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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 10, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Eruvin 62

What are the laws regarding carrying in a courtyard where a Jew and a non-Jew are living? Does it matter if it is one Jew or two Jews living there? On what principles are these laws based? The gemara discusses the importance of the law to not teach a halacha if there is a more senior rabbi there – he should be the one to answer the question.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转专讬

GEMARA: Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nana bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Granted, the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the author of the unattributed mishna, is clear, as he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence. In other words, the gentile living in the courtyard is considered a resident who has a share in the courtyard. Since he cannot join in an eiruv with the Jew, he renders it prohibited for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or from the courtyard to his house. Consequently, the case of one Jew living in the courtyard is no different from the case of two Jews living there. In both cases, the gentile renders it prohibited for carrying.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 谞讬转住专 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转住专

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, what does he hold? If you say he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence, he should prohibit carrying even when there is only one Jew living in the courtyard. And if it is not considered a significant residence, he should not prohibit carrying even when there are two Jews living there.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛

Abaye said to them: Your basic premise is based on a faulty assumption. Does Rabbi Meir actually hold that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, i.e., just as an animal pen does not render it prohibited to carry in a courtyard, so too, the gentile鈥檚 residence in itself does not impose restrictions on a Jew.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诇诪讚 诪诪注砖讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, this explanation must be rejected, and the dispute in the mishna should be understood differently: Everyone agrees that the residence of gentile is not considered a significant residence, and here they disagree about a decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile鈥檚 ways. The disagreement is with regard to whether this decree is applicable only when there are two Jews living in the courtyard, or even when there is only one Jew living there.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讜讬 讞砖讜讚 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 转专讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讞讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The disagreement should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov holds that since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed, it is unusual for a single Jew to share a courtyard with a gentile. However, it is not unusual for two or more Jews to do so, as they will protect each other. Therefore, in the case of two Jews, who commonly live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages issued a decree to the effect that the gentile renders it prohibited for them to carry. This would cause great inconvenience to Jews living with gentiles and would thereby motivate the Jews to distance themselves from gentiles. In this manner, the Sages sought to prevent the Jews from learning from the gentiles鈥 ways. However, in the case of one Jew, for whom it is not common to live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages did not issue a decree that the gentile renders it prohibited for him to carry, as the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon situations.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讚讬讬专 讜讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 注讚 砖讬砖讻讬专 讜讙讜讬 诇讗 诪讜讙专

On the other hand, Rabbi Meir holds that sometimes it happens that a single Jew lives together with a gentile in the same courtyard, and hence it is appropriate to issue the decree in such a case as well. Therefore, the Sages said: An eiruv is not effective in a place where a gentile is living, nor is the renunciation of rights to a courtyard in favor of the other residents effective in a place where a gentile is living. Therefore, carrying is prohibited in a courtyard in which a gentile resides, unless the gentile rents out his property to one of the Jews for the purpose of an eiruv regardless of the number of Jews living there. And as a gentile would not be willing to rent out his property for this purpose, the living conditions will become too strained, prompting the Jew to move.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘专砖讜转讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason that a gentile will not rent out his property for the purpose of an eiruv? If you say it is because the gentile thinks that perhaps they will later come to take possession of his property based on this rental, this works out well according to the one who said that we require a full-fledged rental, i.e., that rental for the purpose of an eiruv must be proper and valid according to all the halakhot of renting.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛

However, according to the one who said that we require only a flawed, symbolic rental, i.e., all that is needed is a token gesture that has the appearance of renting, what is there to say? The gentile would understand that it is not a real rental, and therefore he would not be wary of renting out his residence. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue as follows: Rav 岣sda said that we require a full-fledged rental, and Rav Sheshet said: A flawed, symbolic rental is sufficient.

诪讗讬 专注讜注讛 诪讗讬 讘专讬讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘专讬讗讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 专注讜注讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讙讜讬 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖砖讜讻专讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

Having mentioned this dispute, the Gemara now clarifies its particulars: What is a flawed rental, and what is a full-fledged one? If you say that a full-fledged rental refers to a case where one gives another person a peruta as rent, whereas in a flawed rental he provides him with less than the value of a peruta, this poses a difficulty. Is there anyone who said that renting from a gentile for less than the value of a peruta is not valid? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyorei, send in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: You should know that one may rent from a gentile even for less than the value of a peruta?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛砖讘讜谉

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A Noahide, i.e., a gentile who stole is executed for his crime, according to the laws applying to Noahides, even if he stole less than the value of a peruta. A Noahide is particular about his property and unwilling to waive his rights to it, even if it is of minimal value; therefore, the prohibition against stealing applies to items of any value whatsoever. And in the case of Noahides, the stolen item is not returnable, as the possibility of rectification by returning a stolen object was granted only to Jews. The principle that less than the value of a peruta is not considered money applies to Jews alone. With regard to gentiles, it has monetary value, and therefore one may rent from a gentile with this amount.

讗诇讗 讘专讬讗讛 讘诪讜讛专拽讬 讜讗讘讜专讙谞讬 专注讜注讛 讘诇讗 诪讜讛专拽讬 讜讗讘讜专讙谞讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉

Rather, the distinction between a full-fledged rental and a flawed rental should be explained as follows: A full-fledged rental refers to one that is confirmed by legal documents [moharkei] and guaranteed by officials [aburganei]; and a flawed rental means one that is not confirmed by legal documents and guaranteed by officials, an agreement that is unenforceable in court. Based on this explanation, the Gemara reiterates what was stated earlier with regard to the gentile鈥檚 concern about renting: This works out well according to the one who said that we require a full-fledged rental, as it is clear why the gentile would refuse to rent out his property.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讞砖讬砖 讙讜讬 诇讻砖驻讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讜讙专

But according to the one who said that we require only a flawed rental, what is there to say in this regard? Why shouldn鈥檛 the gentile want to rent out his residence? The Gemara answers: Even so, the gentile is concerned about witchcraft, i.e., that the procedure is used to cast a spell on him, and therefore he does not rent out his residence.

讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐 讜诪谉 讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专

The Gemara examines the ruling in the Tosefta cited in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, and it is permitted to carry in and carry out from the courtyard to the houses and from the houses to the courtyard, as the halakhot of eiruvin do not apply to the residences of gentiles.

讜讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But if there is one Jew living there in the same courtyard as the gentile, the gentile renders it prohibited for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or vice versa. The Jew may carry there only if he rents the gentile鈥檚 property for the duration of Shabbat. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

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 讗讜住专讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for the Jew 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, and the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective.

讗诪专 诪专 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 讘讞爪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the Tosefta: The Master said above: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, which implies that the residence of a gentile is not considered a significant residence. But didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in the mishna: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard this person prohibits him from carrying? This implies that a gentile鈥檚 residence is in fact of significance.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. This halakha in the mishna is referring to a situation where the gentile is present, and therefore carrying is prohibited, whereas that halakha in the Tosefta refers to a situation where he is not present, and therefore carrying is permitted.

讜诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 谞讬转住专 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转住专

The Gemara poses a question: What does Rabbi Meir hold? If he holds that a residence without its owners is still considered a residence, and it is prohibited to carry in the courtyard even when the owner is away, then even a gentile in absentia should likewise render it prohibited for carrying. And if he holds that a residence without its owners is not considered a residence, then even a Jew who is away should also not render it prohibited for carrying.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讗住专 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that a residence without its owners is not considered a residence, but nevertheless, he draws a distinction between a Jew and a gentile. In the case of a Jew, who renders it prohibited to carry for those who dwell in the same courtyard when he is present in his residence, the Sages decreed with regard to him that even when he is not present, his residence renders it prohibited for them to carry as though he were present.

讙讜讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诇诪讚 诪诪注砖讬讜 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讗住专 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗 讗住专

However, with regard to a gentile, who even when he is present does not fundamentally render it prohibited to carry, but only due to a rabbinic decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile鈥檚 ways, no further decree was necessary. Thus, when he is present, the gentile renders it prohibited to carry; but when he is not present, he does not render it prohibited to carry.

讜讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗 讗住专 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讗讞讚 谞讻专讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: And when the gentile is not present, does he really not render it prohibited for carrying? Didn鈥檛 we learn elsewhere in a mishna: With regard to one who left his house without establishing an eiruv and went to spend Shabbat in a different town, whether he was a gentile or a Jew, he renders it prohibited for the other residents of his courtyard to carry objects from their houses to the courtyard and vice versa. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, a gentile renders it prohibited to carry in the courtyard even if he is not present.

讛转诐 讚讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a situation where the person who left his house without establishing an eiruv intends to return on that same day, on Shabbat. Since upon his return he will render it prohibited for others to carry in the courtyard, the decree is applied even before he returns home. However, if he left his house intending to return after the conclusion of Shabbat, he does not render it prohibited to carry, in absentia.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛讙 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And Rav Huna said: This is not an established halakha to be issued publicly; rather, the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, i.e., a Sage would rule according to his opinion for those who come to ask. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The people are accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. Accordingly, a Sage would not issue such a ruling even to those who inquire, but if someone acts leniently in accordance with his opinion, he would not object.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Abaye said to Rav Yosef, his teacher: We maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov measures a kav, but is clean, meaning that it is small in quantity but clear and complete, and that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in all instances. Moreover, with regard to our issue, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and therefore there is no doubt about the matter.

诪讛讜 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讜

However, what is the halakha with regard to whether a disciple may issue a ruling according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction, i.e., in a place where he is the recognized authority? Although it is usually prohibited to do so, perhaps such an evident and well-known principle such as this does not fall into the category of rulings that a disciple may not issue in his teacher鈥檚 territory.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬注转讗 讘讻讜转讞讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讜专讬

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Even when Rav 岣sda was asked about the permissibility of cooking an egg in kuta岣, a dairy dish, throughout the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, he refused to issue a ruling. Rav 岣sda was a disciple of Rav Huna, and a disciple may not issue a ruling in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction about even the simplest of matters.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 诪讙诇转 转注谞讬转 讚讻转讬讘讗 讜诪谞讞讗 诪讛讜 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬注转讗 讘讻讜转讞讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讜专讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba said to Abaye: With regard to matters such as those detailed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which is written and laid on the shelf for all to access and offers a list of the days on which fasting is prohibited, what is the halakha concerning whether or not a disciple may rule about these matters in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction? Abaye said to him: Rav Yosef said as follows: Even when Rav 岣sda was asked about the permissibility of cooking an egg in kuta岣 throughout the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, he refused to issue a ruling.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜专讬 讘讻驻专讬 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda nonetheless issued halakhic rulings in the town of Kafri during the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, as he was not actually in his teacher鈥檚 place.

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 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 62: No Eruv with Non-Jews

A new perek (#6), a new mishnah... What happens when there's no possibility of carrying, even given the hope of...

Eruvin 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 62

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽住讘专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 转专讬

GEMARA: Abaye bar Avin and Rav 岣nana bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Granted, the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the author of the unattributed mishna, is clear, as he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence. In other words, the gentile living in the courtyard is considered a resident who has a share in the courtyard. Since he cannot join in an eiruv with the Jew, he renders it prohibited for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or from the courtyard to his house. Consequently, the case of one Jew living in the courtyard is no different from the case of two Jews living there. In both cases, the gentile renders it prohibited for carrying.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 谞讬转住专 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转住专

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, what does he hold? If you say he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence, he should prohibit carrying even when there is only one Jew living in the courtyard. And if it is not considered a significant residence, he should not prohibit carrying even when there are two Jews living there.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 谞讻专讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛

Abaye said to them: Your basic premise is based on a faulty assumption. Does Rabbi Meir actually hold that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in the Tosefta: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, i.e., just as an animal pen does not render it prohibited to carry in a courtyard, so too, the gentile鈥檚 residence in itself does not impose restrictions on a Jew.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讬专转 讙讜讬 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诇诪讚 诪诪注砖讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, this explanation must be rejected, and the dispute in the mishna should be understood differently: Everyone agrees that the residence of gentile is not considered a significant residence, and here they disagree about a decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile鈥檚 ways. The disagreement is with regard to whether this decree is applicable only when there are two Jews living in the courtyard, or even when there is only one Jew living there.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讜讬 讞砖讜讚 讗砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 转专讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讚讬讬专讬 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 讞讚 诇讗 砖讻讬讞 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The disagreement should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov holds that since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed, it is unusual for a single Jew to share a courtyard with a gentile. However, it is not unusual for two or more Jews to do so, as they will protect each other. Therefore, in the case of two Jews, who commonly live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages issued a decree to the effect that the gentile renders it prohibited for them to carry. This would cause great inconvenience to Jews living with gentiles and would thereby motivate the Jews to distance themselves from gentiles. In this manner, the Sages sought to prevent the Jews from learning from the gentiles鈥 ways. However, in the case of one Jew, for whom it is not common to live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages did not issue a decree that the gentile renders it prohibited for him to carry, as the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon situations.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讚讬讬专 讜讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讜注讬诇 讘诪拽讜诐 讙讜讬 注讚 砖讬砖讻讬专 讜讙讜讬 诇讗 诪讜讙专

On the other hand, Rabbi Meir holds that sometimes it happens that a single Jew lives together with a gentile in the same courtyard, and hence it is appropriate to issue the decree in such a case as well. Therefore, the Sages said: An eiruv is not effective in a place where a gentile is living, nor is the renunciation of rights to a courtyard in favor of the other residents effective in a place where a gentile is living. Therefore, carrying is prohibited in a courtyard in which a gentile resides, unless the gentile rents out his property to one of the Jews for the purpose of an eiruv regardless of the number of Jews living there. And as a gentile would not be willing to rent out his property for this purpose, the living conditions will become too strained, prompting the Jew to move.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 讘专砖讜转讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason that a gentile will not rent out his property for the purpose of an eiruv? If you say it is because the gentile thinks that perhaps they will later come to take possession of his property based on this rental, this works out well according to the one who said that we require a full-fledged rental, i.e., that rental for the purpose of an eiruv must be proper and valid according to all the halakhot of renting.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛

However, according to the one who said that we require only a flawed, symbolic rental, i.e., all that is needed is a token gesture that has the appearance of renting, what is there to say? The gentile would understand that it is not a real rental, and therefore he would not be wary of renting out his residence. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue as follows: Rav 岣sda said that we require a full-fledged rental, and Rav Sheshet said: A flawed, symbolic rental is sufficient.

诪讗讬 专注讜注讛 诪讗讬 讘专讬讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘专讬讗讛 讘驻专讜讟讛 专注讜注讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讙讜讬 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖砖讜讻专讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

Having mentioned this dispute, the Gemara now clarifies its particulars: What is a flawed rental, and what is a full-fledged one? If you say that a full-fledged rental refers to a case where one gives another person a peruta as rent, whereas in a flawed rental he provides him with less than the value of a peruta, this poses a difficulty. Is there anyone who said that renting from a gentile for less than the value of a peruta is not valid? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyorei, send in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: You should know that one may rent from a gentile even for less than the value of a peruta?

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 注诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讜诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛砖讘讜谉

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A Noahide, i.e., a gentile who stole is executed for his crime, according to the laws applying to Noahides, even if he stole less than the value of a peruta. A Noahide is particular about his property and unwilling to waive his rights to it, even if it is of minimal value; therefore, the prohibition against stealing applies to items of any value whatsoever. And in the case of Noahides, the stolen item is not returnable, as the possibility of rectification by returning a stolen object was granted only to Jews. The principle that less than the value of a peruta is not considered money applies to Jews alone. With regard to gentiles, it has monetary value, and therefore one may rent from a gentile with this amount.

讗诇讗 讘专讬讗讛 讘诪讜讛专拽讬 讜讗讘讜专讙谞讬 专注讜注讛 讘诇讗 诪讜讛专拽讬 讜讗讘讜专讙谞讬 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 讘专讬讗讛 讘注讬谞谉

Rather, the distinction between a full-fledged rental and a flawed rental should be explained as follows: A full-fledged rental refers to one that is confirmed by legal documents [moharkei] and guaranteed by officials [aburganei]; and a flawed rental means one that is not confirmed by legal documents and guaranteed by officials, an agreement that is unenforceable in court. Based on this explanation, the Gemara reiterates what was stated earlier with regard to the gentile鈥檚 concern about renting: This works out well according to the one who said that we require a full-fledged rental, as it is clear why the gentile would refuse to rent out his property.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讻讬专讜转 专注讜注讛 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讞砖讬砖 讙讜讬 诇讻砖驻讬诐 讜诇讗 诪讜讙专

But according to the one who said that we require only a flawed rental, what is there to say in this regard? Why shouldn鈥檛 the gentile want to rent out his residence? The Gemara answers: Even so, the gentile is concerned about witchcraft, i.e., that the procedure is used to cast a spell on him, and therefore he does not rent out his residence.

讙讜驻讗 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐 讜诪谉 讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专

The Gemara examines the ruling in the Tosefta cited in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, and it is permitted to carry in and carry out from the courtyard to the houses and from the houses to the courtyard, as the halakhot of eiruvin do not apply to the residences of gentiles.

讜讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 讬砖专讗诇 讗讞讚 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But if there is one Jew living there in the same courtyard as the gentile, the gentile renders it prohibited for the Jew to carry from his house to the courtyard or vice versa. The Jew may carry there only if he rents the gentile鈥檚 property for the duration of Shabbat. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

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 讗讜住专讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讝讛

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: Actually, the gentile does not render it prohibited for the Jew 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, and the presence of the gentile renders the eiruv ineffective.

讗诪专 诪专 讞爪讬专讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讚讬专 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 讘讞爪专 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the Tosefta: The Master said above: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, which implies that the residence of a gentile is not considered a significant residence. But didn鈥檛 we learn otherwise in the mishna: One who resides with a gentile in the same courtyard this person prohibits him from carrying? This implies that a gentile鈥檚 residence is in fact of significance.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. This halakha in the mishna is referring to a situation where the gentile is present, and therefore carrying is prohibited, whereas that halakha in the Tosefta refers to a situation where he is not present, and therefore carrying is permitted.

讜诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讬 谞讬转住专 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬转住专

The Gemara poses a question: What does Rabbi Meir hold? If he holds that a residence without its owners is still considered a residence, and it is prohibited to carry in the courtyard even when the owner is away, then even a gentile in absentia should likewise render it prohibited for carrying. And if he holds that a residence without its owners is not considered a residence, then even a Jew who is away should also not render it prohibited for carrying.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讚讬专讛 讘诇讗 讘注诇讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讛 讚讬专讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讗住专 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that a residence without its owners is not considered a residence, but nevertheless, he draws a distinction between a Jew and a gentile. In the case of a Jew, who renders it prohibited to carry for those who dwell in the same courtyard when he is present in his residence, the Sages decreed with regard to him that even when he is not present, his residence renders it prohibited for them to carry as though he were present.

讙讜讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诇诪讚 诪诪注砖讬讜 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讗住专 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗 讗住专

However, with regard to a gentile, who even when he is present does not fundamentally render it prohibited to carry, but only due to a rabbinic decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile鈥檚 ways, no further decree was necessary. Thus, when he is present, the gentile renders it prohibited to carry; but when he is not present, he does not render it prohibited to carry.

讜讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇讗 讗住专 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 诇砖讘讜转 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 讗讞讚 谞讻专讬 讜讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: And when the gentile is not present, does he really not render it prohibited for carrying? Didn鈥檛 we learn elsewhere in a mishna: With regard to one who left his house without establishing an eiruv and went to spend Shabbat in a different town, whether he was a gentile or a Jew, he renders it prohibited for the other residents of his courtyard to carry objects from their houses to the courtyard and vice versa. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, a gentile renders it prohibited to carry in the courtyard even if he is not present.

讛转诐 讚讗转讬 讘讬讜诪讬讛

The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a situation where the person who left his house without establishing an eiruv intends to return on that same day, on Shabbat. Since upon his return he will render it prohibited for others to carry in the courtyard, the decree is applied even before he returns home. However, if he left his house intending to return after the conclusion of Shabbat, he does not render it prohibited to carry, in absentia.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛讙 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha in this dispute is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And Rav Huna said: This is not an established halakha to be issued publicly; rather, the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, i.e., a Sage would rule according to his opinion for those who come to ask. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The people are accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. Accordingly, a Sage would not issue such a ruling even to those who inquire, but if someone acts leniently in accordance with his opinion, he would not object.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 拽讘 讜谞拽讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

Abaye said to Rav Yosef, his teacher: We maintain that the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov measures a kav, but is clean, meaning that it is small in quantity but clear and complete, and that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in all instances. Moreover, with regard to our issue, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and therefore there is no doubt about the matter.

诪讛讜 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讜

However, what is the halakha with regard to whether a disciple may issue a ruling according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction, i.e., in a place where he is the recognized authority? Although it is usually prohibited to do so, perhaps such an evident and well-known principle such as this does not fall into the category of rulings that a disciple may not issue in his teacher鈥檚 territory.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬注转讗 讘讻讜转讞讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讜专讬

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Even when Rav 岣sda was asked about the permissibility of cooking an egg in kuta岣, a dairy dish, throughout the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, he refused to issue a ruling. Rav 岣sda was a disciple of Rav Huna, and a disciple may not issue a ruling in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction about even the simplest of matters.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讻讙讜谉 诪讙诇转 转注谞讬转 讚讻转讬讘讗 讜诪谞讞讗 诪讛讜 诇讗讜专讜讬讬 讘讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬注转讗 讘讻讜转讞讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜诇讗 讗讜专讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba said to Abaye: With regard to matters such as those detailed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, which is written and laid on the shelf for all to access and offers a list of the days on which fasting is prohibited, what is the halakha concerning whether or not a disciple may rule about these matters in his teacher鈥檚 place of jurisdiction? Abaye said to him: Rav Yosef said as follows: Even when Rav 岣sda was asked about the permissibility of cooking an egg in kuta岣 throughout the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, he refused to issue a ruling.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜专讬 讘讻驻专讬 讘砖谞讬 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda nonetheless issued halakhic rulings in the town of Kafri during the years of Rav Huna鈥檚 life, as he was not actually in his teacher鈥檚 place.

Scroll To Top