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

Daf Yomi

August 16, 2020 | 讻状讜 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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 7

In a crooked alleyway in Nehardea, they ruled stringently like Rav that it was considered an open alleyway and stringently like Shmuel that an open alleyway requires a door on one side and a post or beam on the other. Is one allowed to rule stringently like two different opinions? The gemara questions this from a braita in which it says that one who holds like stringencies of Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai is a “fool who walks in the dark.” There is a further issue with the braita itself as it says that the halacha is like Beit Hillel, yet if one wants to, one can follow Beit Shamai. The gemara brings answers to both their questions. Rav Yosef brings two halachot regarding cases of an alleyway opened on both sides – one relating to what it is open to and the other about a case where the alleyway opens to a backyard and the ackyard is open. The first halacha was stated in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and the second was stated in the name of Rav Yehuda, but it is unclear if it was learned from Rav or not. Abaye suggests that it seems to contradict what Rav says in a similar case where the alleyway opens up to a courtyard, however the gemara suggests that one could distinguish between the two cases as people don’t generally leave their houses through the backyard. And the issue is not connected to the alleyway being considered open on both sides, but has to do with whether or not the people in the courtyard joined the eruv.

 

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 诪砖讙讞 讘讘转 拽讜诇


and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻注讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 诇讬注讘讚 讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜诇讗 讻讞讜诪专讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讬 讞讜诪专讬讛 讚诪专 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讻拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛 注讘讬讚


The Gemara suggests yet another resolution: And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna鈥檌m or two amora鈥檌m who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗


All of this is suggested to explain the wording of the baraita. In any case, it is difficult to explain the law with regard to the alleyway in Neharde鈥檃, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讜诇讬讛 讻专讘 注讘讚讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In fact, they acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the reason that they required doors and did not rely on the opening in the form of a doorway alone is due to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha; however, a public ruling is not issued to that effect ab initio. Although Rav maintains that an opening in the form of a doorway is sufficient in an open alleyway, a public ruling is not issued to that effect; rather, the ruling is stringent, in accordance with 岣nanya鈥檚 position, and requires doors.


讜诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: And according to the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava that Rav said, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said with regard to the same issue: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect, what can be said? Why did the residents of Neharde鈥檃 adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讞讜诪专讬 讚讘讬 转专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


Rav Sheizvi said: The principle of dictating when we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities applies only in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another. In these types of cases, following both stringencies would result in an internal contradiction.


讻讙讜谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚转谞谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讞住专讜 讜讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讬诪讜转


The Gemara illustrates this principle with an example from the laws governing the spine and skull. As we learned in a mishna: The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity via a tent as a corpse would; rather, they impart impurity only through contact or if they are carried as individual bones. This basic law was unanimously accepted, but the details were the subject of dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine for this purpose? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra. And similarly, they argued over the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say: It must be missing piece the size of a drill hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that, when removed from a living person, would cause him to die, which is a larger amount.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟专讬驻讛


And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued likewise with respect to a tereifa, a kosher animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months, and which is prohibited to be eaten even after the required ritual slaughter. Beit Shammai say that an animal is regarded as a tereifa if it is missing two vertebrae, while Beit Hillel hold that it is a tereifa if it lacks even one. In such a situation, a person must not be stringent with regard to the halakhot of tereifa in accordance with the view of Beit Hillel, and at the same time be stringent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity of a corpse in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, for the two disputes relate to the same issue, and one must not act in accordance with two contradictory opinions.


讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 注讘讚讬谞谉


Rav Sheizvi continues: However, in a case where the two stringencies do not contradict one another, we may indeed act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities. Therefore, the stringencies adopted in the case of the alleyway in Neharde鈥檃 were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav鈥檚 stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel鈥檚 stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.


讜讛讬讻讗 讚住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪转讬讘 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转专讜讙 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘讟 讜谞讛讙 讘讜 砖谞讬 注讬砖讜专讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讞讚 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇


The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 assertion: Is it true that we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another? Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who gathered the fruit of a citron tree on the first of the month of Shevat and applied the laws of two tithes to it. After teruma and the first tithe have been separated, an additional tithe is separated from what is left. During the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is set aside to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner, while during the third and sixth years, poor man鈥檚 tithe is set aside to be distributed to the needy. When tithing the fruit picked on the first of Shevat, Rabbi Akiva set aside both additional tithes, second tithe and poor man鈥檚 tithe: He set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that the new year for trees begins on the first of Shevat, and as that day belongs to the new year, a tithe must be set aside in accordance with the law of that year; and he set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, that the new year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat, and any fruit picked prior to that date must be tithed in accordance with the law of the previous year. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva adopted for himself two contradictory stringencies.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬住转驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讟 讗诪讜专 讗讬 讘讞诪讬住专 讘砖讘讟 讗诪讜专 讜注讘讚 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗:


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva did not act in this way in order to be stringent in accordance with both opinions, but because he was in doubt with regard to his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said the New Year for trees falls on the first of Shevat or on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore he acted stringently here and stringently there.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜驻诇讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜驻诇讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉


The Gemara resumes its discussion of alleyways that are open on two opposite sides. Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The dispute between the anonymous first tanna of the baraita and 岣nanya refers to a case where there is a main street [seratya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a main street from here, on the other side. Alternatively, it refers to a case where there is a plaza [pelatya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a plaza from here, on the other side.


讗讘诇 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉


But if there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, a valley being a karmelit, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, in which carrying is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, or if there is a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, one constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and places a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. One is thereby permitted to carry in the alleyway even according to the opinion of 岣nanya.


讛砖转讗 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 注讜砖讛 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: Now, if you say that where there is a main street from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is sufficient to construct an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side, was it necessary to state that these are sufficient if there is a valley from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 谞注砖讛 讻讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉


The Gemara answers: This is what he intended to say: If there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is considered as if there were a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side.


讜诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara continues: And when Rav Yosef reported this ruling, he concluded with a statement in the name of Rav Yehuda himself, without attributing it to one of Rav Yehuda鈥檚 teachers: If the alleyway terminated in a backyard, i.e., a closed-off area behind a group of houses, then even if there is a breach in the wall between the yard and the public domain beyond it, nothing is needed on this side of the alleyway, as it is considered closed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda is a ruling of his teacher Shmuel, and not of his other teacher, Rav.


讚讗讬 讚专讘 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讘转专转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讜谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛


For if it is a ruling of Rav, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav poses a difficulty in two ways. The first is with regard to the fact that this alleyway opens into the public domain on two opposite sides, and the second is based on that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: If an alleyway was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached opposite it into the public domain, it is permitted to carry in the courtyard, and it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, since this alleyway is now open on two opposite sides to the public domain. Why should this be the ruling? In this case, let it be like an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, where Rav Yehuda ruled that nothing further is needed to permit carrying.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讜专讗 讚专注讜转讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讗爪专讻讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转讬讛讜讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讬讚讬


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know in accordance with which of his teachers Rav Yehuda issued this ruling. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds鈥 village where an alleyway terminated in a backyard, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he did not require anything to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway. And if, as you say, it is difficult if we say that he issued his ruling in the name of Rav, let it be suggested that he issued it in the name of his other teacher, Shmuel, and then there will be no difficulty.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 讻讗谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


The Gemara comments: Now that Rav Sheshet said to Rav Shmuel bar Abba, and some say that he said to Rav Yosef bar Abba: I will explain to you Rav鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard. One must make a distinction based on the nature of the case: Here it is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv together. In that case, Rav permits carrying in the alleyway and is not concerned with the breach into the courtyard, as the courtyard and the alleyway are treated as a single domain. There it is referring to a case where the residents did not establish an eiruv together. In that case, Rav prohibits carrying in the alleyway, because the alleyway now has new residents, i.e., the residents of the courtyard, who did not participate in the eiruv, and they prevent the residents of the alleyway from carrying.


讚专讘 讗讚专讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讘谞讬 讞爪专 注诐 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway that terminates in a backyard is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav also poses no difficulty. Here, where Rav Yehuda permits carrying in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway established a joint eiruv, whereas here, where Rav prohibits carrying in an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway did not establish a joint eiruv.


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

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 2-9

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 7: How to Not Be Wicked – and Also Not a Fool

What do you do when you want to follow the stringencies of two opinions, and they contradict?! Bottom line principle:...
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...

Eruvin 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 7

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 诪砖讙讞 讘讘转 拽讜诇


and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞转 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻注讬谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讗 诇讬注讘讚 讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜诇讗 讻讞讜诪专讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讬 讞讜诪专讬讛 讚诪专 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻讬 拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讻拽讜诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛 注讘讬讚


The Gemara suggests yet another resolution: And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna鈥檌m or two amora鈥檌m who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗


All of this is suggested to explain the wording of the baraita. In any case, it is difficult to explain the law with regard to the alleyway in Neharde鈥檃, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讜诇讬讛 讻专讘 注讘讚讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In fact, they acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the reason that they required doors and did not rely on the opening in the form of a doorway alone is due to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha; however, a public ruling is not issued to that effect ab initio. Although Rav maintains that an opening in the form of a doorway is sufficient in an open alleyway, a public ruling is not issued to that effect; rather, the ruling is stringent, in accordance with 岣nanya鈥檚 position, and requires doors.


讜诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: And according to the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava that Rav said, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said with regard to the same issue: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect, what can be said? Why did the residents of Neharde鈥檃 adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讻讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讻讞讜诪专讬 讚讘讬 转专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬


Rav Sheizvi said: The principle of dictating when we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities applies only in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another. In these types of cases, following both stringencies would result in an internal contradiction.


讻讙讜谉 砖讚专讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讚转谞谉 讛砖讚专讛 讜讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讞住专讜 讜讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬谞讟诇 诪谉 讛讞讬 讜讬诪讜转


The Gemara illustrates this principle with an example from the laws governing the spine and skull. As we learned in a mishna: The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity via a tent as a corpse would; rather, they impart impurity only through contact or if they are carried as individual bones. This basic law was unanimously accepted, but the details were the subject of dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine for this purpose? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra. And similarly, they argued over the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say: It must be missing piece the size of a drill hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that, when removed from a living person, would cause him to die, which is a larger amount.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟专讬驻讛


And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued likewise with respect to a tereifa, a kosher animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months, and which is prohibited to be eaten even after the required ritual slaughter. Beit Shammai say that an animal is regarded as a tereifa if it is missing two vertebrae, while Beit Hillel hold that it is a tereifa if it lacks even one. In such a situation, a person must not be stringent with regard to the halakhot of tereifa in accordance with the view of Beit Hillel, and at the same time be stringent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity of a corpse in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, for the two disputes relate to the same issue, and one must not act in accordance with two contradictory opinions.


讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 注讘讚讬谞谉


Rav Sheizvi continues: However, in a case where the two stringencies do not contradict one another, we may indeed act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities. Therefore, the stringencies adopted in the case of the alleyway in Neharde鈥檃 were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav鈥檚 stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel鈥檚 stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.


讜讛讬讻讗 讚住转专讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪转讬讘 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇讬拽讟 讗转专讜讙 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘讟 讜谞讛讙 讘讜 砖谞讬 注讬砖讜专讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讞讚 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇


The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 assertion: Is it true that we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another? Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who gathered the fruit of a citron tree on the first of the month of Shevat and applied the laws of two tithes to it. After teruma and the first tithe have been separated, an additional tithe is separated from what is left. During the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is set aside to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner, while during the third and sixth years, poor man鈥檚 tithe is set aside to be distributed to the needy. When tithing the fruit picked on the first of Shevat, Rabbi Akiva set aside both additional tithes, second tithe and poor man鈥檚 tithe: He set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that the new year for trees begins on the first of Shevat, and as that day belongs to the new year, a tithe must be set aside in accordance with the law of that year; and he set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, that the new year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat, and any fruit picked prior to that date must be tithed in accordance with the law of the previous year. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva adopted for himself two contradictory stringencies.


专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讙诪专讬讛 讗讬住转驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讞讚 讘砖讘讟 讗诪讜专 讗讬 讘讞诪讬住专 讘砖讘讟 讗诪讜专 讜注讘讚 讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗:


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva did not act in this way in order to be stringent in accordance with both opinions, but because he was in doubt with regard to his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said the New Year for trees falls on the first of Shevat or on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore he acted stringently here and stringently there.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜驻诇讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜驻诇讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉


The Gemara resumes its discussion of alleyways that are open on two opposite sides. Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The dispute between the anonymous first tanna of the baraita and 岣nanya refers to a case where there is a main street [seratya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a main street from here, on the other side. Alternatively, it refers to a case where there is a plaza [pelatya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a plaza from here, on the other side.


讗讘诇 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉


But if there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, a valley being a karmelit, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, in which carrying is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, or if there is a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, one constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and places a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. One is thereby permitted to carry in the alleyway even according to the opinion of 岣nanya.


讛砖转讗 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 注讜砖讛 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 诪讬讘注讬讗


The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: Now, if you say that where there is a main street from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is sufficient to construct an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side, was it necessary to state that these are sufficient if there is a valley from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side?


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 住专讟讬讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 谞注砖讛 讻讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讘拽注讛 诪讻讗谉


The Gemara answers: This is what he intended to say: If there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is considered as if there were a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side.


讜诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara continues: And when Rav Yosef reported this ruling, he concluded with a statement in the name of Rav Yehuda himself, without attributing it to one of Rav Yehuda鈥檚 teachers: If the alleyway terminated in a backyard, i.e., a closed-off area behind a group of houses, then even if there is a breach in the wall between the yard and the public domain beyond it, nothing is needed on this side of the alleyway, as it is considered closed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda is a ruling of his teacher Shmuel, and not of his other teacher, Rav.


讚讗讬 讚专讘 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讘转专转讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讜谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛


For if it is a ruling of Rav, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav poses a difficulty in two ways. The first is with regard to the fact that this alleyway opens into the public domain on two opposite sides, and the second is based on that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: If an alleyway was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached opposite it into the public domain, it is permitted to carry in the courtyard, and it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, since this alleyway is now open on two opposite sides to the public domain. Why should this be the ruling? In this case, let it be like an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, where Rav Yehuda ruled that nothing further is needed to permit carrying.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讜专讗 讚专注讜转讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讗爪专讻讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讜讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 转讬讛讜讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讬讚讬


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know in accordance with which of his teachers Rav Yehuda issued this ruling. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds鈥 village where an alleyway terminated in a backyard, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he did not require anything to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway. And if, as you say, it is difficult if we say that he issued his ruling in the name of Rav, let it be suggested that he issued it in the name of his other teacher, Shmuel, and then there will be no difficulty.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗住讘专讗 诇讱 讻讗谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


The Gemara comments: Now that Rav Sheshet said to Rav Shmuel bar Abba, and some say that he said to Rav Yosef bar Abba: I will explain to you Rav鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard. One must make a distinction based on the nature of the case: Here it is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv together. In that case, Rav permits carrying in the alleyway and is not concerned with the breach into the courtyard, as the courtyard and the alleyway are treated as a single domain. There it is referring to a case where the residents did not establish an eiruv together. In that case, Rav prohibits carrying in the alleyway, because the alleyway now has new residents, i.e., the residents of the courtyard, who did not participate in the eiruv, and they prevent the residents of the alleyway from carrying.


讚专讘 讗讚专讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讘谞讬 讞爪专 注诐 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to an alleyway that terminates in a backyard is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav also poses no difficulty. Here, where Rav Yehuda permits carrying in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway established a joint eiruv, whereas here, where Rav prohibits carrying in an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway did not establish a joint eiruv.


Scroll To Top