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

Daf Yomi

October 20, 2020 | 讘壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

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

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

Eruvin 72

Today’s daf is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Harav Yaakov Zvi ben Liba. And by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of the wedding today of their daughter Nechama. “Nechama- you have no idea how much joy you bring to your father when you send him a page of Gemara you are learning in class and say, ‘Abba- I remember learning this sugya with you.'”

There is a debate how to understand the debate between rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding one who either did joining of the alleyway or eruv of the courtyards – can one carry both between the courtyards and into the alleyway. Do they disagree only in the case where the joining of the alleyway was done with bread or only when it was done with wine? Do we hold like Rabbi Meir who is stringent? The mishna brings a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel regarding five people who live in a large room that is sectioned off into five unique spaces. Is this viewed as one for purposes of doing an eruv with other people in the courtyard or not (do they all give one portion or 5 separate ones)? The gemara first brings four different explanations regarding the debate. What type of separation is there between the sections? Do they disagree in the case of walls that do not have halachic status as walls (less than 120 handbreadths) or walls that are 10 handbreadths but do not reach the ceiling or walls that reach the ceiling? The gemara then brings two other explanations regarding the debate – is the debate about where the eruv is placed – in their room or in another house in the courtyard? If a family lives in a courtyard each with one’s own separate space, do they join the eruv with others in the courtyard as one or as individuals? On what does it depend – where they sleep, where they eat? If one lives in someone else’s property, what determines whether or not they need to join the eruv separately. Does it depend on what type of space is the person sleeping in – if it is a place normally used for living or not?

 

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讬讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 转专转讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻转


And one said: In the case of wine, everyone agrees that two are required, both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards. When they disagree is in a case where an eiruv was established with bread: Rabbi Meir maintains that both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards are required, whereas the Rabbis say that one is sufficient.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讞爪专 讘驻转 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita itself. And the Rabbis say: One may either establish an eiruv or a merging of alleyways. What, does it not mean that one either establishes an eiruv in the courtyard with bread or a merging in the alleyway with wine, which indicates that they also disagreed in a case where a merging of alleyways was established with wine?


讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讞爪专 讘驻转 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讘驻转 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉


Rav Giddel said that Rav said that the Rabbis were saying as follows: One may either establish an eiruv in the courtyard with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway, or one may establish a merging of alleyways in the alleyway with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛讙 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专:


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rav Huna said: No clear halakhic ruling was issued in his favor, but the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, if someone asks, he should be instructed to act accordingly. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not even a custom established by the Sages. Rather, the people were accustomed to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do not tell them they have acted inappropriately.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讞讘讜专讜转 砖砖讘转讜 讘讟专拽诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


MISHNA: With regard to five groups of people who spent Shabbat in one hall [teraklin] that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.


讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽爪转谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘讞讚专讬诐 讗讜 讘注诇讬讜转 砖讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛:


And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group, and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪住讬驻住 讗讘诇 讘诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讘诪住讬驻住 诪讞诇讜拽转


GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a partition of pegs [mesifas]. However, if they divided it with a sturdy partition ten handbreadths high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, as this certainly divides the hall into separate living quarters. Some say a different version of the previous passage, according to which Rav Na岣an said as follows: Even where they merely divided the room with a partition of pegs, there is a dispute about whether this is considered a full-fledged partition.


驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛


The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagreed about this issue. One of them said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, all agree that one eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn the compartments into separate houses. And one said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, all agree that the compartments are considered separate living quarters, and they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛住讘专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda the Keen [hasabbar], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as all agree that they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as Beit Shammai say: A separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, and Beit Hillel say: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬讜讘转讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 住讬讬注转讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪住讬驻住 转讬讜讘转讗


According to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, this baraita offers a conclusive refutation. And according to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, the baraita offers support. With regard to that version which holds that Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a mesifas, this baraita is a conclusive refutation.


诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讘诪住讬驻住 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗


However, the following issue needs further clarification: With regard to that version which holds that Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies even where the hall was divided with a mesifas, shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda the Keen鈥檚 statement is a conclusive refutation? That is to say, does it imply that all agree that in the case of a mesifas, one eiruv suffices for them all?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘诪住讬驻住 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rav Na岣an could have said to you: They explicitly disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And the fact that they disagree with regard to a partition rather than a partition of pegs is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel. Even where the compartments are divided by full-fledged partitions, Beit Hillel remain of the opinion that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn them into separate residences.


讜诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪住讬驻住 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 注讚讬祝


The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach us the strength of a permissive ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛住讘专


Rav Na岣an said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda the Keen, that all agree that where the partitions reach the ceiling, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each group, and that they disagree only about partitions that do not reach the ceiling.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽爪转谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘讞讚专讬诐 讜讘注诇讬讜转 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 诪讗讬 讞讚专讬诐 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讚专讬诐 讞讚专讬诐 诪诪砖 讜注诇讬讜转 注诇讬讜转 诪诪砖 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻注讬谉 讞讚专讬诐 讻注讬谉 注诇讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise according to this view, as it teaches: And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group. What is the meaning of the word rooms, and what is the meaning of the term upper stories? If you say that the word rooms refers to actual rooms and the term upper stories refers to actual upper stories, i.e., they were separate from the beginning and are not subdivisions of a larger room, it is obvious, as this is the halakha governing the case of many people residing in the same courtyard. Rather, doesn鈥檛 it mean that they are similar to rooms and similar to upper stories? And what are these partitions? They are partitions that reach the ceiling; and even though they are not actual rooms or upper stories, they are considered like rooms and upper stories. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.


转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


It was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that Beit Shammai require a separate contribution to the eiruv from each group, said? It is in a case where the groups in the hall bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to a different house. But if their eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if the other members of the courtyard brought their contributions and established the eiruv in that hall, all agree that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. The fact that the eiruv is placed in this house renders all of its residents members of a single unit.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? In accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛


And some say a different version of the previous passage: In what case is this statement, that Beit Hillel require only one contribution for all the groups together, said? It is in a case where the eiruv was coming to them. But if the groups in the hall were bringing their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讚:


If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with either one of them.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘转讬讛诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜


MISHNA: In the case of brothers who were eating at their father鈥檚 table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them. Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, he must renounce his rights in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard鈥檚 residents.


讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘:


When do they state this halakha? They state it when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. But if the eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if it was placed in their father鈥檚 house, or if there are no other residents with the brothers and their father in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.


讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙讜专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讘诇讬 驻专住 砖谞讜


GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the statement in the mishna that a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made by each of the brothers if they sleep in their own houses: Learn from it that one鈥檚 place of sleep determines the location of his residence. The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father. The mishna is not referring to brothers who actually eat at their father鈥檚 table, but rather to brothers whose father supplies them with food that they eat in their own homes.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谉 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜 (讗转) 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 (讜讗转) 讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛 讘诇讘讚


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who has a gatehouse, porch, or balcony in his friend鈥檚 courtyard does not render the owner of the courtyard prohibited from carrying there without an eiruv, as these locations are not considered residences. However, if he has a storeroom of straw, a cattle shed, a woodshed, or a storehouse in his friend鈥檚 courtyard, he renders it prohibited for his friend to carry there without an eiruv. Rabbi Yehuda says: Only a place of actual dwelling renders carrying prohibited, but a building that is not designated for residence does not render carrying without an eiruv prohibited for another resident of the courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘谉 谞驻讞讗 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞诪砖 讞爪专讜转 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讘诇讘讚


Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappa岣, who had houses in five courtyards in Usha, only one of which served as his own residence. And the case came before the Sages to decide whether an eiruv must be made for all of them, and they said: Only a house of residence renders carrying prohibited.


讘讬转 讚讬专讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛


The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of the baraita: Does it enter your mind that the correct reading is a house of residence? He has a house in each of the five courtyards. Rather, say: A place of residence, i.e., it is prohibited to carry in the place where he actually lives, but nowhere else.


诪讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛 专讘 讗诪专


The Gemara asks: What is considered one鈥檚 place of residence? Rav said:


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

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

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....
woman davening

From Eruvin to Women Saying Kaddish. Eruvin 72a

At first glance, there is no obvious connection between five groups that resided in a traklin (large room) and women...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 72: Where You Lay Your Head Down

A daf of two mishnayot. 1. The case of several groups in a large hall... A dispute whether every group...

Eruvin 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 72

讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘讬讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 转专转讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘驻转


And one said: In the case of wine, everyone agrees that two are required, both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards. When they disagree is in a case where an eiruv was established with bread: Rabbi Meir maintains that both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards are required, whereas the Rabbis say that one is sufficient.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讞爪专 讘驻转 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讘讬讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita itself. And the Rabbis say: One may either establish an eiruv or a merging of alleyways. What, does it not mean that one either establishes an eiruv in the courtyard with bread or a merging in the alleyway with wine, which indicates that they also disagreed in a case where a merging of alleyways was established with wine?


讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讞爪专 讘驻转 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗讜 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讘驻转 讜诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉


Rav Giddel said that Rav said that the Rabbis were saying as follows: One may either establish an eiruv in the courtyard with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway, or one may establish a merging of alleyways in the alleyway with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪谞讛讙 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专:


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rav Huna said: No clear halakhic ruling was issued in his favor, but the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, if someone asks, he should be instructed to act accordingly. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not even a custom established by the Sages. Rather, the people were accustomed to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do not tell them they have acted inappropriately.


诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖讛 讞讘讜专讜转 砖砖讘转讜 讘讟专拽诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


MISHNA: With regard to five groups of people who spent Shabbat in one hall [teraklin] that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.


讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽爪转谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘讞讚专讬诐 讗讜 讘注诇讬讜转 砖讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛:


And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group, and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪住讬驻住 讗讘诇 讘诪讞讬爪讛 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讘诪住讬驻住 诪讞诇讜拽转


GEMARA: Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a partition of pegs [mesifas]. However, if they divided it with a sturdy partition ten handbreadths high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, as this certainly divides the hall into separate living quarters. Some say a different version of the previous passage, according to which Rav Na岣an said as follows: Even where they merely divided the room with a partition of pegs, there is a dispute about whether this is considered a full-fledged partition.


驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛


The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagreed about this issue. One of them said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, all agree that one eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn the compartments into separate houses. And one said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, all agree that the compartments are considered separate living quarters, and they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛住讘专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: Rabbi Yehuda the Keen [hasabbar], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as all agree that they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, as Beit Shammai say: A separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, and Beit Hillel say: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.


诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讬讜讘转讗 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 住讬讬注转讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪住讬驻住 转讬讜讘转讗


According to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, this baraita offers a conclusive refutation. And according to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, the baraita offers support. With regard to that version which holds that Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a mesifas, this baraita is a conclusive refutation.


诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 讘诪住讬驻住 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讬诪讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗


However, the following issue needs further clarification: With regard to that version which holds that Rav Na岣an said: The dispute applies even where the hall was divided with a mesifas, shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda the Keen鈥檚 statement is a conclusive refutation? That is to say, does it imply that all agree that in the case of a mesifas, one eiruv suffices for them all?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘诪住讬驻住 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rav Na岣an could have said to you: They explicitly disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And the fact that they disagree with regard to a partition rather than a partition of pegs is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel. Even where the compartments are divided by full-fledged partitions, Beit Hillel remain of the opinion that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn them into separate residences.


讜诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪住讬驻住 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 注讚讬祝


The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach us the strength of a permissive ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛住讘专


Rav Na岣an said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda the Keen, that all agree that where the partitions reach the ceiling, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each group, and that they disagree only about partitions that do not reach the ceiling.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪拽爪转谉 砖专讜讬讬谉 讘讞讚专讬诐 讜讘注诇讬讜转 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛 诪讗讬 讞讚专讬诐 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讚专讬诐 讞讚专讬诐 诪诪砖 讜注诇讬讜转 注诇讬讜转 诪诪砖 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻注讬谉 讞讚专讬诐 讻注讬谉 注诇讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The mishna is also precise according to this view, as it teaches: And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group. What is the meaning of the word rooms, and what is the meaning of the term upper stories? If you say that the word rooms refers to actual rooms and the term upper stories refers to actual upper stories, i.e., they were separate from the beginning and are not subdivisions of a larger room, it is obvious, as this is the halakha governing the case of many people residing in the same courtyard. Rather, doesn鈥檛 it mean that they are similar to rooms and similar to upper stories? And what are these partitions? They are partitions that reach the ceiling; and even though they are not actual rooms or upper stories, they are considered like rooms and upper stories. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the case.


转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉


It was taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that Beit Shammai require a separate contribution to the eiruv from each group, said? It is in a case where the groups in the hall bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to a different house. But if their eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if the other members of the courtyard brought their contributions and established the eiruv in that hall, all agree that one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. The fact that the eiruv is placed in this house renders all of its residents members of a single unit.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讻诪讗谉 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? In accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讞讘讜专讛 讜讞讘讜专讛


And some say a different version of the previous passage: In what case is this statement, that Beit Hillel require only one contribution for all the groups together, said? It is in a case where the eiruv was coming to them. But if the groups in the hall were bringing their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讙讘讜 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讻砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讚:


If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the baraita: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, one contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them. In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accordance with either one of them.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘转讬讛诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜


MISHNA: In the case of brothers who were eating at their father鈥檚 table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them. Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, he must renounce his rights in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard鈥檚 residents.


讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讘讗 讗爪诇谉 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘:


When do they state this halakha? They state it when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. But if the eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if it was placed in their father鈥檚 house, or if there are no other residents with the brothers and their father in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.


讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙讜专诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讘诇讬 驻专住 砖谞讜


GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the statement in the mishna that a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made by each of the brothers if they sleep in their own houses: Learn from it that one鈥檚 place of sleep determines the location of his residence. The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father. The mishna is not referring to brothers who actually eat at their father鈥檚 table, but rather to brothers whose father supplies them with food that they eat in their own homes.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谉 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜 (讗转) 讘讬转 讛转讘谉 (讜讗转) 讘讬转 讛讘拽专 讘讬转 讛注爪讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜住专 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛 讘诇讘讚


The Sages taught in a baraita: One who has a gatehouse, porch, or balcony in his friend鈥檚 courtyard does not render the owner of the courtyard prohibited from carrying there without an eiruv, as these locations are not considered residences. However, if he has a storeroom of straw, a cattle shed, a woodshed, or a storehouse in his friend鈥檚 courtyard, he renders it prohibited for his friend to carry there without an eiruv. Rabbi Yehuda says: Only a place of actual dwelling renders carrying prohibited, but a building that is not designated for residence does not render carrying without an eiruv prohibited for another resident of the courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘谉 谞驻讞讗 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 讞诪砖 讞爪专讜转 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜住专 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬专讛 讘诇讘讚


Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappa岣, who had houses in five courtyards in Usha, only one of which served as his own residence. And the case came before the Sages to decide whether an eiruv must be made for all of them, and they said: Only a house of residence renders carrying prohibited.


讘讬转 讚讬专讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛


The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of the baraita: Does it enter your mind that the correct reading is a house of residence? He has a house in each of the five courtyards. Rather, say: A place of residence, i.e., it is prohibited to carry in the place where he actually lives, but nowhere else.


诪讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讚讬专讛 专讘 讗诪专


The Gemara asks: What is considered one鈥檚 place of residence? Rav said:


Scroll To Top