may walk only to the end of their two thousand cubits; and these, the residents of the large city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated at the far end of the small city, allowing them to walk through the entire city as though it were four cubits and complete the two thousand cubit measure of their Shabbat limit on the other side of the city?


讜专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讗谞砖讬 讗谞砖讬 转谞讬 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讗讘诇 诪讜讚讚 诇讗 转谞谉


And Rabbi Idi, who said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 statement has no source, may hold that the mishna teaches the two cases with the same formulation. Just as it states: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, it similarly states: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city. His version of the mishna did not state that the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. And he establishes the mishna as referring to one who placed his eiruv inside the other city. Consequently, that city becomes his Shabbat residence, and he may walk anywhere in that city and an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. But we did not learn anything about one who was measuring two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence outside the city, in which case it makes a difference whether the entire city is within his two thousand cubits or whether only part of it is within this limit.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛


The Gemara asks: And did we not learn in the mishna about one who was measuring? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave? Although a cave has the status of a private domain, he may enter only the part of the cave that is within his two thousand cubits. This case is directly parallel to the case of one whose two thousand cubits end in the middle of a city.


住讜祝 讛注讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 转谞谉


The Gemara answers: Although there is a source for the case of one whose limit ends in the middle of a city, it was nevertheless necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach the case where one鈥檚 measure ends at the far end of the city, in which case the entire city is regarded as four cubits and the rest of the Shabbat limit is completed on the other side of the city, as we did not learn anything about such a case.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖


With regard to the mishna cited above, Rav Na岣an said: One who teaches the following in the second clause: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err in his rendering of the mishna. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city, also does not err. Both renderings are plausible.


诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讜讚讚


Rav Na岣an explains: One who teaches: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who places his eiruv inside the other city. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city also does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who measures his Shabbat limit and arrives at the city from the outside.


讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讚讚 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讛 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


And the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, but the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. In what case is this statement said? It was said with regard to one who was measuring his two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence. But one who was in the large city and placed his eiruv in the small city, and similarly one who was in the small city and placed his eiruv in the large city, he may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and beyond it two thousand cubits.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专 砖讬讜砖讘转 注诇 砖驻转 讛谞讞诇 讗诐 讬砖 诇驻谞讬讛 讚拽讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讜讚讚讬诐 诇讛 诪砖驻转 讛谞讞诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜


Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a city located on the edge of a ravine, if there is a barrier four cubits high in front of it, one measures its Shabbat limit from the edge of the ravine, as it is considered the border of the city. And if there is not a barrier four cubits high in front of it, the Shabbat limit is measured from the entrance of each person鈥檚 house, as the city is not considered a permanent settlement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚拽讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 讚拽讬 讚注诇诪讗 讚讗专讘注讛


Abaye said to him: You told us with regard to this case that a barrier four cubits high is required. What is different about this case that it requires a barrier that is higher than all other barriers, which must reach a height of only four handbreadths?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讘注讬转讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 讛讻讗 讘注讬转讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗


He said to him: There, use of the place is not frightening; here, use of the place is frightening. Generally, partitions serve a symbolic function, and therefore it is sufficient for the partition to be four handbreadths high. In this case, however, it is frightening to stand along the edge of the ravine without a protective barrier, and therefore a barrier four cubits high must be constructed for the safety of the residents.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛转讬专 专讘讬 砖讬讛讜 讘谞讬 讙讚专 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讞诪转谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讙讚专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 注讘讜讚 讚拽讛 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讚拽讛


Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to 岣mtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of 岣mtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of 岣mtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and 岣mtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of 岣mtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讟讟专讜讙讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讙讚专 诇讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 讜诪讗讬 讛转讬专 讛转拽讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of 岣mtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to 岣mtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘转 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讘讛 砖讻专讜转


The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instituted this ordinance only for Shabbat and not for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat, when people eat to their heart鈥檚 content. Therefore, there is a greater chance of violent behavior.


讻讬 讗讝诇讬 诇讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 诇讛讜 讻诇讘讗 讘诇讗 诪转讬讛 砖讘 砖谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讘讞


The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to 岣mtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit 岣mtan as they are in their own town.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 诇讘谞讬 讙讚专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讻讬讬驻讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of 岣mtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting 岣mtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of 岣mtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.


专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讛讜讗讬


Rav Safra said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow, whose two ends were separated by less than four thousand cubits. The empty space of the bow was viewed as though it were filled with houses, and its Shabbat limit was measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. Consequently, 岣mtan was included in its Shabbat limit, and the residents of Geder were permitted to go there on Shabbat. With regard to the inhabitants of 岣mtan, however, that same area between the ends of Geder was viewed as empty space, and therefore the houses of Geder along the arc of the bow were beyond their Shabbat limit.


专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讛讜讗讬


Rav Dimi bar 岣nana said: The people of Geder were residents of a large city, and the people of 岣mtan were residents of a small city. Consequently, the residents of the large city, Geder, could walk through all of 岣mtan, the small city; but the residents of 岣mtan could walk only through part of Geder, as explained previously.


专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讛讜讗讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讜讗讬:


Rav Kahana taught it that way, as stated previously; whereas Rav Tavyomi taught it more concisely, in this way: Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar 岣nana disagreed about the matter. One of them said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow; and one of them said: The people of 岣mtan were residents of a small city and the people of Geder were residents of a large city.


诪转谞讬壮 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜谞转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜谞转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


MISHNA: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, and the residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, even if part of it is located more than two thousand cubits from their city. How so? One who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city, or one who was in a small city and placed his eiruv in a large city, may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and another two thousand cubits beyond it, as the entire city is considered as though it were only four cubits.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪注专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


Rabbi Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, as the actual area of the city is included in the calculation. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, and that consequently the entire cave is not considered as merely four cubits?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 谞诪爪讗 拽诇 转讜讻讛 诪注诇 讙讘讛


The Rabbis said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. But if it has residents, it is considered as though it were only four cubits, and one may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. Consequently, the halakha with regard to an eiruv placed inside a cave is sometimes more lenient than the halakha governing an eiruv placed in the area above the cave. If one places his eiruv inside a cave that has residents, he has two thousand cubits beyond the cave; if he places it above the cave, where there are no residents, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv.


讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛:


And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that measurement applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave. He may not walk further into the cave, even if the cave is inhabited.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘转 讘注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 诇专讘谞谉 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬讞 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one established his Shabbat residence in a desolate city whose walls are still standing, according to the Rabbis he may walk through all of it as though it were four cubits, and he may walk an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. If, however, he merely placed his eiruv in a desolate city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. The Rabbis distinguish between one who establishes his Shabbat residence by actually being present in that location at the onset of Shabbat and one who does so by placing his eiruv there before Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar says: Whether he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence or he merely placed his eiruv there, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪注专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讗 讘讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection based upon the mishna. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv? They said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. Consequently, when it has no residents the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that one has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. This contradicts Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 assertion that, according to the Rabbis, even if one places his eiruv in the abandoned city, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.


诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛


The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the qualification that it has no residents? It means that the place is not fit for residence. If, however, the city is suitable for habitation, it is considered like four cubits even if it is currently uninhabited.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谞讟讬讜讻讬讗 讘诪注专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 拽转谞讬 注讬专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注专讛 诪讛 诪注专讛 讞专讬讘讛 讗祝 注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 讜砖讘转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讗


Come and hear another difficulty from the following baraita: If one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence in a city, even if it is as large as Antioch, or in a cave, even if it is particularly large, like the Cave of Zedekiah, king of Judah, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. The baraita teaches the case of a city that is similar to that of a cave: Just as a cave is presumably desolate, i.e., uninhabited, so too the city must be one that is desolate. And only in the case where he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence would yes, this halakha apply; but if he merely placed his eiruv there, no, he may not measure his two thousand cubits from the edge of the city.


诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖讬讘讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚砖讘转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讗


The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why did the baraita specifically teach the case of a desolate city? Even if it was inhabited, the same halakha should also apply, as Rabbi Akiva holds that even if one placed his eiruv in an inhabited city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And nonetheless, the reason is that one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence. In such a case, yes, one may walk through the entire city and another two thousand cubits beyond it. But if one merely placed his eiruv there, he would not be permitted to walk more than two thousand cubits from his eiruv, which would contradict the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讬专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注专讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讬专 诪讛 注讬专 讬砖讬讘讛 讗祝 诪注专讛 讬砖讬讘讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘砖讘转 诪讜讚讬


The Gemara rejects this argument and argues that the initial inference was incorrect. Do not say that the baraita is referring to a city that is similar to a cave. Rather, say that it is referring to a cave that is similar to a city: Just as the city is presumably inhabited, so too the cave must be one that is inhabited. The baraita is then in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that if one merely places his eiruv in the cave, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. However, if one established his Shabbat residence there through his physical presence, even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the entire cave is considered as though it were four cubits, and he may walk two thousand cubits beyond the cave.


讜讛讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 拽转谞讬 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讞专讬讘讛 讜讛讻讗 讬砖讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach that this halakha applies even to a cave like the Cave of Zedekiah, which was uninhabited? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a cave that is like the Cave of Zedekiah in one respect and not like the Cave of Zedekiah in other respects. It is like the Cave of Zedekiah in that the cave is as large as that one. And it is not exactly like the Cave of Zedekiah, as there, with regard to Zedekiah鈥檚 cave, it was desolate, and here the baraita is referring to a cave that is inhabited.


诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪讘专讻转讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讘讬 注讬专讜讘讬讬讛讜 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讘讬 讗讙讜讘专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讜讜 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转专讬 诇讻讜 讟驻讬


The Gemara relates that Mar Yehuda once found the residents of Mavrakhta placing their eiruvin in the synagogue of Beit Agovar. He said to them: Place your eiruv farther into the synagogue, so that more will be permitted to you, as the Shabbat limit is measured from the spot where the eiruv is deposited. Mar Yehuda holds that even when an eiruv is placed in an inhabited city, the two thousand cubits are measured from the location of the eiruv rather than from the edge of the city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 驻诇讙讗讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗:


Rava said to him: Argumentative one! With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, nobody is concerned about this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Consequently, no matter where one places his eiruv in a city, the entire city is considered as though it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits beyond the edge of the city.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讜 注诐 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜


MISHNA: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard, or one who lives in the same courtyard with one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, even though he is not a gentile, such as a Samaritan [Kuti], this person renders it prohibited for him to carry from his own house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house, unless he rents this person鈥檚 rights in the courtyard, as will be explained below.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for one to carry, unless there are two Jews living in the same courtyard who themselves would prohibit one another from carrying if there were no eiruv. In such a case, the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective. However, if only one Jew lives there, the gentile does not render it prohibited for him to carry in the courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讚专 注诪谞讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诪讛专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诇诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐


Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. And Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it, before he changes his mind and takes out his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专 诪讛专讜 讜注砖讜 爪专讻讬讻诐 讘诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐:


Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 father spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before he takes out his utensils and renders it prohibited for you to use the alleyway. In other words, you may not bring out utensils to the alleyway at all on Shabbat, as the institution of an eiruv cannot be used in the neighborhood of a Sadducee. This is because, even if he renounced his rights to the alleyway, he can always retract and reclaim them.


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...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 61: Getting Drunk on Shabbat

Discussion of the tension regarding the establishment of eruv techumin - where measuring precisely can turn out to be to...

Eruvin 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 61

讜讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛


And the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 讻诇转讛 诪讚转谉 讘讞爪讬 讛注讬专 讜讛谞讬 讻诇转讛 诪讚转谉 讘住讜祝 讛注讬专


What is the reason for this difference? Is it not because these, the residents of the small city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the large city, and therefore they may walk only to the end of their two thousand cubits; and these, the residents of the large city, their measure of two thousand cubits terminated at the far end of the small city, allowing them to walk through the entire city as though it were four cubits and complete the two thousand cubit measure of their Shabbat limit on the other side of the city?


讜专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讗谞砖讬 讗谞砖讬 转谞讬 讜诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讗讘诇 诪讜讚讚 诇讗 转谞谉


And Rabbi Idi, who said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 statement has no source, may hold that the mishna teaches the two cases with the same formulation. Just as it states: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, it similarly states: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city. His version of the mishna did not state that the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. And he establishes the mishna as referring to one who placed his eiruv inside the other city. Consequently, that city becomes his Shabbat residence, and he may walk anywhere in that city and an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. But we did not learn anything about one who was measuring two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence outside the city, in which case it makes a difference whether the entire city is within his two thousand cubits or whether only part of it is within this limit.


讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛


The Gemara asks: And did we not learn in the mishna about one who was measuring? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave? Although a cave has the status of a private domain, he may enter only the part of the cave that is within his two thousand cubits. This case is directly parallel to the case of one whose two thousand cubits end in the middle of a city.


住讜祝 讛注讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 转谞谉


The Gemara answers: Although there is a source for the case of one whose limit ends in the middle of a city, it was nevertheless necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach the case where one鈥檚 measure ends at the far end of the city, in which case the entire city is regarded as four cubits and the rest of the Shabbat limit is completed on the other side of the city, as we did not learn anything about such a case.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖


With regard to the mishna cited above, Rav Na岣an said: One who teaches the following in the second clause: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err in his rendering of the mishna. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city, also does not err. Both renderings are plausible.


诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘谞讜转谉 讜诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 诇讗 诪砖转讘砖 讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘诪讜讚讚


Rav Na岣an explains: One who teaches: The residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who places his eiruv inside the other city. And one who teaches: The residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city also does not err, as he establishes the mishna as referring to one who measures his Shabbat limit and arrives at the city from the outside.


讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜讚讚 讗讘诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讛 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


And the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, but the residents of a small city may not walk through an entire large city. In what case is this statement said? It was said with regard to one who was measuring his two thousand cubits from his Shabbat residence. But one who was in the large city and placed his eiruv in the small city, and similarly one who was in the small city and placed his eiruv in the large city, he may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and beyond it two thousand cubits.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讬专 砖讬讜砖讘转 注诇 砖驻转 讛谞讞诇 讗诐 讬砖 诇驻谞讬讛 讚拽讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讜讚讚讬诐 诇讛 诪砖驻转 讛谞讞诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜讚讚讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞 讘讬转讜


Rav Yosef said that Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a city located on the edge of a ravine, if there is a barrier four cubits high in front of it, one measures its Shabbat limit from the edge of the ravine, as it is considered the border of the city. And if there is not a barrier four cubits high in front of it, the Shabbat limit is measured from the entrance of each person鈥檚 house, as the city is not considered a permanent settlement.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚拽讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 讚拽讬 讚注诇诪讗 讚讗专讘注讛


Abaye said to him: You told us with regard to this case that a barrier four cubits high is required. What is different about this case that it requires a barrier that is higher than all other barriers, which must reach a height of only four handbreadths?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讘注讬转讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗 讛讻讗 讘注讬转讗 转砖诪讬砖转讗


He said to him: There, use of the place is not frightening; here, use of the place is frightening. Generally, partitions serve a symbolic function, and therefore it is sufficient for the partition to be four handbreadths high. In this case, however, it is frightening to stand along the edge of the ravine without a protective barrier, and therefore a barrier four cubits high must be constructed for the safety of the residents.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛转讬专 专讘讬 砖讬讛讜 讘谞讬 讙讚专 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讞诪转谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 注讜诇讬谉 诇讙讚专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛谞讬 注讘讜讚 讚拽讛 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讚拽讛


Rav Yosef said: From where do I derive to say this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder, situated at the top of a slope, to descend on Shabbat to 岣mtan, situated at the bottom of the slope, but the residents of 岣mtan may not ascend to Geder. What is the reason? Is it not because these, the inhabitants of Geder, constructed a barrier at the lower edge of their city, and these, the members of 岣mtan, did not construct a barrier at the upper edge of their city? Consequently, the residents of Geder measured their Shabbat limit from their barrier, and 岣mtan was included in their two thousand cubits. The residents of 岣mtan had to measure their Shabbat limits from their homes, and therefore Geder was not within their two thousand cubit limit.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讟讟专讜讙讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讙讚专 诇讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 讜诪讗讬 讛转讬专 讛转拽讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of 岣mtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to 岣mtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘转 讚砖讻讬讞讗 讘讛 砖讻专讜转


The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instituted this ordinance only for Shabbat and not for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat, when people eat to their heart鈥檚 content. Therefore, there is a greater chance of violent behavior.


讻讬 讗讝诇讬 诇讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 诇讛讜 讻诇讘讗 讘诇讗 诪转讬讛 砖讘 砖谞讬谉 诇讗 谞讘讞


The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to 岣mtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit 岣mtan as they are in their own town.


讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讟讟专讙讬 讘谞讬 讞诪转谉 诇讘谞讬 讙讚专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讻讬讬驻讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of 岣mtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting 岣mtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of 岣mtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group.


专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讛讜讗讬


Rav Safra said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow, whose two ends were separated by less than four thousand cubits. The empty space of the bow was viewed as though it were filled with houses, and its Shabbat limit was measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow. Consequently, 岣mtan was included in its Shabbat limit, and the residents of Geder were permitted to go there on Shabbat. With regard to the inhabitants of 岣mtan, however, that same area between the ends of Geder was viewed as empty space, and therefore the houses of Geder along the arc of the bow were beyond their Shabbat limit.


专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讛讜讗讬


Rav Dimi bar 岣nana said: The people of Geder were residents of a large city, and the people of 岣mtan were residents of a small city. Consequently, the residents of the large city, Geder, could walk through all of 岣mtan, the small city; but the residents of 岣mtan could walk only through part of Geder, as explained previously.


专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 专讘 住驻专讗 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 注讬专 讛注砖讜讬讛 讻拽砖转 讛讜讗讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讜讗讬:


Rav Kahana taught it that way, as stated previously; whereas Rav Tavyomi taught it more concisely, in this way: Rav Safra and Rav Dimi bar 岣nana disagreed about the matter. One of them said: Geder was a city shaped like a bow; and one of them said: The people of 岣mtan were residents of a small city and the people of Geder were residents of a large city.


诪转谞讬壮 讗谞砖讬 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜讗谞砖讬 注讬专 拽讟谞讛 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讗转 讻诇 注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 讜谞转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讘注讬专 拽讟谞讛 讜谞转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


MISHNA: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city, and the residents of a small city may walk through an entire large city, even if part of it is located more than two thousand cubits from their city. How so? One who was in a large city and placed his eiruv in a small city, or one who was in a small city and placed his eiruv in a large city, may walk through the entire city in which he placed his eiruv and another two thousand cubits beyond it, as the entire city is considered as though it were only four cubits.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘谞讜转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪注专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


Rabbi Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, as the actual area of the city is included in the calculation. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv, and that consequently the entire cave is not considered as merely four cubits?


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 谞诪爪讗 拽诇 转讜讻讛 诪注诇 讙讘讛


The Rabbis said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. But if it has residents, it is considered as though it were only four cubits, and one may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. Consequently, the halakha with regard to an eiruv placed inside a cave is sometimes more lenient than the halakha governing an eiruv placed in the area above the cave. If one places his eiruv inside a cave that has residents, he has two thousand cubits beyond the cave; if he places it above the cave, where there are no residents, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv.


讜诇诪讜讚讚 砖讗诪专讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 住讜祝 诪讚转讜 讻诇讛 讘诪注专讛:


And as for one who is measuring his Shabbat limit, with regard to whom the Sages said that one gives him two thousand cubits, that measurement applies even if the end of his measurement terminates in the middle of a cave. He may not walk further into the cave, even if the cave is inhabited.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讘转 讘注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 诇专讘谞谉 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讛谞讬讞 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 砖讘转 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬讞 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one established his Shabbat residence in a desolate city whose walls are still standing, according to the Rabbis he may walk through all of it as though it were four cubits, and he may walk an additional two thousand cubits beyond it. If, however, he merely placed his eiruv in a desolate city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. The Rabbis distinguish between one who establishes his Shabbat residence by actually being present in that location at the onset of Shabbat and one who does so by placing his eiruv there before Shabbat. Rabbi Elazar says: Whether he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence or he merely placed his eiruv there, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘诪注专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讗 讘讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection based upon the mishna. Rabbi Akiva said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that one who places his eiruv in a cave has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv? They said to him: When does this apply? When the cave has no residents. Consequently, when it has no residents the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Akiva that one has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. This contradicts Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 assertion that, according to the Rabbis, even if one places his eiruv in the abandoned city, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it.


诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛


The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the qualification that it has no residents? It means that the place is not fit for residence. If, however, the city is suitable for habitation, it is considered like four cubits even if it is currently uninhabited.


转讗 砖诪注 砖讘转 讘注讬专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谞讟讬讜讻讬讗 讘诪注专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛诇讱 讗转 讻讜诇讛 讜讞讜爪讛 诇讛 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 拽转谞讬 注讬专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注专讛 诪讛 诪注专讛 讞专讬讘讛 讗祝 注讬专 讞专讬讘讛 讜砖讘转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讗


Come and hear another difficulty from the following baraita: If one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence in a city, even if it is as large as Antioch, or in a cave, even if it is particularly large, like the Cave of Zedekiah, king of Judah, he may walk through all of it and another two thousand cubits beyond it. The baraita teaches the case of a city that is similar to that of a cave: Just as a cave is presumably desolate, i.e., uninhabited, so too the city must be one that is desolate. And only in the case where he established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence would yes, this halakha apply; but if he merely placed his eiruv there, no, he may not measure his two thousand cubits from the edge of the city.


诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞专讬讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖讬讘讛 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚砖讘转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讗


The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, why did the baraita specifically teach the case of a desolate city? Even if it was inhabited, the same halakha should also apply, as Rabbi Akiva holds that even if one placed his eiruv in an inhabited city, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And nonetheless, the reason is that one established his Shabbat residence through his physical presence. In such a case, yes, one may walk through the entire city and another two thousand cubits beyond it. But if one merely placed his eiruv there, he would not be permitted to walk more than two thousand cubits from his eiruv, which would contradict the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.


诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讬专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注专讛 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讬专 诪讛 注讬专 讬砖讬讘讛 讗祝 诪注专讛 讬砖讬讘讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪诪拽讜诐 注讬专讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讘砖讘转 诪讜讚讬


The Gemara rejects this argument and argues that the initial inference was incorrect. Do not say that the baraita is referring to a city that is similar to a cave. Rather, say that it is referring to a cave that is similar to a city: Just as the city is presumably inhabited, so too the cave must be one that is inhabited. The baraita is then in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that if one merely places his eiruv in the cave, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eiruv. However, if one established his Shabbat residence there through his physical presence, even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the entire cave is considered as though it were four cubits, and he may walk two thousand cubits beyond the cave.


讜讛讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 拽转谞讬 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讻诪注专转 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 讞专讬讘讛 讜讛讻讗 讬砖讬讘讛


The Gemara asks: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach that this halakha applies even to a cave like the Cave of Zedekiah, which was uninhabited? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a cave that is like the Cave of Zedekiah in one respect and not like the Cave of Zedekiah in other respects. It is like the Cave of Zedekiah in that the cave is as large as that one. And it is not exactly like the Cave of Zedekiah, as there, with regard to Zedekiah鈥檚 cave, it was desolate, and here the baraita is referring to a cave that is inhabited.


诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪讘专讻转讗 讚拽讗 诪讜转讘讬 注讬专讜讘讬讬讛讜 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讚讘讬 讗讙讜讘专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讙讜讜 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转专讬 诇讻讜 讟驻讬


The Gemara relates that Mar Yehuda once found the residents of Mavrakhta placing their eiruvin in the synagogue of Beit Agovar. He said to them: Place your eiruv farther into the synagogue, so that more will be permitted to you, as the Shabbat limit is measured from the spot where the eiruv is deposited. Mar Yehuda holds that even when an eiruv is placed in an inhabited city, the two thousand cubits are measured from the location of the eiruv rather than from the edge of the city.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 驻诇讙讗讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗:


Rava said to him: Argumentative one! With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, nobody is concerned about this opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Consequently, no matter where one places his eiruv in a city, the entire city is considered as though it were four cubits, and he is permitted to walk two thousand cubits beyond the edge of the city.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪注讘专讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 讘讞爪专 讗讜 注诐 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜


MISHNA: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard, or one who lives in the same courtyard with one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, even though he is not a gentile, such as a Samaritan [Kuti], this person renders it prohibited for him to carry from his own house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house, unless he rents this person鈥檚 rights in the courtyard, as will be explained below.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖谞讬 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for one to carry, unless there are two Jews living in the same courtyard who themselves would prohibit one another from carrying if there were no eiruv. In such a case, the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective. However, if only one Jew lives there, the gentile does not render it prohibited for him to carry in the courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讚专 注诪谞讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 诪讛专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诇诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐


Rabban Gamliel said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. And Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it, before he changes his mind and takes out his own utensils so as to reclaim his rights, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专 诪讛专讜 讜注砖讜 爪专讻讬讻诐 讘诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐:


Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 father spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before he takes out his utensils and renders it prohibited for you to use the alleyway. In other words, you may not bring out utensils to the alleyway at all on Shabbat, as the institution of an eiruv cannot be used in the neighborhood of a Sadducee. This is because, even if he renounced his rights to the alleyway, he can always retract and reclaim them.


Scroll To Top