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

Daf Yomi

October 16, 2020 | 讻状讞 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 68

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Rana Samuels Ofran z”l on her yahrzeit by Erin Piateski.聽

The gemara brings several cases where they had heated water before Shabbat for a baby for the brit milah and it spilled. In each case, they found a solution for how to get more water, either by carrying from a nearby courtyard, even though there was no eruv (by asking a gentile to move the water or by having someone relinquish rights) or by heating water for the mother if she was still considered in danger. Can one relinquish rights to another and then the other person can relinquish their rights back? Rav and Shmuel disagree about this. Is their debate connected to a tannitic debate? Is a Sadducee treated like a gentile for laws of eruv or like a Jew? There is a debate between Rabban Gamliel and the rabbis about this.

诪讛 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Just as sprinkling the water of purification is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat, even for the purpose of a mitzva, so too, telling a gentile to perform a prohibited labor Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat. How, then, could Rabba suggest that they instruct a gentile and thus transgress a rabbinic decree?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 砖讘讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇砖讘讜转 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚讛讗 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讙讜讬 讝讬诇 讗讞讬诐


Rav Yosef said to him: But do you not differentiate between a rabbinic decree that involves an action and a rabbinic decree that does not involve an action? As the Master, Rabba, did not say to the gentile: Go and heat water on Shabbat, but only told him to transfer something from one domain to another, which does not involve an action and is therefore less severe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专讬 讙讘专讬 专讘专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 注讬专讜讘 讜诇讗 砖讬转讜祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞注讘讬讚 诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗谞讗 讟专讬讚谞讗 讘讙讬专住讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬


Upon hearing of this incident and the ensuing discussion, Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: In an alleyway that contains two such great people as the Sages Rabba and Abaye, is it possible that there could be neither an eiruv nor a merging of alleyways? Abaye said to him: What should we do? As for the Master, Rabba, it is not his manner to go and collect for the eiruv from all the residents of the alleyway. As for myself, I am busy with my studies and do not have time to take care of this issue. And they, the other residents of the alleyway, do not attend to such matters.


讜讗讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛讜 驻讬转讗 讘住诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讜 诇讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬转讘讛 谞讛诇讬讬讛讜 讘讟讬诇 砖讬转讜祝


And if I were to transfer to the residents of the alleyway a share of the bread in my basket, so as to allow them to join a merging of alleyways, since if they would want to take it from me it would be impossible for me to give it to them because I am poor and need the small amount of bread that I can afford for myself, the merging of alleyways would therefore be invalid.


讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讘讬拽砖 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘讟诇 讛砖转讜祝


As it was taught in a baraita: If one of the residents of an alleyway requested wine or oil from the merging of alleyways, and they did not give him any, the merging of alleyways is invalid. This is because it has become evident that he is not considered a true partner in it.


讜谞拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诪专 专讘讬注转讗 讚讞诇讗 讘讞讘讬转讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讗讜爪专


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin further asked: But let the Master transfer to them a quarter-log of vinegar in one of his barrels; certainly even Abaye could afford to provide such a small amount of vinegar for the rest of the residents. Abaye replied: It was taught in a baraita: One may not use food in a storeroom for a merging of alleyways, as it is not clear which specific portion of the food is being set aside for that purpose. The same halakha would apply to an unspecified quarter-log of vinegar in a barrel.


讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin raised a difficulty. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: One may use stored food for a merging of alleyways? Rav Oshaya said: This is not difficult. This source, the baraita that states that one may not use stored food for a merging of alleyways, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And that source, the baraita that states that it is permitted to do so, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not to apply the principle of retroactive clarification.


讚转谞谉 讛诪转 讘讘讬转 讜诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 讛专讘讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉


As we learned in a mishna: If a corpse is in a house, and the house has many entrances, they are all ritually impure. It is currently unknown through which entrance the corpse will be removed from the house, and any of the entrances might be used for this purpose. Therefore, they all contract impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent as though the corpse had already passed through each of them.


谞驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪爪讬诇 注诇 讻诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讻讜诇谉


However, if only one of them was open, that particular entrance is ritually impure, as the corpse will certainly be removed through it, while all of the others are ritually pure. If one decided from the outset to remove the corpse through one of the entrances, or through a window that is four by four handbreadths in size, it saves all of the other entrances from contracting impurity.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 砖讞讬砖讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 讛诪转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讬诪讜转 讛诪转


Beit Shammai say: This applies only if he had decided on an entrance before the person died, so that the entrance through which his body would be removed was already determined at the time of death. But Beit Hillel say: This applies even if he decided the matter only after the person had died, as the principle of retroactive selection is invoked and the entrance through which the deceased will be removed has been retroactively established. The same dispute applies to a merging of alleyways with an unspecified portion of stored food, and it revolves around whether it can be retroactively established that a specific portion had been set aside for the merging of alleyways.


讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬砖转驻讜讱 讞诪讬诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 谞讬砖讬讬诇讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讗讬 爪专讬讻讗 谞讞讬诐 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讛


The Gemara relates another story about a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava said to those who had brought the matter to his attention: Let us ask the baby鈥檚 mother. If the warm water is necessary for her health, let a gentile heat water for the baby indirectly, through his mother. In other words, the water may be heated for the mother, as a woman after childbirth is regarded as being in a life-threatening situation.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 转讜谞讘讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛


Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava: The baby鈥檚 mother is healthy enough that she is eating dates. Certainly her condition is not precarious enough to necessitate the heating of water. Rava said to him: It is possible to say that it was merely a ravenous hunger that had seized her, and she is unaware of what she is eating, but in fact she is still dangerously ill.


讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬砖转驻讜讱 讞诪讬诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 驻谞讜 诇讬 诪讗谞讬 诪讘讬 讙讘专讬 诇讘讬 谞砖讬 讜讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讗讬讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜 讛讗 讞爪专


The Gemara relates yet another similar incident: There was once a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava, who had water in his courtyard but had not established a joint eiruv with the adjacent courtyard where the baby was located, said to those who asked him about the matter: Clear away my belongings from the men鈥檚 chamber, which opens directly into my courtyard, to the inner women鈥檚 chamber, which does not. Rava was concerned that he would come to carry his belongings into the courtyard, which would be prohibited once he had renounced his rights to it. And I will go and sit there, in the women鈥檚 chamber, and I will renounce my rights to this courtyard in favor of the residents of the baby鈥檚 courtyard, so that they will be able to transfer the warm water from one courtyard to the other.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专


Ravina said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. How, then, can you renounce your rights to your courtyard in this manner? Rava said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: There is renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another.


讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇


Ravina then asked Rava: But if the Master does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel,


谞讬转讬讘 诪专 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讜谞讬讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讜谞讬讛讚专讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜谞讬讘讟诇讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


let the Master remain in his place, i.e., in the men鈥檚 chamber, and renounce his rights to his courtyard in favor of the residents of the baby鈥檚 courtyard, so that they may transfer the water from one courtyard to the other. And then, after the water has been moved, let them renounce their rights in favor of the Master, so that he may once again carry in his courtyard. As Rav said: If two people who live in the same courtyard forgot to establish an eiruv, one person may renounce his rights in favor of the other when he needs it, and the second person may then renounce his rights in favor of the first when he needs it.


讗谞讗 讘讛讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


Rava replied: In this regard, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: One person may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first.


讜诇讗讜 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇专砖讜转讬讛 讗住转诇拽 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讙诪专讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讘谉 讞爪专 讗讞专转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诪专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讘讟讬诇


Ravina raised a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 the reason for both halakhot one and the same? What is the reason that one may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the other renounce his rights in favor of the first? Is it not because it is assumed that since he renounced his rights to the courtyard, it is as if he has completely removed himself from here, and he is now considered like the resident of a different courtyard, and Shmuel holds that there is no renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another? If so, the Master should likewise not renounce his rights to his courtyard. If you accept Shmuel鈥檚 opinion with regard to subsequent renouncing, you should likewise accept his opinion with regard to renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.


讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 诪诇转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻讞讜讻讗 讜讗讟诇讜诇讗


Rava responded: That is not Shmuel鈥檚 reason for prohibiting subsequent renunciations. There, this is the rationale for his opinion: So that the words of the Sages should not be a subject of laughter and mockery. If it is permitted for one person to renounce his rights in favor of another and then for the second person to renounce his rights in favor of the first, the Sages鈥 enactment will lose all meaning.


讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


The Gemara proceeds to examine in greater detail the issue raised in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Rav said: If two people who live in the same courtyard forgot to establish an eiruv, one may renounce his rights in favor of the other, and then the second person may renounce his rights in favor of the first. And Shmuel said: One may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel disagree about the same point of dispute as the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer. Elsewhere it is taught that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the halakha in a case where one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eiruv, but subsequently renounced his rights to the courtyard on Shabbat. The dispute revolves around the status of this resident鈥檚 house. Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is prohibited for him to carry in and out of his house, while the other residents of the courtyard are permitted to do so. However, the Rabbis hold that the other residents are prohibited from carrying in and out of his house as well.


讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


The suggestion is that Rav stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that even one who renounces his rights to his courtyard does not renounce his rights to his house. As he has not completely removed himself from the courtyard, the other residents may later go back and renounce their rights in his favor. And Shmuel stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. He maintains that this resident has completely removed himself from the courtyard. Therefore, there is no possibility of others subsequently renouncing their rights in his favor, as he is no longer considered a resident of the courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讛诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讞爪讬专讜 专砖讜转 讘讬转讜 讘讬讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讘讬转 讘诇讗 讞爪专 诇讗 讚讬讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住转诇讜拽讬 诪讬 讗诪专


The Gemara rejects this comparison: Rav could have said to you: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion there, that one who renounces his rights to his courtyard also renounces his rights to his house, only because people do not live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore it is evident that he has renounced his rights to his house as well. However, with regard to whether or not the person himself is considered entirely removed from the courtyard to the extent that the others would be unable to then renounce their rights in his favor, did he state this? According to this explanation, it is possible that Rav鈥檚 opinion concurs with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 讘讟讬诇 讜讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗讘诇 诪讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 诪讬讛讗 讗讬住转诇拽 诇讙诪专讬


And Shmuel could have said: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis stated their opinion only there, where they ruled: That which he has renounced, i.e., his rights to his courtyard, is renounced; and that which he has not renounced, i.e., his rights in his house, is not renounced. However, from that which he has renounced, he has removed himself completely. Consequently, all agree that one who renounces his rights to his courtyard is no longer considered a resident of that place.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻转谞讗讬 诪讬 砖谞转谉 专砖讜转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜住专 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专


Rav A岣 bar 岣na said that Rav Sheshet said: This dispute between Rav and Shmuel is like an earlier dispute between tanna鈥檌m. We learned elsewhere in a mishna: If one gave away his rights to his share of the courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard by renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an eiruv with the other residents on the previous day, and then he carried something out from his house into the courtyard, whether he did so unwittingly, forgetting that he had renounced his rights, or intentionally, he once again renders carrying prohibited for all the residents of the courtyard, as his action cancels his renunciation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so intentionally, he renders carrying prohibited for the other residents; but if he did it unwittingly, he does not render carrying prohibited for them.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that a person who renounces his rights does not remove himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may renounce his rights in favor of another, and the second person may then renounce his rights in favor of the first. As a result, even an inadvertent act of carrying serves to cancel the renunciation. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one who renounces his rights removes himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may not renounce his rights in favor of another and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first. In that case, only an intentional act of carrying can cancel the renunciation.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚


Rav A岣 bar Ta岣lifa said in the name of Rava: No, everyone agrees that a person who renounces his rights removes himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may not renounce his rights in favor of another and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first. And here, they disagree with regard to the question: Did the Sages penalize an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender? One Sage, Rabbi Meir, who states that the resident always renders carrying prohibited for the others, holds that they penalized an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who states that the resident renders carrying prohibited for the others only if he acted intentionally, holds that they did not penalize an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬:


Rav Ashi, disagreeing with the Gemara鈥檚 refutation, said: Rav and Shmuel disagree in the same dispute as do Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.


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: 爪讚讜拽讬 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛


It was stated in the mishna that 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 in the alleyway before Shabbat. The mishna then continues with a discussion about how and whether the alleyway may be used on Shabbat. The Gemara first poses a question: A Sadducee; who mentioned his name? The mishna had thus far spoken only of a gentile, so why does Rabban Gamliel invoke an incident involving a Sadducee?


讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 爪讚讜拽讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪讚讜拽讬 讗讬谞讜 讻讙讜讬 讜讗诪专 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


The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete. It is missing an important element, and this is what it is teaching: The legal status of a Sadducee is like that of a gentile, and Rabban Gamliel says: The legal status of a Sadducee is not like that of a gentile. And Rabban Gamliel further said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in 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 utensils, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 爪讚讜拽讬 讜讘讬转讜住讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜住专讬谉 注诇讬讜 (专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪讚讜拽讬 讜讘讬转讜住讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜住专讬谉) 讜诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讚专 注诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讘谞讬讜 讘谞讬 诪讛专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛转讜注讘 讛讝讛 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐 砖讛专讬 讘讬讟诇 专砖讜转讜 诇讻诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


And similarly, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the status of a Sadducee is a matter of dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one lives with a gentile, a Sadducee, or a Boethusian in the same alleyway, they render carrying prohibited for him. Rabban Gamliel says: A Sadducee or a Boethusian do not prohibit one from carrying. There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with Rabban Gamliel in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, and he renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. Rabban Gamliel said to his sons: Hurry and take out those utensils that you wish to take out, and bring in those utensils that you wish to bring in, before that loathsome person retracts his renunciation and takes out his utensils and prohibits you from using the alleyway, as he renounced his rights in your favor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专转 诪讛专讜 讜注砖讜 爪讜专讻讬讻诐 讘诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐


Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before night falls and he prohibits you from using the alleyway.


讗诪专 诪专 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛转讜注讘 讛讝讛 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻讬 诪驻拽讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬拽 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 讗住专


The Gemara proceeds to analyze this baraita. The Master said previously: Take out those utensils that you wish to take out, and bring in those utensils that you wish to bring in, before that loathsome person takes out his utensils and prohibits you from using the alleyway. The Gemara poses a question: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Meir, if they took out their utensils and then afterward the gentile or Sadducee took out his utensils on Shabbat, he does not render carrying prohibited for 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 66-72 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the fundamental concept of how we create an Eruv in a courtyard of multiple houses....
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 68: The Race to the Courtyard

The case of the need for warm water for a baby to be circumcised, in the absence of an eruv....

Eruvin 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 68

诪讛 讛讝讗讛 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗祝 讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转


Just as sprinkling the water of purification is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat, even for the purpose of a mitzva, so too, telling a gentile to perform a prohibited labor Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat. How, then, could Rabba suggest that they instruct a gentile and thus transgress a rabbinic decree?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 砖讘讜转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诇砖讘讜转 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚讛讗 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讙讜讬 讝讬诇 讗讞讬诐


Rav Yosef said to him: But do you not differentiate between a rabbinic decree that involves an action and a rabbinic decree that does not involve an action? As the Master, Rabba, did not say to the gentile: Go and heat water on Shabbat, but only told him to transfer something from one domain to another, which does not involve an action and is therefore less severe.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 转专讬 讙讘专讬 专讘专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 注讬专讜讘 讜诇讗 砖讬转讜祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞注讘讬讚 诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗谞讗 讟专讬讚谞讗 讘讙讬专住讗讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 诪砖讙讞讬


Upon hearing of this incident and the ensuing discussion, Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: In an alleyway that contains two such great people as the Sages Rabba and Abaye, is it possible that there could be neither an eiruv nor a merging of alleyways? Abaye said to him: What should we do? As for the Master, Rabba, it is not his manner to go and collect for the eiruv from all the residents of the alleyway. As for myself, I am busy with my studies and do not have time to take care of this issue. And they, the other residents of the alleyway, do not attend to such matters.


讜讗讬 讗拽谞讬 诇讛讜 驻讬转讗 讘住诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讜 诇讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讜诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬转讘讛 谞讛诇讬讬讛讜 讘讟讬诇 砖讬转讜祝


And if I were to transfer to the residents of the alleyway a share of the bread in my basket, so as to allow them to join a merging of alleyways, since if they would want to take it from me it would be impossible for me to give it to them because I am poor and need the small amount of bread that I can afford for myself, the merging of alleyways would therefore be invalid.


讚转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讘讬拽砖 讬讬谉 讜砖诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘讟诇 讛砖转讜祝


As it was taught in a baraita: If one of the residents of an alleyway requested wine or oil from the merging of alleyways, and they did not give him any, the merging of alleyways is invalid. This is because it has become evident that he is not considered a true partner in it.


讜谞拽谞讬 诇讛讜 诪专 专讘讬注转讗 讚讞诇讗 讘讞讘讬转讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讗讜爪专


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin further asked: But let the Master transfer to them a quarter-log of vinegar in one of his barrels; certainly even Abaye could afford to provide such a small amount of vinegar for the rest of the residents. Abaye replied: It was taught in a baraita: One may not use food in a storeroom for a merging of alleyways, as it is not clear which specific portion of the food is being set aside for that purpose. The same halakha would apply to an unspecified quarter-log of vinegar in a barrel.


讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rabba bar Rav 岣nin raised a difficulty. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: One may use stored food for a merging of alleyways? Rav Oshaya said: This is not difficult. This source, the baraita that states that one may not use stored food for a merging of alleyways, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. And that source, the baraita that states that it is permitted to do so, is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not to apply the principle of retroactive clarification.


讚转谞谉 讛诪转 讘讘讬转 讜诇讜 驻转讞讬诐 讛专讘讛 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉


As we learned in a mishna: If a corpse is in a house, and the house has many entrances, they are all ritually impure. It is currently unknown through which entrance the corpse will be removed from the house, and any of the entrances might be used for this purpose. Therefore, they all contract impurity imparted by a corpse in a tent as though the corpse had already passed through each of them.


谞驻转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讛讜讗 讟诪讗 讜讻讜诇谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬砖讘 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讗讜 讘讞诇讜谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪爪讬诇 注诇 讻诇 讛驻转讞讬诐 讻讜诇谉


However, if only one of them was open, that particular entrance is ritually impure, as the corpse will certainly be removed through it, while all of the others are ritually pure. If one decided from the outset to remove the corpse through one of the entrances, or through a window that is four by four handbreadths in size, it saves all of the other entrances from contracting impurity.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讜讛讜讗 砖讞讬砖讘 注讚 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 讛诪转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 诪砖讬诪讜转 讛诪转


Beit Shammai say: This applies only if he had decided on an entrance before the person died, so that the entrance through which his body would be removed was already determined at the time of death. But Beit Hillel say: This applies even if he decided the matter only after the person had died, as the principle of retroactive selection is invoked and the entrance through which the deceased will be removed has been retroactively established. The same dispute applies to a merging of alleyways with an unspecified portion of stored food, and it revolves around whether it can be retroactively established that a specific portion had been set aside for the merging of alleyways.


讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬砖转驻讜讱 讞诪讬诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 谞讬砖讬讬诇讛 诇讗讬诪讬讛 讗讬 爪专讬讻讗 谞讞讬诐 诇讬讛 讙讜讬 讗讙讘 讗讬诪讬讛


The Gemara relates another story about a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava said to those who had brought the matter to his attention: Let us ask the baby鈥檚 mother. If the warm water is necessary for her health, let a gentile heat water for the baby indirectly, through his mother. In other words, the water may be heated for the mother, as a woman after childbirth is regarded as being in a life-threatening situation.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 拽讗 讗讻诇讛 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 转讜谞讘讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛


Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava: The baby鈥檚 mother is healthy enough that she is eating dates. Certainly her condition is not precarious enough to necessitate the heating of water. Rava said to him: It is possible to say that it was merely a ravenous hunger that had seized her, and she is unaware of what she is eating, but in fact she is still dangerously ill.


讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚讗讬砖转驻讜讱 讞诪讬诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 驻谞讜 诇讬 诪讗谞讬 诪讘讬 讙讘专讬 诇讘讬 谞砖讬 讜讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讗讬讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜 讛讗 讞爪专


The Gemara relates yet another similar incident: There was once a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rava, who had water in his courtyard but had not established a joint eiruv with the adjacent courtyard where the baby was located, said to those who asked him about the matter: Clear away my belongings from the men鈥檚 chamber, which opens directly into my courtyard, to the inner women鈥檚 chamber, which does not. Rava was concerned that he would come to carry his belongings into the courtyard, which would be prohibited once he had renounced his rights to it. And I will go and sit there, in the women鈥檚 chamber, and I will renounce my rights to this courtyard in favor of the residents of the baby鈥檚 courtyard, so that they will be able to transfer the warm water from one courtyard to the other.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讬讟讜诇 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专


Ravina said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: There is no renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another. How, then, can you renounce your rights to your courtyard in this manner? Rava said to him: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: There is renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another.


讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇


Ravina then asked Rava: But if the Master does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel,


谞讬转讬讘 诪专 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讜谞讬讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讜谞讬讛讚专讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讜谞讬讘讟诇讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


let the Master remain in his place, i.e., in the men鈥檚 chamber, and renounce his rights to his courtyard in favor of the residents of the baby鈥檚 courtyard, so that they may transfer the water from one courtyard to the other. And then, after the water has been moved, let them renounce their rights in favor of the Master, so that he may once again carry in his courtyard. As Rav said: If two people who live in the same courtyard forgot to establish an eiruv, one person may renounce his rights in favor of the other when he needs it, and the second person may then renounce his rights in favor of the first when he needs it.


讗谞讗 讘讛讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


Rava replied: In this regard, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: One person may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first.


讜诇讗讜 讞讚 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇专砖讜转讬讛 讗住转诇拽 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 诇讙诪专讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻讘谉 讞爪专 讗讞专转 讜讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 诪专 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讬讘讟讬诇


Ravina raised a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 the reason for both halakhot one and the same? What is the reason that one may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the other renounce his rights in favor of the first? Is it not because it is assumed that since he renounced his rights to the courtyard, it is as if he has completely removed himself from here, and he is now considered like the resident of a different courtyard, and Shmuel holds that there is no renouncing of rights from one courtyard to another? If so, the Master should likewise not renounce his rights to his courtyard. If you accept Shmuel鈥檚 opinion with regard to subsequent renouncing, you should likewise accept his opinion with regard to renunciation of rights from one courtyard to another.


讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 诪诇转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讻讞讜讻讗 讜讗讟诇讜诇讗


Rava responded: That is not Shmuel鈥檚 reason for prohibiting subsequent renunciations. There, this is the rationale for his opinion: So that the words of the Sages should not be a subject of laughter and mockery. If it is permitted for one person to renounce his rights in favor of another and then for the second person to renounce his rights in favor of the first, the Sages鈥 enactment will lose all meaning.


讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


The Gemara proceeds to examine in greater detail the issue raised in the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Rav said: If two people who live in the same courtyard forgot to establish an eiruv, one may renounce his rights in favor of the other, and then the second person may renounce his rights in favor of the first. And Shmuel said: One may not renounce his rights in favor of the other and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first.


诇讬诪讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav and Shmuel disagree about the same point of dispute as the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer. Elsewhere it is taught that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the halakha in a case where one of the residents of a courtyard forgot to join in the eiruv, but subsequently renounced his rights to the courtyard on Shabbat. The dispute revolves around the status of this resident鈥檚 house. Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is prohibited for him to carry in and out of his house, while the other residents of the courtyard are permitted to do so. However, the Rabbis hold that the other residents are prohibited from carrying in and out of his house as well.


讚专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专


The suggestion is that Rav stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that even one who renounces his rights to his courtyard does not renounce his rights to his house. As he has not completely removed himself from the courtyard, the other residents may later go back and renounce their rights in his favor. And Shmuel stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. He maintains that this resident has completely removed himself from the courtyard. Therefore, there is no possibility of others subsequently renouncing their rights in his favor, as he is no longer considered a resident of the courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讛诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转 讞爪讬专讜 专砖讜转 讘讬转讜 讘讬讟诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讘讬转 讘诇讗 讞爪专 诇讗 讚讬讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬住转诇讜拽讬 诪讬 讗诪专


The Gemara rejects this comparison: Rav could have said to you: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion there, that one who renounces his rights to his courtyard also renounces his rights to his house, only because people do not live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore it is evident that he has renounced his rights to his house as well. However, with regard to whether or not the person himself is considered entirely removed from the courtyard to the extent that the others would be unable to then renounce their rights in his favor, did he state this? According to this explanation, it is possible that Rav鈥檚 opinion concurs with Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 statement.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 讘讟讬诇 讜讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗讘诇 诪讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 诪讬讛讗 讗讬住转诇拽 诇讙诪专讬


And Shmuel could have said: What I said is even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis stated their opinion only there, where they ruled: That which he has renounced, i.e., his rights to his courtyard, is renounced; and that which he has not renounced, i.e., his rights in his house, is not renounced. However, from that which he has renounced, he has removed himself completely. Consequently, all agree that one who renounces his rights to his courtyard is no longer considered a resident of that place.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻转谞讗讬 诪讬 砖谞转谉 专砖讜转讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜住专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜住专 讘砖讜讙讙 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专


Rav A岣 bar 岣na said that Rav Sheshet said: This dispute between Rav and Shmuel is like an earlier dispute between tanna鈥檌m. We learned elsewhere in a mishna: If one gave away his rights to his share of the courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard by renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an eiruv with the other residents on the previous day, and then he carried something out from his house into the courtyard, whether he did so unwittingly, forgetting that he had renounced his rights, or intentionally, he once again renders carrying prohibited for all the residents of the courtyard, as his action cancels his renunciation. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did so intentionally, he renders carrying prohibited for the other residents; but if he did it unwittingly, he does not render carrying prohibited for them.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉


What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that a person who renounces his rights does not remove himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may renounce his rights in favor of another, and the second person may then renounce his rights in favor of the first. As a result, even an inadvertent act of carrying serves to cancel the renunciation. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one who renounces his rights removes himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may not renounce his rights in favor of another and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first. In that case, only an intentional act of carrying can cancel the renunciation.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 砖讜讙讙 讗讟讜 诪讝讬讚


Rav A岣 bar Ta岣lifa said in the name of Rava: No, everyone agrees that a person who renounces his rights removes himself completely from his domain, and therefore one person may not renounce his rights in favor of another and then subsequently have the second person renounce his rights in favor of the first. And here, they disagree with regard to the question: Did the Sages penalize an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender? One Sage, Rabbi Meir, who states that the resident always renders carrying prohibited for the others, holds that they penalized an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, who states that the resident renders carrying prohibited for the others only if he acted intentionally, holds that they did not penalize an unwitting offender due to an intentional offender.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬:


Rav Ashi, disagreeing with the Gemara鈥檚 refutation, said: Rav and Shmuel disagree in the same dispute as do Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.


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: 爪讚讜拽讬 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛


It was stated in the mishna that 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 in the alleyway before Shabbat. The mishna then continues with a discussion about how and whether the alleyway may be used on Shabbat. The Gemara first poses a question: A Sadducee; who mentioned his name? The mishna had thus far spoken only of a gentile, so why does Rabban Gamliel invoke an incident involving a Sadducee?


讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 爪讚讜拽讬 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪讚讜拽讬 讗讬谞讜 讻讙讜讬 讜讗诪专 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


The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete. It is missing an important element, and this is what it is teaching: The legal status of a Sadducee is like that of a gentile, and Rabban Gamliel says: The legal status of a Sadducee is not like that of a gentile. And Rabban Gamliel further said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in 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 utensils, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讚专 注诐 讛谞讻专讬 爪讚讜拽讬 讜讘讬转讜住讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜住专讬谉 注诇讬讜 (专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 爪讚讜拽讬 讜讘讬转讜住讬 讗讬谞谉 讗讜住专讬谉) 讜诪注砖讛 讘爪讚讜拽讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讚专 注诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讘谞讬讜 讘谞讬 诪讛专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛转讜注讘 讛讝讛 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐 砖讛专讬 讘讬讟诇 专砖讜转讜 诇讻诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


And similarly, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the status of a Sadducee is a matter of dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one lives with a gentile, a Sadducee, or a Boethusian in the same alleyway, they render carrying prohibited for him. Rabban Gamliel says: A Sadducee or a Boethusian do not prohibit one from carrying. There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with Rabban Gamliel in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, and he renounced his rights to the alleyway before Shabbat. Rabban Gamliel said to his sons: Hurry and take out those utensils that you wish to take out, and bring in those utensils that you wish to bring in, before that loathsome person retracts his renunciation and takes out his utensils and prohibits you from using the alleyway, as he renounced his rights in your favor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专转 诪讛专讜 讜注砖讜 爪讜专讻讬讻诐 讘诪讘讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐


Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before night falls and he prohibits you from using the alleyway.


讗诪专 诪专 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讛讻谞讬住讜 诪讛 砖讗转诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讛转讜注讘 讛讝讛 讜讬讗住专 注诇讬讻诐 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻讬 诪驻拽讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讛讚专 诪驻讬拽 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 讗住专


The Gemara proceeds to analyze this baraita. The Master said previously: Take out those utensils that you wish to take out, and bring in those utensils that you wish to bring in, before that loathsome person takes out his utensils and prohibits you from using the alleyway. The Gemara poses a question: Is that to say that, according to Rabbi Meir, if they took out their utensils and then afterward the gentile or Sadducee took out his utensils on Shabbat, he does not render carrying prohibited for them?


Scroll To Top