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

Daf Yomi

October 22, 2020 | 讚壮 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 Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 74

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Yehudit Robinson in honor of Sarah Robinson, Mishna and Talmud teacher at Manhattan Day School. And by Navah Levine in honor of Rachel Levy. With appreciation to a most enthusiastic and encouraging chevruta. “Thank you for helping to keep me on this Daf Yomi Derekh. Happy birthday.”

In order to permit carrying in an alley by using a side post or a cross beam, what is the minimum requirement of houses/courtyards in the alley? If this minimum is not there, the alley must be treated like a courtyard and either two side posts, one side post four handbreadths wide or a frame (tzurat hapetach) is needed. There are three opinions brought – by Rav, Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan. The gemara first questions Rabbi Yochanan and also brings a different law of Rabbi Yochanan that matches his opinion here. Then they bring a difficulty for Shmuel – does he change his mind or not? Rav states a law regarding three houses that open to each other and only one opens directly to the alley. On the other side of the alley there is a gentile. One cannot make an eruv through the window of the inner houses. Why not? Would it be the same if they house of the Jew and the gentile opened up to a courtyard instead? Why would one think to distinguish between the cases?

注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讜讞爪专 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜专讘讛


unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. This formulation implies that there must be at least two courtyards, each of which contains at least two houses. In the absence of these conditions, however, it is not considered an alleyway that can be permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam. And Shmuel said: Even one house without a courtyard and one courtyard with just one house is enough. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even a ruin and a courtyard with a house suffice for a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in an alleyway permitted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讞讜专讘讛 讚讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 讗讘诇 砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 诇讗


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that even a vineyard path and a courtyard with a house suffice to allow a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in the alleyway permitted? He said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said his ruling only in the case of a ruin, which is fit to serve as a residence. However, a vineyard path, which is not fit to serve as a residence, is not sufficient.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 (讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉) 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪专讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: And Rabbi Yo岣nan followed his regular line of reasoning in this regard, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that were in one of these areas at the beginning of Shabbat to any of the other areas. However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat. If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the roof, enclosure, or courtyard.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


And Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And this is only in a case where the residents of the courtyards did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard, so that they may only carry the vessels left in the courtyards, but they may not take out vessels from their houses into their courtyards. However, if they established an eiruv for each courtyard, we decree against carrying even vessels that were in the courtyard when Shabbat began, lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. This would lead to the mistake of carrying those objects from one courtyard to another, which is prohibited.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讞爪专 诇讞讜专讘讛


And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether the residents of the courtyards established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. And so too, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether they established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that we do not decree against carrying vessels that began Shabbat in the courtyard lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. Here too, with regard to an alleyway that contains a ruin, we do not decree against carrying in the alleyway lest they come to take out objects from the courtyard to the ruin by carrying it through the alleyway. Although the ruin is not included in the eiruv, as it has no residents, and one may not carry objects into it, Rabbi Yo岣nan is not concerned that one might come to carry in this prohibited manner.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉


Rav Beruna sat and recited this halakha stated by Shmuel, that an alleyway containing one house and one courtyard can be rendered permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Elazar, a student of a Torah academy, said to him: Did Shmuel really say this? Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his lodging and I will go and ask him myself, and he showed him. Rabbi Elazar came before Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master actually say this? Shmuel said to him: Yes, I did.


讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐 讗讬砖转讬拽


Rabbi Elazar raised the following objection: Wasn鈥檛 it the Master himself who said concerning a different issue: With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna. The mishna states that an alleyway is to its courtyards like a courtyard is to its houses, which indicates that an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway and be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam. Shmuel was silent and did not answer him.


拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 讘讬讛 讗讬讘讜转 讘专 讗讬讛讬 注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讜砖专讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇


The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel鈥檚 silence indicate that he accepted Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection and retracted his statement, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from the following incident. Come and hear: There was a certain alleyway that Ivut bar Ihi lived in, which contained only one house and one courtyard. He erected a side post for it, and Shmuel permitted him to carry in it.


讗转讗 专讘 注谞谉 砖讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讚讬讬专谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讗转讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讬转讬 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 专讘 谞讬砖讚讬讬讛 诪谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Following Shmuel鈥檚 death, Rav Anan came and threw the side post down, thus indicating to Ivut bar Ihi that it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, as a side post is effective only for an alleyway that has at least two courtyards containing at least two houses each. Ivut bar Ihi said with resentment: The alleyway in which I have been living and walking based on a ruling in the name of Master Shmuel, shall Rav Anan bar Rav come now and throw its side post away from me? The Gemara comments: Learn from the fact that this side post remained intact throughout Shmuel鈥檚 lifetime that he did not accept Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讻讗 讞讝谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 谞讛诪讗 讘讘讬转讬讛 讜讗转讬 讘讬讬转 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗


The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that Shmuel accepted Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection and retracted his opinion, and here there was a synagogue attendant [岣zzana] who would eat bread in his own house that was located elsewhere, but would come and sleep in the synagogue, which was open to the alleyway.


讜讗讬讘讜转 讘专 讗讬讛讬 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 驻讬转讗 讙专讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙专讬诐:


And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of residence. Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere, and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even though he lived there by himself. In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence. Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently, the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇讛转讬专讜 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 诇诪讘讜讬


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway, one side of which was occupied by a gentile and one side of which was occupied by a Jew, and the house of the Jew was connected to the houses of other Jews via windows but not via doors, and those other houses open directly into the public domain, the residents of the houses on the side of the alleyway where the Jews live may not establish an eiruv through the windows in order to render it permitted for the residents of the other houses to carry through the doors of the house leading to the alleyway.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rav say this even with regard to a courtyard, one side of which was occupied by a gentile and the other side of which was occupied by a Jew whose house was connected through windows to the houses of other Jews? He said to him: Yes, as even if he did not say so, what would be the difference? It is the exact same principle.


讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 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 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


Abaye responded: I would have said that the rationale for the opinion of Rav is because he holds that an alleyway cannot be rendered permitted for carrying within it with a side post and a cross beam unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it.


讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗


Rav Yosef said: If that were the reason, why would I need two rulings regarding the same issue? Rav already stated that an alleyway can be rendered permitted for carrying within it only if it has houses and courtyards opening into it. Abaye explained that both rulings are necessary. As, if Rav had taught this halakha only from that general ruling,


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 Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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...
alon shvut women

Courtyards & Alleyways

Eruvin Daf 74 A number of opinions regarding different situations / combinations of courtyards and their alleyway 讞爪专讜转 讜诪讘讜讬 A...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 74: The Solitary Home of Ivut bar Ihi

In the context of the alleyway cooperative and the courtyard cooperative, and the minimum requirements for the number of people...

Eruvin 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 74

注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪讬专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 讗讞讚 讜讞爪专 讗讞转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讜专讘讛


unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. This formulation implies that there must be at least two courtyards, each of which contains at least two houses. In the absence of these conditions, however, it is not considered an alleyway that can be permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam. And Shmuel said: Even one house without a courtyard and one courtyard with just one house is enough. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even a ruin and a courtyard with a house suffice for a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in an alleyway permitted.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讘讞讜专讘讛 讚讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 讗讘诇 砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讚讬专讛 诇讗


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan say that even a vineyard path and a courtyard with a house suffice to allow a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in the alleyway permitted? He said to him: Rabbi Yo岣nan said his ruling only in the case of a ruin, which is fit to serve as a residence. However, a vineyard path, which is not fit to serve as a residence, is not sufficient.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 (讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉) 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪专讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转


Rav Huna bar 岣nnana said: And Rabbi Yo岣nan followed his regular line of reasoning in this regard, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon said: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that were in one of these areas at the beginning of Shabbat to any of the other areas. However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat. If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the roof, enclosure, or courtyard.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


And Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And this is only in a case where the residents of the courtyards did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard, so that they may only carry the vessels left in the courtyards, but they may not take out vessels from their houses into their courtyards. However, if they established an eiruv for each courtyard, we decree against carrying even vessels that were in the courtyard when Shabbat began, lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. This would lead to the mistake of carrying those objects from one courtyard to another, which is prohibited.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讞爪专 诇讞讜专讘讛


And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether the residents of the courtyards established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. And so too, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whether they established an eiruv for each courtyard or whether they did not establish an eiruv for each courtyard. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that we do not decree against carrying vessels that began Shabbat in the courtyard lest they come to take out objects from their houses to the courtyard. Here too, with regard to an alleyway that contains a ruin, we do not decree against carrying in the alleyway lest they come to take out objects from the courtyard to the ruin by carrying it through the alleyway. Although the ruin is not included in the eiruv, as it has no residents, and one may not carry objects into it, Rabbi Yo岣nan is not concerned that one might come to carry in this prohibited manner.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉


Rav Beruna sat and recited this halakha stated by Shmuel, that an alleyway containing one house and one courtyard can be rendered permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Elazar, a student of a Torah academy, said to him: Did Shmuel really say this? Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did. He said to him: Show me his lodging and I will go and ask him myself, and he showed him. Rabbi Elazar came before Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master actually say this? Shmuel said to him: Yes, I did.


讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇砖讜谉 诪砖谞转讬谞讜 砖讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪讬专讜转 讻讞爪专 诇讘转讬诐 讗讬砖转讬拽


Rabbi Elazar raised the following objection: Wasn鈥檛 it the Master himself who said concerning a different issue: With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna. The mishna states that an alleyway is to its courtyards like a courtyard is to its houses, which indicates that an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway and be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam. Shmuel was silent and did not answer him.


拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讛讜讛 讚讬讬专 讘讬讛 讗讬讘讜转 讘专 讗讬讛讬 注讘讚 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讜砖专讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇


The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel鈥檚 silence indicate that he accepted Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection and retracted his statement, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from the following incident. Come and hear: There was a certain alleyway that Ivut bar Ihi lived in, which contained only one house and one courtyard. He erected a side post for it, and Shmuel permitted him to carry in it.


讗转讗 专讘 注谞谉 砖讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讘讜讗讛 讚讚讬讬专谞讗 讘讬讛 讜讗转讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讬转讬 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 专讘 谞讬砖讚讬讬讛 诪谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Following Shmuel鈥檚 death, Rav Anan came and threw the side post down, thus indicating to Ivut bar Ihi that it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, as a side post is effective only for an alleyway that has at least two courtyards containing at least two houses each. Ivut bar Ihi said with resentment: The alleyway in which I have been living and walking based on a ruling in the name of Master Shmuel, shall Rav Anan bar Rav come now and throw its side post away from me? The Gemara comments: Learn from the fact that this side post remained intact throughout Shmuel鈥檚 lifetime that he did not accept Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讻讗 讞讝谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 谞讛诪讗 讘讘讬转讬讛 讜讗转讬 讘讬讬转 讘讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗


The Gemara rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that Shmuel accepted Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 objection and retracted his opinion, and here there was a synagogue attendant [岣zzana] who would eat bread in his own house that was located elsewhere, but would come and sleep in the synagogue, which was open to the alleyway.


讜讗讬讘讜转 讘专 讗讬讛讬 住讘专 诪拽讜诐 驻讬转讗 讙专讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讬谞讛 讙专讬诐:


And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of residence. Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere, and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even though he lived there by himself. In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence. Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently, the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讙讜讬 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讚专讱 讞诇讜谞讜转 诇讛转讬专讜 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐 诇诪讘讜讬


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway, one side of which was occupied by a gentile and one side of which was occupied by a Jew, and the house of the Jew was connected to the houses of other Jews via windows but not via doors, and those other houses open directly into the public domain, the residents of the houses on the side of the alleyway where the Jews live may not establish an eiruv through the windows in order to render it permitted for the residents of the other houses to carry through the doors of the house leading to the alleyway.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞爪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Rav say this even with regard to a courtyard, one side of which was occupied by a gentile and the other side of which was occupied by a Jew whose house was connected through windows to the houses of other Jews? He said to him: Yes, as even if he did not say so, what would be the difference? It is the exact same principle.


讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 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 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


Abaye responded: I would have said that the rationale for the opinion of Rav is because he holds that an alleyway cannot be rendered permitted for carrying within it with a side post and a cross beam unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it.


讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗


Rav Yosef said: If that were the reason, why would I need two rulings regarding the same issue? Rav already stated that an alleyway can be rendered permitted for carrying within it only if it has houses and courtyards opening into it. Abaye explained that both rulings are necessary. As, if Rav had taught this halakha only from that general ruling,


Scroll To Top