Search

Eruvin 7

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

English
עברית
podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




podcast placeholder

0:00
0:00




Summary

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.

 

Today’s daily daf tools:

Eruvin 7

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא דְּלָא מַשְׁגַּח בְּבַת קוֹל.

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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וּתְרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי דִּפְלִיגִי אַהֲדָדֵי כְּעֵין מַחֲלוֹקֶת בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל — לָא לֶיעְבַּד כִּי קוּלֵּיהּ דְּמָר וְכִי קוּלֵּיהּ דְּמָר, וְלָא כְּחוּמְרֵיהּ דְּמָר וְכִי חוּמְרֵיהּ דְּמָר. אֶלָּא, אוֹ כִּי קוּלֵּיהּ דְּמָר וּכְחוּמְרֵיהּ עָבֵיד, אוֹ כְּקוּלֵּיהּ דְּמָר וּכְחוּמְרֵיהּ עָבֵיד.

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’im or two amora’im 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.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא!

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’a, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כּוּלֵּיהּ כְּרַב עַבְדוּהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה וְאֵין מוֹרִין כֵּן.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Ḥananya’s position, and requires doors.

וּלְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר: הֲלָכָה וּמוֹרִין כֵּן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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’a adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: כִּי לָא עָבְדִינַן כְּחוּמְרֵי דְּבֵי תְרֵי — הֵיכָא דְּסָתְרִי אַהֲדָדֵי.

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.

כְּגוֹן שִׁדְרָה וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת. דִּתְנַן: הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁחָסְרוּ — וְכַמָּה חֶסְרוֹן? בַּשִּׁדְרָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת. וּבַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת.

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.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן טְרֵיפָה.

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.

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא סָתְרִי אַהֲדָדֵי עָבְדִינַן.

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’a were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav’s stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.

וְהֵיכָא דְּסָתְרִי אַהֲדָדֵי לָא עָבְדִינַן?! מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁלִּיקֵּט אֶתְרוֹג בְּאֶחָד בִּשְׁבָט, וְנָהַג בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עִישּׂוּרִין: אֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְאֶחָד כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל?!

The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi’s 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’s 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’s 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.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא גְּמָרֵיהּ אִיסְתַּפֵּיק לֵיהּ, וְלָא יְדַע אִי בֵּית הִלֵּל בְּחַד בִּשְׁבָט אֲמוּר, אִי בַּחֲמֵיסַר בִּשְׁבָט אֲמוּר, וַעֲבַד הָכָא לְחוּמְרָא וְהָכָא לְחוּמְרָא.

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.

יָתֵיב רַב יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּסְרַטְיָא מִכָּאן וּסְרַטְיָא מִכָּאן, וּפְלַטְיָא מִכָּאן וּפְלַטְיָא מִכָּאן.

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 Ḥananya 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.

אֲבָל סְרַטְיָא מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן, אוֹ בִּקְעָה מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן — עוֹשֶׂה צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח מִכָּאן וְלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה מִכָּאן.

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 Ḥananya.

הַשְׁתָּא סְרַטְיָא מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן, עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח מִכָּאן וְלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה מִכָּאן — בִּקְעָה מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן מִיבַּעְיָא?!

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?

הָכִי קָאָמַר: סְרַטְיָא מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן וּבִקְעָה מִכָּאן.

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.

וּמְסַיֵּים בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: אִם הָיָה מָבוֹי כָּלֶה לִרְחָבָה, אֵין צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם.

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’s 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הִיא.

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

דְּאִי דְּרַב — קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב בְּתַרְתֵּי: דְּאָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּפְרַץ בִּמְלוֹאוֹ לֶחָצֵר, וְנִפְרְצָה חָצֵר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ — חָצֵר מוּתֶּרֶת וּמָבוֹי אָסוּר. וְאַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמָבוֹי שֶׁכָּלֶה לִרְחָבָה!

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא, עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָא דְּרָעֲוָתָא מָבוֹי שֶׁכָּלֶה לִרְחָבָה הֲוָה, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה וְלָא אַצְרְכֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְאִי קַשְׁיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב — תֶּיהְוֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא מִידֵּי.

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’ 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.

הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא: אַסְבְּרָא לָךְ, כָּאן — שֶׁעֵירְבוּ, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ.

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’s 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.

דְּרַב אַדְּרַב נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — שֶׁעֵירְבוּ בְּנֵי חָצֵר עִם בְּנֵי מָבוֹי, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ.

Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda’s 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.

Today’s daily daf tools:

Delve Deeper

Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.

For the Beyond the Daf shiurim offered in Hebrew, see here.

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you. 

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories. 

Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!

Judith Weil
Judith Weil

Raanana, Israel

With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!

Sharon Mink
Sharon Mink

Haifa, Israel

Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!

Rhona Fink
Rhona Fink

San Diego, United States

I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Deb Engel

Los Angeles, United States

See video

Susan Fisher
Susan Fisher

Raanana, Israel

A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.

Sheila Hauser
Sheila Hauser

Jerusalem, Israel

I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!

Rabbi Nicki Greninger
Rabbi Nicki Greninger

California, United States

It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.

Jeanne Yael Klempner
Jeanne Yael Klempner

Zichron Yaakov, Israel

I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this

Denise Neapolitan
Denise Neapolitan

Cambridge, United Kingdom

When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.

Shira Krebs
Shira Krebs

Minnesota, United States

I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!

Keren Carter
Keren Carter

Brentwood, California, United States

I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.

Deborah Dickson
Deborah Dickson

Ra’anana, Israel

I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .

Martha Tarazi
Martha Tarazi

Panama, Panama

Jill Shames
Jill Shames

Jerusalem, Israel

When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.

Shira Krebs
Shira Krebs

Minnesota, United States

At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Deborah Hoffman-Wade

Richmond, CA, United States

I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.

Meira Shapiro
Meira Shapiro

NJ, United States

In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you

Sandrine Simons
Sandrine Simons

Atlanta, United States

I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.

Miriam Pollack
Miriam Pollack

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!

Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker

Modi’in, Israel

Eruvin 7

Χ•Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ יְהוֹשֻׁגַ הִיא Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧœΦΈΧ ΧžΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΌΦ·Χ— Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χͺ Χ§Χ•ΦΉΧœ.

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.

וְאִיבָּג֡יΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦΈΧ, Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™ קָאָמַר: Χ›ΦΌΧ‡Χœ ה֡יכָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°Χ›ΦΌΦ·Χ—Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χͺַּנָּא֡י Χ•ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ ΧΦΈΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ™ Χ“ΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧœΦ΄Χ™Χ’Φ΄Χ™ אַהֲדָד֡י Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ™ΧŸ ΧžΦ·Χ—Φ²ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦ΅Χœ β€” לָא ΧœΦΆΧ™Χ’Φ°Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ“ Χ›ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧœΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨ Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ΄Χ™ Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧœΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨ Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ΄Χ™ Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨. א֢לָּא, אוֹ Χ›ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧœΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨ Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ“, אוֹ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ§Χ•ΦΌΧœΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨ Χ•ΦΌΧ›Φ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χ“.

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’im or two amora’im 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.

ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΧ‡Χœ ΧžΦΈΧ§Χ•ΦΉΧ קַשְׁיָא!

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’a, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.

אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ Φ·Χ—Φ°ΧžΦΈΧŸ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ™Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ§: Χ›ΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧœΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ’Φ·Χ‘Φ°Χ“Χ•ΦΌΧ”ΦΌ. Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ הוּנָא אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘: Χ”Φ²ΧœΦΈΧ›ΦΈΧ” Χ•Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ ΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ›ΦΌΦ΅ΧŸ.

Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak 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 αΈ€ananya’s position, and requires doors.

Χ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ אַדָּא Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ אַהֲבָה אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘, Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨: Χ”Φ²ΧœΦΈΧ›ΦΈΧ” Χ•ΦΌΧžΧ•ΦΉΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ Χ›ΦΌΦ΅ΧŸ, ΧžΦ·ΧΧ™ אִיכָּא ΧœΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™ΧžΦ·Χ¨?

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’a adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?

אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡יזְבִי: Χ›ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ לָא Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ“Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ™ ΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ β€” ה֡יכָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ אַהֲדָד֡י.

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.

Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧŸ שִׁדְרָה Χ•Φ°Χ’Χ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧœΦΆΧͺ. Χ“ΦΌΦ΄Χͺְנַן: הַשִּׁדְרָה Χ•Φ°Χ”Φ·Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧœΦΆΧͺ שׁ֢חָבְרוּ β€” Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ·ΧžΦΌΦΈΧ” Χ—ΦΆΧ‘Φ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧŸ? בַּשִּׁדְרָה, Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ: שְׁΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ™ Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧͺ, Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦ΅Χœ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ: Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ™ΦΈΧ אַחַΧͺ. Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΌΧœΦ°Χ’ΦΌΧ•ΦΉΧœΦΆΧͺ, Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ: Χ›ΦΌΦ΄ΧžΦ°ΧœΦΉΧ ΧžΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ“ΦΌΦ΅Χ—Φ·, Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦ΅Χœ ΧΧ•ΦΉΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™Χ: Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ“Φ΅Χ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ™ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ˜Φ΅Χœ מִן Χ”Φ·Χ—Φ·Χ™ Χ•Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺ.

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.

Χ•Φ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” אָמַר Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧΦ΅Χœ: Χ•Φ°Χ›Φ΅ΧŸ ΧœΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°Χ™Φ·ΧŸ Χ˜Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ€ΦΈΧ”.

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.

ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧœ ה֡יכָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧœΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ אַהֲדָד֡י Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ“Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ.

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’a were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav’s stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.

וְה֡יכָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ אַהֲדָד֡י לָא Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ“Φ΄Χ™Χ Φ·ΧŸ?! מ֡ΧͺΦ΄Χ™Χ‘ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ ΧžΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ™ΦΈΧ: ΧžΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Χ‚ΦΆΧ” Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ גֲקִיבָא Χ©ΧΦΆΧœΦΌΦ΄Χ™Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ˜ א֢ΧͺΦ°Χ¨Χ•ΦΉΧ’ בְּא֢חָד Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ˜, Χ•Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ”Φ·Χ’ Χ‘ΦΌΧ•ΦΉ שְׁנ֡י Χ’Φ΄Χ™Χ©ΦΌΧ‚Χ•ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧŸ: א֢חָד Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ“Φ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™, וְא֢חָד Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ“Φ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ™ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦ΅Χœ?!

The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi’s 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’s 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’s 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.

Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ™ גֲקִיבָא Χ’ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ אִיבְΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ§ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ Χ™Φ°Χ“Φ·Χ’ אִי Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χͺ Χ”Φ΄ΧœΦΌΦ΅Χœ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ—Φ·Χ“ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ˜ ΧΦ²ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧ¨, אִי Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ—Φ²ΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ‘Φ·Χ¨ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ˜ ΧΦ²ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧ¨, Χ•Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ‘Φ·Χ“ הָכָא ΧœΦ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ וְהָכָא ΧœΦ°Χ—Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ.

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.

Χ™ΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ™Χ‘ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ Χ§Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ הוּנָא, Χ•Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ™Χ‘ Χ•Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨, אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘: ΧžΦ·Χ—Φ²ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ, Χ•ΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧœΦ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧœΦ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ.

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 αΈ€ananya 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.

ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧœ Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ, אוֹ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ©Χ‚ΦΆΧ” Χ¦Χ•ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χͺ Χ”Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧͺΦ·Χ— ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΆΧ—Φ΄Χ™ Χ•Φ°Χ§Χ•ΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ.

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 αΈ€ananya.

הַשְׁΧͺָּא Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ, Χ’Χ•ΦΉΧ©Χ‚ΦΆΧ” ΧœΧ•ΦΉ Χ¦Χ•ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χͺ Χ”Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧͺΦ·Χ— ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΆΧ—Φ΄Χ™ Χ•Φ°Χ§Χ•ΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ?!

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?

Χ”ΦΈΧ›Φ΄Χ™ קָאָמַר: Χ‘Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ˜Φ°Χ™ΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Χ‚ΦΆΧ” Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ Χ•ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄Χ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦ΄Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ.

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.

Χ•ΦΌΧžΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ™ΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ”ΦΌ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ”: אִם Χ”ΦΈΧ™ΦΈΧ” ΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧœΦΆΧ” ΧœΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ”, ΧΦ΅Χ™ΧŸ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ™ΧšΦ° Χ›ΦΌΦ°ΧœΧ•ΦΌΧ.

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’s 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.

אֲמַר ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ אַבָּי֡י ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: הָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ“ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧΦ΅Χœ הִיא.

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

דְּאִי Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ β€” קַשְׁיָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ אַדְּרַב Χ‘ΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ™: Χ“ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧžΦ°Χ™ΦΈΧ” Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ אַבָּא אָמַר Χ¨Φ·Χ‘: ΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™ שׁ֢נִּ׀ְרַΧ₯ Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄ΧžΦ°ΧœΧ•ΦΉΧΧ•ΦΉ ΧœΦΆΧ—ΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨, Χ•Φ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ” Χ—ΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ Χ›ΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ’Φ°Χ“ΦΌΧ•ΦΉ β€” Χ—ΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ•ΦΌΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™ אָבוּר. Χ•Φ°ΧΦ·ΧžΦΌΦ·ΧΧ™? ΧœΦΆΧ™Χ”Φ±Χ•Φ΅Χ™ Χ›ΦΌΦ°ΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ›ΦΌΦΈΧœΦΆΧ” ΧœΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ”!

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.

אֲמַר ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַגְנָא, גוֹבָדָא Χ”Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ” בְּדוּרָא Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧͺָא ΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ›ΦΌΦΈΧœΦΆΧ” ΧœΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ—ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ” Χ”Φ²Χ•ΦΈΧ”, וַאֲΧͺָא ΧœΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧžΦΌΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Φ°Χ”Χ•ΦΌΧ“ΦΈΧ” Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ אַצְרְכ֡יהּ Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ“ΦΌΦ΅Χ™. וְאִי קַשְׁיָא ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ β€” ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ™Χ”Φ°Χ•Φ΅Χ™ ΧžΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧžΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ“ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧΦ΅Χœ, Χ•Φ°ΧœΦΈΧ קַשְׁיָא ΧžΦ΄Χ™Χ“ΦΌΦ΅Χ™.

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’ 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.

הַשְׁΧͺָּא Χ“ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧžΦ·Χ¨ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ שׁ֡שׁ֢Χͺ ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧžΧ•ΦΌΧΦ΅Χœ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ אַבָּא, Χ•Φ°ΧΦΈΧžΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ™ ΧœΦ΅Χ™Χ”ΦΌ ΧœΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ Χ™Χ•ΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ אַבָּא: אַבְבְּרָא לָךְ, Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” שׁ֢ג֡ירְבוּ, Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” שׁ֢לֹּא Χ’Φ΅Χ™Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Χ•ΦΌ.

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’s 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.

Χ“ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ‘ אַדְּרַב Χ ΦΈΧžΦ΅Χ™ לָא קַשְׁיָא: Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” שׁ֢ג֡ירְבוּ Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ Χ—ΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ גִם Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ™ ΧžΦΈΧ‘Χ•ΦΉΧ™, Χ›ΦΌΦΈΧΧŸ β€” שׁ֢לֹּא Χ’Φ΅Χ™Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Χ•ΦΌ.

Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda’s 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.

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete