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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 21, 2020 | 讙壮 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Eruvin 73

Today’s daf is sponsored by Arlene Sevrinsky in memory of her father, Mordechai ben Avraham z”l on his yahrzeit. He taught us to love family, torah, learning and music. May his neshama have an aliyah. And by Hannah and Michael Piotrkowski in memory of Hannah’s mother, Tsina Tova bat Leib Yisroel z”l on her 50th yahrzeit. She valued humility above all and is more loved and remembered as the years pass.

What is the determining factor regarding eruv – where one sleeps or where one eats? If a man has a number of wives who each live in their own house, are they considered one unit for eruv or separate units? What about slaves? A student at his rabbi’s house if he sleeps and eats there? Can one view a father and children or a rabbi and student as one unit for certain laws of eruvin and as separate units for others (in order to be lenient)? The mishna brings a number of cases regarding courtyards that open to each other and also to a shared alley. If they did only eruv of the courtyards or only shituf mevo’ot (sharing of alleyways), would it cover the other? What if there were both but one person/courtyard didn’t join the eruv/shituf? The gemara struggles to understand the mishna as it seems to side on different sides of the Rabbi Meir/Rabbis debate regarding can one suffice with only one of the two. In the end, they conclude the mishna is all rabbi Meir and they explain the cases to match his opinion. Rav has an alternate version of the mishna – that the courtyards do not open to each other. Why does he not agree with the other version?

诪拽讜诐 驻讬转讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛

The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讛拽讬讬爪讬谉 讜讛讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讜砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇诇讬谉 讘注讬专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇诇讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗诇驻讬诐 诇讻诇 专讜讞

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to shepherds; fig watchmen, who guard figs spread out in the field; guardsmen who sit in small guardhouses; and produce watchmen; when they customarily sleep in the city in addition to eating there, they are like the residents of the city with regard to their Shabbat limit, even though they were in the field when Shabbat began. However, when they customarily sleep in the field, even though they eat in the town, they have only two thousand cubits in each direction from the places where they sleep. This seems to contradict the opinion of Rav, who maintains that a person鈥檚 place of dwelling is determined by where he eats, not by where he sleeps.

讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪诪讟讜 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讛转诐 讟驻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the people in the field, we are witnesses, i.e., it is clearly evident, that if people would bring them bread there, to the place where they sleep, it would be more convenient for them. Fundamentally, however, a person鈥檚 dwelling place is determined by where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘转讬讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙讜专诐 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 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

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha stated by Rav. An illness had caused Rav Yosef to forget his studies. His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was with regard to this that you said it to us: With regard to 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. And we said to you: Can one learn from here that a person鈥檚 place of sleep determines the location of his Shabbat residence? And you said to us in this regard that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father and are therefore considered as though they eat at his table, whereas in actual fact they eat their meals in their own homes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 诪拽讘诇讜转 驻专住 诪讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讞诪砖讛 注讘讚讬诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 驻专住 诪专讘讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诪转讬专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讗讜住专 讘注讘讚讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has five wives who receive a portion from their husband while each living in her own quarters in the courtyard, and five slaves who receive a portion from their master while living in their own lodgings in the courtyard, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits in the case of the wives, i.e., they do not each have to contribute separately to the eiruv, as they are all considered to be residing with their husband. And he prohibits in the case of the slaves, meaning that he holds that as they live in separate houses, each is considered as residing on his own.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 诪转讬专 讘注讘讚讬诐 讜讗讜住专 讘谞砖讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permits in the case of the slaves, as a slave necessarily follows his master, and he prohibits in the case of the wives, as each woman is significant in her own right, and is not totally dependent on her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚谞讬讗诇 讘转专注 诪诇讻讗

Rav said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? As it is written: 鈥淏ut Daniel was in the gate of the king鈥 (Daniel 2:49). The verse refers to Daniel鈥檚 function rather than to an actual location, indicating that wherever Daniel went, it was as though he was in the king鈥檚 gate. The same applies to any slave vis-脿-vis his master.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘谉 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗砖讛 讗爪诇 讘注诇讛 讜注讘讚 讗爪诇 专讘讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 转诇诪讬讚 讗爪诇 专讘讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara proceeds to clarify various aspects of this issue, starting with a summary of what has already been stated. The halakha is obvious in the case of a son with his father, as we stated it above the mishna. A wife with her husband and a slave with his master are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. With regard to a student who lives with his master in the same courtyard and receives his sustenance from him, what is his status with regard to eiruv?

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖讛专讬 讗谞讜 住讜诪讻讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖讛专讬 讗谞讜 住讜诪讻讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬

Come and hear a resolution to this question: As Rav, when he was in the school of Rabbi 岣yya, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi 岣yya. And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya himself, when he was in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 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 讗讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in order to merge their courtyard with a different one, is one contribution to the eiruv sufficient for all of them, or do they need a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every one of them? Rabba said to him: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

讜讛讗 讗讞讬谉 讚讻讬 讙讘讜 讚诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚诪讙讜 讚讛谞讬 讗住专讬 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗住专讬

Abaye asked: But in the case of brothers, who are comparable to people who collected their eiruv, the mishna nonetheless teaches: They require a separate eiruv for each and every one of them. Rabba responded: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there are other residents, in addition to the father and his sons, living with them. In that case, since these additional residents render carrying in the same courtyard prohibited unless they join in an eiruv, those brothers also render it prohibited for one another to carry in the other courtyard unless each of them contributes to the eiruv.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讗 讗爪诇诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诪讛谉 讘讞爪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand, as the mishna teaches: When do they state this halakha? When they bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard. But if their eiruv was coming to them, or if there are no other residents with them in the courtyard, they do not need to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard. Learn from this that the preceding ruling refers to a situation where they shared the courtyard with other residents.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 砖砖转 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘讘讗讙讗 讜讗转讜 讜讘讬讬转讬 讘讘讬 专讘 讻讬 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 转讞讜诪讗 诪讘讬 专讘 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讜 诪讘讗讙讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诪讘讬 专讘

The Gemara addresses a similar issue with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries: Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to students in their master鈥檚 house who eat their bread in their houses in the field [baga] and then come and sleep in their master鈥檚 house, when we measure their Shabbat limit for them, do we measure it for them from their master鈥檚 house, where they sleep, or do we measure it for them from the field, where they eat? He said to him: We measure it from their master鈥檚 house.

讜讛专讬 谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘转讜讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗转讬 讜讘讬讬转 讘讘讬转讬讛 讚诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转讞讜诪讗 诪注讬专讜讘讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin asked: But in the case of one who deposits his eiruv, which establishes the location of his meal, within two thousand cubits, and then goes back and sleeps in his house, we measure his Shabbat limit from his eiruv. This implies that the determining factor is where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

讘讛讛讜讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讜讘讛讚讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讬转讚专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讛讚讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讬讬转讜 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 诇讘讬 专讘 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬

The Gemara answers: In that case we are witnesses, and in this case we are witnesses, i.e., in both cases the person鈥檚 intentions regarding his place of residence are clearly evident. In that case, where the person deposits his eiruv, we are witnesses that if he could reside there, at the site of his eiruv, it would be better for him, i.e., if he could spend the night there he would do so, since he wishes to continue from that place onward on the following day. And in this case of the students in their master鈥檚 house, we are witnesses that if people would bring them bread in their master鈥檚 house, enabling them to eat there, it would be better for them. Consequently, it is considered their place of residence.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讻专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讜 讻讬讞讬讚讬诐 讚诪讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讛谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: With regard to a father and his son, or a master and his student, are they considered as many people or as individuals? The practical import of the question is as follows: If they lived together in a courtyard that was within another courtyard, are they considered as many people, who require an eiruv in order to render it permitted to carry in the outer courtyard, or do they not require an eiruv, as they are treated as an individual, who does not render carrying in the outer courtyard prohibited? Is their alleyway rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam, like one that has multiple residents, or is it not rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬讞讬讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 讜诪讘讜讬 砖诇讛谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛:

Rav 岣sda said to him: You have already learned this in the following baraita: With regard to a father and his son or a master and his student, when there are no other residents with them, they are considered like individuals, and they do not need to establish an eiruv, and their alleyway becomes permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam without a merging of alleyways.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇诪讘讜讬 注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬

MISHNA: If five courtyards open into one another and also open into an alleyway, the following distinctions apply: If the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv in the courtyards and did not merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and they are prohibited to carry in the alleyway. The eiruv they established cannot also serve as a merging of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉

And if they merged the courtyards of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here, in the alleyway, and there, in the courtyards.

注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉

If they established an eiruv in the courtyards and also merged the courtyards of the alleyway, and one of the residents of the courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv in his courtyard, but did participate in the merging of the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted both here and there, as the merging of courtyards in the alleyway serves as an effective eiruv for the courtyards as well.

诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转祝 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐:

However, if one of the residents of the alleyway forgot and did not participate in the merging of courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and prohibited from carrying in the alleyway, as the principle is: An alleyway is to its courtyards as a courtyard is to its houses.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讘注讬谞谉 砖讬转讜祝

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: We require an eiruv and we also require a merging of the courtyards in an alleyway, and one is not sufficient without the other.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, say the middle clause of the mishna: And if they merged the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here and there. We have arrived at the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is enough, and one does not need both an eiruv and a merging of alleyways.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as the mishna stated as follows: And if they also merged the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and in the alleyway.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讜转专讬诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讟讬诇 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬

The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If they established an eiruv in the courtyards and also merged the courtyards in the alleyway, and one of the residents of the courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv in his courtyard but did participate in the merging of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here and there. What are the circumstances? If the person who forgot did not renounce his rights to the courtyard in favor of the others, why are they permitted to carry? Rather, it is obvious that he did renounce those rights. But if so, say the last clause of the mishna: If one of the members of the alleyway forgot and did not participate in the merging of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and prohibited from carrying in the alleyway. But if he renounced his rights, why are they prohibited from carrying in the alleyway?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 砖讛专讬 讘讬讟诇 诇讻诐 专砖讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

And if you say that Rabbi Meir holds that renunciation of rights is not effective in an alleyway, that answer is insufficient. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to an alleyway: As he renounced his rights in your favor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir? This indicates that Rabbi Meir accepts the principle of renunciation of rights in an alleyway.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

Rather, it is obvious that the person who forgot to participate in the merging of alleyways did not renounce his rights. And from the fact that the last clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he did not renounce his rights, it can be inferred that the first clause is also referring to a case where he did not renounce his rights. This would indicate that if they carried out a merging of alleyways, it also serves as an eiruv, even when one of them forgot to contribute to the eiruv and also failed to renounce his rights in the courtyard. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, which leads to the puzzling conclusion that the first and last clauses of the mishna are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讘注讬谞谉 砖讬转讜祝 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘讛 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞讗

The Gemara answers: In fact, it is all in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And what is the reason that Rabbi Meir said we require an eiruv and we also require a merging of alleyways? It was only so as not to cause the halakhic category of eiruv to be forgotten by the children. If people would only merge courtyards, the halakha of establishing an eiruv for a courtyard would gradually be forgotten. And here, where only one person forgot to contribute to the eiruv, since most of them established an eiruv for the courtyards, the halakha of an eiruv will not be forgotten. Therefore, there is room to be lenient after the fact and to permit carrying in both places.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜

Rav Yehuda said: Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the five courtyards open into one another, but rather that each courtyard opens into the alleyway, and each established its own eiruv. And so too, Rav Kahana said: Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards open into one another. Some say that Rav Kahana himself did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards open into one another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 拽住讘专 讻诇 砖讬转讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗讜 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 讘诪讘讜讬 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 砖讬转讜祝

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reason he did not teach the mishna as stating that the five courtyards open into one another? Rav Yosef replied: Because he holds that any merging of alleyways that is not brought in and taken out by way of the entrances that open into the alleyway, i.e., which is not brought from each courtyard into the alleyway and then taken from the alleyway into the courtyard where it will be deposited, is not considered a valid merging of the alleyway. If the food used for the merging of alleyways is transferred directly from one courtyard to another, it seems as though it is being used to establish an eiruv. It is therefore ineffective as a merging of alleyways. Here too, if the courtyards open into one another, the merging of alleyways is invalid, due to a concern that the residents of the courtyard will transfer the food directly from one courtyard to another.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转祝 诇砖讻谞讬讜 诇讝讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讝讛 讘讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 讛转诐 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛

He raised an objection to him based upon the following mishna: A homeowner who was a partner of his neighbors, with this one in wine and with that one in wine, they do not need to establish an eiruv. This indicates that it is not actually necessary to transfer the food used for the merging of alleyways from one place to another. For example, it is sufficient to have a jointly owned barrel of wine in one courtyard even if it did not pass through the alleyway. The Gemara rejects this proof and explains the mishna as follows: There, it is referring to a case where they took the wine out into the alleyway and subsequently brought it in to the courtyard where it was to be kept.

(讗讬转讬讘讬讛) 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讻讜壮 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛

He raised another objection to him from a different mishna: How does one merge courtyards that open into alleyways? The mishna continues and says that it is sufficient for one person to acquire the food used for the merging on behalf of all the other residents of the alleyway. This indicates that the food does not need to pass through all the courtyards in the alleyway. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: There too, it is referring to a case where they first took the food out from each of the courtyards into the alleyway and from there brought it into the courtyard where it was to be deposited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛拽谞讛 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬转讜祝 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讛驻转 砖注诇 砖诇讞谉 住讜诪讻讬诐 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讬转讜祝

Rabba bar 岣nan strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, if he transferred ownership of bread in his basket to another person, so too, it would not be considered a valid merging. And if you say that this is indeed so, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: With regard to members of a group who were dining together on Shabbat eve, and the day became sanctified for them, i.e., Shabbat began while they were eating, they may rely upon the bread on the table as an eiruv for the courtyard, and some say, as a merging of the alleyway.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讻讗谉 讘诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讞爪专

And Rabba said: The two versions do not disagree with each other regarding whether the bread counts as an eiruv or as a merging of the alleyway. Here, where they can use it as an eiruv, it is referring to a case where they were dining in a house, since food deposited inside a house can serve as an eiruv for the courtyard. There, it is referring to a case where they were dining in a courtyard, and therefore they may rely on the bread as a merging of the alleyway. This proves that even Rav agrees that it is not necessary to take the food used to merge an alleyway into the alleyway itself and then bring it back to the courtyard.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讬诐 诇转讜讻讜

Rather, we must retract the previous explanation and say that the reason Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards opened into one another is that he holds that an alleyway cannot be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. If, however, the courtyards open into one another, they are considered like a single courtyard, in which case they cannot be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or a cross beam, and the merging of the alleyway is ineffective.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛

The Gemara now examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Rav said: An alleyway cannot become permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam,

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

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 73-79 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the differences between joining houses with an eruv and joining courtyards in an alleyway and...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 73: From the Rabbi’s House

How do eruvin reflect the relationships of the people joining together in the eruv? For example, students who eat out...

Eruvin 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 73

诪拽讜诐 驻讬转讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛

The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜注讬诐 讜讛拽讬讬爪讬谉 讜讛讘讜专讙谞讬谉 讜砖讜诪专讬 驻讬专讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇诇讬谉 讘注讬专 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讚专讻谉 诇诇讬谉 讘砖讚讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 讗诇驻讬诐 诇讻诇 专讜讞

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to shepherds; fig watchmen, who guard figs spread out in the field; guardsmen who sit in small guardhouses; and produce watchmen; when they customarily sleep in the city in addition to eating there, they are like the residents of the city with regard to their Shabbat limit, even though they were in the field when Shabbat began. However, when they customarily sleep in the field, even though they eat in the town, they have only two thousand cubits in each direction from the places where they sleep. This seems to contradict the opinion of Rav, who maintains that a person鈥檚 place of dwelling is determined by where he eats, not by where he sleeps.

讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪诪讟讜 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 讛转诐 讟驻讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the people in the field, we are witnesses, i.e., it is clearly evident, that if people would bring them bread there, to the place where they sleep, it would be more convenient for them. Fundamentally, however, a person鈥檚 dwelling place is determined by where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘转讬讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙讜专诐 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 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

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha stated by Rav. An illness had caused Rav Yosef to forget his studies. His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was with regard to this that you said it to us: With regard to 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. And we said to you: Can one learn from here that a person鈥檚 place of sleep determines the location of his Shabbat residence? And you said to us in this regard that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father and are therefore considered as though they eat at his table, whereas in actual fact they eat their meals in their own homes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 诪拽讘诇讜转 驻专住 诪讘注诇讬讛谉 讜讞诪砖讛 注讘讚讬诐 诪拽讘诇讬谉 驻专住 诪专讘讬讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 诪转讬专 讘谞砖讬诐 讜讗讜住专 讘注讘讚讬诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has five wives who receive a portion from their husband while each living in her own quarters in the courtyard, and five slaves who receive a portion from their master while living in their own lodgings in the courtyard, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits in the case of the wives, i.e., they do not each have to contribute separately to the eiruv, as they are all considered to be residing with their husband. And he prohibits in the case of the slaves, meaning that he holds that as they live in separate houses, each is considered as residing on his own.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 诪转讬专 讘注讘讚讬诐 讜讗讜住专 讘谞砖讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permits in the case of the slaves, as a slave necessarily follows his master, and he prohibits in the case of the wives, as each woman is significant in her own right, and is not totally dependent on her husband.

讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讚谞讬讗诇 讘转专注 诪诇讻讗

Rav said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? As it is written: 鈥淏ut Daniel was in the gate of the king鈥 (Daniel 2:49). The verse refers to Daniel鈥檚 function rather than to an actual location, indicating that wherever Daniel went, it was as though he was in the king鈥檚 gate. The same applies to any slave vis-脿-vis his master.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘谉 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗砖讛 讗爪诇 讘注诇讛 讜注讘讚 讗爪诇 专讘讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘讘讗 转诇诪讬讚 讗爪诇 专讘讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara proceeds to clarify various aspects of this issue, starting with a summary of what has already been stated. The halakha is obvious in the case of a son with his father, as we stated it above the mishna. A wife with her husband and a slave with his master are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. With regard to a student who lives with his master in the same courtyard and receives his sustenance from him, what is his status with regard to eiruv?

转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘 讘讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖讛专讬 讗谞讜 住讜诪讻讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖讛专讬 讗谞讜 住讜诪讻讬谉 注诇 砖讜诇讞谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬

Come and hear a resolution to this question: As Rav, when he was in the school of Rabbi 岣yya, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi 岣yya. And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya himself, when he was in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 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 讗讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 讗讞讚 诇讻讜诇谉

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in order to merge their courtyard with a different one, is one contribution to the eiruv sufficient for all of them, or do they need a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every one of them? Rabba said to him: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

讜讛讗 讗讞讬谉 讚讻讬 讙讘讜 讚诪讜 讜拽转谞讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚诪讙讜 讚讛谞讬 讗住专讬 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗住专讬

Abaye asked: But in the case of brothers, who are comparable to people who collected their eiruv, the mishna nonetheless teaches: They require a separate eiruv for each and every one of them. Rabba responded: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there are other residents, in addition to the father and his sons, living with them. In that case, since these additional residents render carrying in the same courtyard prohibited unless they join in an eiruv, those brothers also render it prohibited for one another to carry in the other courtyard unless each of them contributes to the eiruv.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讬专讜讘谉 讘讗 讗爪诇诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诪讛谉 讘讞爪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand, as the mishna teaches: When do they state this halakha? When they bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard. But if their eiruv was coming to them, or if there are no other residents with them in the courtyard, they do not need to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard. Learn from this that the preceding ruling refers to a situation where they shared the courtyard with other residents.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪专讘 砖砖转 讘谞讬 讘讬 专讘 讚讗讻诇讬 谞讛诪讗 讘讘讗讙讗 讜讗转讜 讜讘讬讬转讬 讘讘讬 专讘 讻讬 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 转讞讜诪讗 诪讘讬 专讘 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讜 诪讘讗讙讗 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讞讬谞谉 诪讘讬 专讘

The Gemara addresses a similar issue with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries: Rav 岣yya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to students in their master鈥檚 house who eat their bread in their houses in the field [baga] and then come and sleep in their master鈥檚 house, when we measure their Shabbat limit for them, do we measure it for them from their master鈥檚 house, where they sleep, or do we measure it for them from the field, where they eat? He said to him: We measure it from their master鈥檚 house.

讜讛专讬 谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘转讜讱 讗诇驻讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗转讬 讜讘讬讬转 讘讘讬转讬讛 讚诪砖讞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转讞讜诪讗 诪注讬专讜讘讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin asked: But in the case of one who deposits his eiruv, which establishes the location of his meal, within two thousand cubits, and then goes back and sleeps in his house, we measure his Shabbat limit from his eiruv. This implies that the determining factor is where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

讘讛讛讜讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讜讘讛讚讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讬转讚专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讛讚讗 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讗讬 诪讬讬转讜 诇讛讜 专讬驻转讗 诇讘讬 专讘 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 讟驻讬

The Gemara answers: In that case we are witnesses, and in this case we are witnesses, i.e., in both cases the person鈥檚 intentions regarding his place of residence are clearly evident. In that case, where the person deposits his eiruv, we are witnesses that if he could reside there, at the site of his eiruv, it would be better for him, i.e., if he could spend the night there he would do so, since he wishes to continue from that place onward on the following day. And in this case of the students in their master鈥檚 house, we are witnesses that if people would bring them bread in their master鈥檚 house, enabling them to eat there, it would be better for them. Consequently, it is considered their place of residence.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讻专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讗讜 讻讬讞讬讚讬诐 讚诪讜 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 注讬专讜讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讛谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛

Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: With regard to a father and his son, or a master and his student, are they considered as many people or as individuals? The practical import of the question is as follows: If they lived together in a courtyard that was within another courtyard, are they considered as many people, who require an eiruv in order to render it permitted to carry in the outer courtyard, or do they not require an eiruv, as they are treated as an individual, who does not render carrying in the outer courtyard prohibited? Is their alleyway rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam, like one that has multiple residents, or is it not rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 注诪讛谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讬讞讬讚讬诐 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 讜诪讘讜讬 砖诇讛谉 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛:

Rav 岣sda said to him: You have already learned this in the following baraita: With regard to a father and his son or a master and his student, when there are no other residents with them, they are considered like individuals, and they do not need to establish an eiruv, and their alleyway becomes permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam without a merging of alleyways.

诪转谞讬壮 讞诪砖 讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇诪讘讜讬 注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬

MISHNA: If five courtyards open into one another and also open into an alleyway, the following distinctions apply: If the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv in the courtyards and did not merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and they are prohibited to carry in the alleyway. The eiruv they established cannot also serve as a merging of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉

And if they merged the courtyards of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here, in the alleyway, and there, in the courtyards.

注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉

If they established an eiruv in the courtyards and also merged the courtyards of the alleyway, and one of the residents of the courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv in his courtyard, but did participate in the merging of the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted both here and there, as the merging of courtyards in the alleyway serves as an effective eiruv for the courtyards as well.

诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转祝 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐:

However, if one of the residents of the alleyway forgot and did not participate in the merging of courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and prohibited from carrying in the alleyway, as the principle is: An alleyway is to its courtyards as a courtyard is to its houses.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讘注讬谞谉 砖讬转讜祝

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: We require an eiruv and we also require a merging of the courtyards in an alleyway, and one is not sufficient without the other.

讗讬诪讗 诪爪讬注转讗 讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讜转专讬谉 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讘讞讚讗 住讙讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, say the middle clause of the mishna: And if they merged the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here and there. We have arrived at the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is enough, and one does not need both an eiruv and a merging of alleyways.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讜讗诐 谞砖转转驻讜 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专

The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as the mishna stated as follows: And if they also merged the courtyards in the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and in the alleyway.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注讬专讘讜 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜谞砖转转驻讜 讘诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞爪专 讜诇讗 注讬专讘 诪讜转专讬诐 讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讘讟讬诇 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖讻讞 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讗讬 讚讘讟讬诇 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬

The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If they established an eiruv in the courtyards and also merged the courtyards in the alleyway, and one of the residents of the courtyard forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv in his courtyard but did participate in the merging of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry both here and there. What are the circumstances? If the person who forgot did not renounce his rights to the courtyard in favor of the others, why are they permitted to carry? Rather, it is obvious that he did renounce those rights. But if so, say the last clause of the mishna: If one of the members of the alleyway forgot and did not participate in the merging of the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and prohibited from carrying in the alleyway. But if he renounced his rights, why are they prohibited from carrying in the alleyway?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讘讬讟讜诇 专砖讜转 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 砖讛专讬 讘讬讟诇 诇讻诐 专砖讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

And if you say that Rabbi Meir holds that renunciation of rights is not effective in an alleyway, that answer is insufficient. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to an alleyway: As he renounced his rights in your favor; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir? This indicates that Rabbi Meir accepts the principle of renunciation of rights in an alleyway.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讘讟讬诇 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘谞谉

Rather, it is obvious that the person who forgot to participate in the merging of alleyways did not renounce his rights. And from the fact that the last clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he did not renounce his rights, it can be inferred that the first clause is also referring to a case where he did not renounce his rights. This would indicate that if they carried out a merging of alleyways, it also serves as an eiruv, even when one of them forgot to contribute to the eiruv and also failed to renounce his rights in the courtyard. This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, which leads to the puzzling conclusion that the first and last clauses of the mishna are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讘注讬谞谉 砖讬转讜祝 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 转讜专转 注讬专讜讘 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 讜讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘讛 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 诪砖转讻讞讗

The Gemara answers: In fact, it is all in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And what is the reason that Rabbi Meir said we require an eiruv and we also require a merging of alleyways? It was only so as not to cause the halakhic category of eiruv to be forgotten by the children. If people would only merge courtyards, the halakha of establishing an eiruv for a courtyard would gradually be forgotten. And here, where only one person forgot to contribute to the eiruv, since most of them established an eiruv for the courtyards, the halakha of an eiruv will not be forgotten. Therefore, there is room to be lenient after the fact and to permit carrying in both places.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜

Rav Yehuda said: Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the five courtyards open into one another, but rather that each courtyard opens into the alleyway, and each established its own eiruv. And so too, Rav Kahana said: Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards open into one another. Some say that Rav Kahana himself did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards open into one another.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 转谞讬 驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 拽住讘专 讻诇 砖讬转讜祝 砖讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗讜 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 讘诪讘讜讬 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 砖讬转讜祝

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reason he did not teach the mishna as stating that the five courtyards open into one another? Rav Yosef replied: Because he holds that any merging of alleyways that is not brought in and taken out by way of the entrances that open into the alleyway, i.e., which is not brought from each courtyard into the alleyway and then taken from the alleyway into the courtyard where it will be deposited, is not considered a valid merging of the alleyway. If the food used for the merging of alleyways is transferred directly from one courtyard to another, it seems as though it is being used to establish an eiruv. It is therefore ineffective as a merging of alleyways. Here too, if the courtyards open into one another, the merging of alleyways is invalid, due to a concern that the residents of the courtyard will transfer the food directly from one courtyard to another.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讛讬讛 砖讜转祝 诇砖讻谞讬讜 诇讝讛 讘讬讬谉 讜诇讝讛 讘讬讬谉 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘 讛转诐 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛

He raised an objection to him based upon the following mishna: A homeowner who was a partner of his neighbors, with this one in wine and with that one in wine, they do not need to establish an eiruv. This indicates that it is not actually necessary to transfer the food used for the merging of alleyways from one place to another. For example, it is sufficient to have a jointly owned barrel of wine in one courtyard even if it did not pass through the alleyway. The Gemara rejects this proof and explains the mishna as follows: There, it is referring to a case where they took the wine out into the alleyway and subsequently brought it in to the courtyard where it was to be kept.

(讗讬转讬讘讬讛) 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讻讜壮 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讗驻拽讬讛 讜注讬讬诇讬讛

He raised another objection to him from a different mishna: How does one merge courtyards that open into alleyways? The mishna continues and says that it is sufficient for one person to acquire the food used for the merging on behalf of all the other residents of the alleyway. This indicates that the food does not need to pass through all the courtyards in the alleyway. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: There too, it is referring to a case where they first took the food out from each of the courtyards into the alleyway and from there brought it into the courtyard where it was to be deposited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞谉 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛拽谞讛 诇讜 驻转 讘住诇讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬转讜祝 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖讛讬讜 诪住讜讘讬谉 讜拽讚砖 注诇讬讛谉 讛讬讜诐 讛驻转 砖注诇 砖诇讞谉 住讜诪讻讬诐 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注讬专讜讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讬转讜祝

Rabba bar 岣nan strongly objects to this: However, if that is so, if he transferred ownership of bread in his basket to another person, so too, it would not be considered a valid merging. And if you say that this is indeed so, didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: With regard to members of a group who were dining together on Shabbat eve, and the day became sanctified for them, i.e., Shabbat began while they were eating, they may rely upon the bread on the table as an eiruv for the courtyard, and some say, as a merging of the alleyway.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讻讗谉 讘诪住讜讘讬谉 讘讞爪专

And Rabba said: The two versions do not disagree with each other regarding whether the bread counts as an eiruv or as a merging of the alleyway. Here, where they can use it as an eiruv, it is referring to a case where they were dining in a house, since food deposited inside a house can serve as an eiruv for the courtyard. There, it is referring to a case where they were dining in a courtyard, and therefore they may rely on the bread as a merging of the alleyway. This proves that even Rav agrees that it is not necessary to take the food used to merge an alleyway into the alleyway itself and then bring it back to the courtyard.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讬诐 诇转讜讻讜

Rather, we must retract the previous explanation and say that the reason Rav did not teach the mishna as stating that the courtyards opened into one another is that he holds that an alleyway cannot be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. If, however, the courtyards open into one another, they are considered like a single courtyard, in which case they cannot be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or a cross beam, and the merging of the alleyway is ineffective.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛

The Gemara now examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Rav said: An alleyway cannot become permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam,

Scroll To Top