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

Daf Yomi

October 24, 2020 | 讜壮 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.

Eruvin 76

If there are three houses next to each other situated in between two courtyards, how can one make an eruv? What if there were only two houses? If two courtyards have a window in between them, if the window is 4×4 handbreadths and within 10 handbreadths from the ground, we consider this an opening and then can make an eruv together. What if the window was a circle, what would be the circumference of a circle that would encompass a square of 4×4 inside of it? Rav Nachman said that the requirement that it be within ten of the ground would not be relevant in a house. What if there was a wall in between the two courtyards that was ten high and 4 wide? Does this prevent the courtyards from being able to make an eruv? What if the wall was breached? At what size is it significant?

讝讛 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讝讛 讜讝讛 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讝讛 讗诪爪注讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛驻转


this outer house becomes a gatehouse to this courtyard, and that outer house becomes a gatehouse to that courtyard, and therefore the residents of the outer houses need not contribute to the eiruv. The middle house between them is the house in which the eiruv is placed, and therefore its residents need not contribute bread for the eiruv.


讘讚讬拽 诇讛讜 专讞讘讛 诇专讘谞谉 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讜砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讝讛 讘讗 讚专讱 讝讛 讜谞转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讗 讚专讱 讝讛 讜谞转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讝讛 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 诪砖讜讬转 诇讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 [讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转]


The Sage Ra岣va tested the other Sages: If there were two courtyards and two houses between them, and a resident of this courtyard came through this house that opens to his courtyard and placed his eiruv in that house farther from his courtyard, and a resident of this other courtyard came through this house that opens to his courtyard and placed his eiruv in that house that opens to the other courtyard, did they acquire the eiruv or not, i.e., are the two eiruvin valid? Do you render it a house with regard to this courtyard, whose eiruv was placed there, and a gatehouse with regard to that one who passed through it in order to place his eiruv in the other house? And similarly, do you render the other house a gatehouse with regard to this one and a house with regard to that one?


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诇讗 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讬 讘讬转 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讘讬转 讚诇讗 诪注专讘 诇讬讛


The Sages said to Ra岣va: Neither of them has acquired his eiruv. Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If you consider either house a gatehouse, the halakha with regard to one who places his eiruv in a gatehouse, a porch, or a balcony, is that it is not a valid eiruv. And if you consider either one a house, he would be carrying into a house for which he is not establishing an eiruv. Since the assumption that benefits one of them harms the other, and there is no way to establish firmly the status of these houses, the residents of both courtyards fail to acquire their eiruv.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 爪讗 讜注专讘 注诇讬谞讜 诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪砖转讞砖讱 砖谞讬讛诐 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘


Ra岣va asked: What makes this case different from the ruling of Rava? As Rava said: In the case of two people who said to one person: Go and establish an eiruv of Shabbat limits for each of us, and he established an eiruv for one of them while it was still day, and he established an eiruv for the other one during twilight, and the eiruv of the one for whom he established an eiruv while it was still day was eaten during twilight, and the eiruv of the one for whom he established an eiruv during twilight was eaten after nightfall, both of them have acquired their eiruv. Twilight is of doubtful status as to whether it is considered day or night. If it is night, any eiruv established at that time is invalid, and if it is day, any eiruv eaten at that time is invalid. Rava nonetheless ruled leniently, despite the fact that two contradictory assumptions are involved, in keeping with the principle that in cases of doubt relating to an eiruv, the halakha is lenient. Consequently, with regard to the one whose eiruv was eaten during twilight, it is considered as though it was already night, and therefore his eiruv had already taken effect while it was still day before it was eaten. Conversely, with regard to the one whose eiruv was established during twilight, that period of time is viewed as day, and therefore his eiruv is valid as well.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 住驻拽 讬诪诪讗 住驻拽 诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讚诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 讗讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬转 砖注专:


The Sages respond: How can these cases be compared? There, where there is uncertainty whether it is day and uncertainty whether it is night, the matter is not noticeable, as no one sees exactly when each eiruv was established. But here, where the houses are clearly distinguishable, if with regard to this one, who placed his eiruv there, it is a house, then with regard to that one, who passed through it, it should also be regarded as a house. And if, with regard to this one, who passed through it, it is a gatehouse, then with regard to that one, who placed his eiruv there, it should also be considered a gatehouse. Therefore, neither of them acquires his eiruv.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讚专



诪转谞讬壮 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


MISHNA: If there is a window in a wall that separates between two courtyards, and the window measures four by four handbreadths and is within ten handbreadths of the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard. And if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, thereby merging the two courtyards, as they may be considered as one due to the window.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讗讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚:


However, if the window measures less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is no longer considered a valid opening, and the two courtyards cannot be considered a single courtyard. Therefore, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.


讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 determination that the size of the window must be four by four handbreadths, the Gemara asks: Let us say that we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance with the previously cited opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: Any gap less than four handbreadths is considered lavud, i.e., two objects are considered connected if the space between them is less than four handbreadths. That would explain why the window must be four handbreadths in size, as otherwise it would be considered as though it were sealed, based on the principle of lavud.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诇讘讜讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 驻转讞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘:


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that only gaps of less than three handbreadths are included in the principle of lavud, the Rabbis disagreed with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the halakhot of lavud, i.e., what is considered connected. But with regard to an opening, even the Rabbis agree that if there is an opening of four by four handbreadths, it is significant, and if not, it is not significant.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪诪讬诇讗 讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗


It was taught in the mishna: If the window is less than four by four handbreadths, or above ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents of each courtyard must establish a separate eiruv. The Gemara objects: This is obvious. Since the mishna stated in the previous clause that if the window is four by four handbreadths and within ten handbreadths from the ground, they establish one eiruv, from this halakha itself I know that if the window is less than four by four handbreadths or above ten handbreadths, they may not establish one eiruv. Why was it necessary to teach this in the mishna?


讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


The Gemara answers: It teaches us this matter: The reason is specifically that the entire window is above ten handbreadths; however, if part of it is within ten handbreadths of the ground, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv.


转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


The Gemara comments: According to this explanation, we already learned in the mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: If nearly all of the window is above ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is within ten handbreadths, or if nearly all of it is within ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is above ten handbreadths, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv.


讛砖转讗 讻讜诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讗诪专转 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗


The essential meaning of this baraita is clear, but the Gemara raises a question with regard to its formulation: Now, if nearly all of it is above ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is within ten handbreadths, you said that they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, i.e., the window has the status of an opening and therefore the two courtyards may establish a joint eiruv, then is it necessary to state the halakha governing the case where almost all of it is within ten and only a small part of it is above ten?


讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬


The Gemara answers that indeed, this baraita teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that, moving from the more difficult and novel case to the easier, more straightforward one.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜谉 注讙讜诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘讛讬拽驻讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖讛讜 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 砖讗诐 讬专讘注谞讜 谞诪爪讗 诪砖讛讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A circular window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, with two and a bit of them within ten handbreadths of the ground, so that when he squares the window, i.e., if he forms the shape of a square inside it, it measures four by four handbreadths, and a bit of it is then within ten handbreadths of the ground.


诪讻讚讬 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘专讜讞讘讜 讟驻讞 讘转专讬住专 住讙讬讗


The Gemara poses a question with regard to this calculation: Now, since there is a general principle that any circle with a circumference of three handbreadths is one handbreadth in diameter, then according to this formula, a window with a circumference of twelve handbreadths, meaning that it has a diameter of four handbreadths, should be sufficient to create a window of four by four.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬讙讜诇讗 讗讘诇 讘专讬讘讜注讗 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬


This measurement applies only to a circle and the ratio between its circumference and diameter, but with regard to a square that must fit entirely within that circle, we require a circle with a larger circumference. In order for a square of four by four handbreadths to be entirely contained within a circle, the circumference of the circle must measure more than twelve handbreadths


诪讻讚讬 讻诪讛 诪专讜讘注 讬转专 注诇 讛注讙讜诇 专讘讬注 讘砖讬转住专 住讙讬讗


The Gemara asks: Now, how much larger is a square than a circle? It is larger by one quarter. If so, a circle with a circumference of sixteen handbreadths at most should suffice.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讬讙讜诇讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讙讜 专讬讘讜注讗 讗讘诇 专讬讘讜注讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讙讜 注讬讙讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗


The Gemara answers: This statement that a square is larger than a circle by a quarter applies only to a circle circumscribed by a square, but with regard to a square circumscribed by a circle, we require more, and the difference between the square and the circle is greater. What is the reason for this? It is due to the projection of the corners of the square, as the distance from the center of the square to its corners is greater than the distance from the center to its sides.


诪讻讚讬 讻诇 讗诪转讗 讘专讬讘讜注 讗诪转讗 讜转专讬 讞讜诪砖讬 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讗 讘砖讬讘住专 谞讻讬 讞讜诪砖讗 住讙讬讗


The Gemara further objects: Since every cubit in the side of a square is a cubit and two-fifths in the diagonal, a square of four by four handbreadths has a diagonal of five and three-fifths handbreadths. And since the diameter of a circle equals the diagonal of the square that it encompasses, the circle circumscribing a square of four by four handbreadths has a diameter of five and three-fifths handbreadths. If that measure is multiplied by three to arrive at the circumference of that circle, the result is that a circle with a circumference of seventeen handbreadths minus a fifth is sufficient to circumscribe a square of four by four handbreadths. Why, then, does Rabbi Yo岣nan say that a circular window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths?


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚拽讬住专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚拽讬住专讬 讚讗诪专讬 注讬讙讜诇讗 诪讙讜 专讬讘讜注讗 专讬讘注讗 专讬讘讜注讗 诪讙讜 注讬讙讜诇讗 驻诇讙讗:


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yo岣nan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 专爪讜 诇注专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬


It was taught in the mishna: If a window is less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents of the two courtyards may not establish one joint eiruv but must instead establish two independent ones. Rav Na岣an said: They taught this halakha of a window within ten handbreadths of the ground only with regard to a window between two courtyards. But with regard to a window between two houses, even if it is above ten handbreadths as well, if they wish to establish an eiruv, they establish one eiruv. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that a house is considered as though it were filled, and therefore there is no difference between below and above ten handbreadths with regard to a window in a house.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讙讙讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from that which was taught in a baraita: A window between two courtyards, and a window between two houses, and a window between two attics, and a window between two roofs, and a window between two rooms are all one and the same to me; they all must be four by four handbreadths and within ten handbreadths from the ground. This directly contradicts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion.


转专讙讜诪讗 讗讞爪讬专讜转 讜讛讗 讗讞讚 诇讬 拽转谞讬 转专讙讜诪讗 讗讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara answers: Explain that this halakha of ten handbreadths mentioned in the baraita is referring only to courtyards. The Gemara objects: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: Are all one and the same to me, indicating that they are all equal in this regard? Rather, explain that they are all equal in that the window must be the size of four by four handbreadths, but not that all must be within ten handbreadths of the ground.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讜诇 讛驻转讜讞 诪谉 讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜


Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to an aperture that opens from the ceiling of a house occupied by one person to an attic occupied by another, must a permanent ladder be positioned in the opening to render carrying from one level to the other permitted by turning the two into a single residence? Or, is a permanent ladder not necessary to render it permitted?


讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the question: When we say that a house is considered as though it were filled, does this apply only to a window positioned on the side, but not to a window in the middle? In that case, the opening would not be viewed as near the full part of the house, and a permanent ladder would be required. Or perhaps there is no difference, and since the house is considered filled, no ladder is necessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛讗 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 爪专讬讱 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗讞讚 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱:


Rav Na岣an said to him: It is not necessary. The Sages understood from this response that he meant that a permanent ladder is not required, but a temporary ladder is required. However, it is stated in this regard: Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: Neither a permanent ladder nor a temporary ladder is required, as the fact that the opening is located within the house is sufficient to render it permitted to carry from the house to the attic.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


MISHNA: If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, a separate one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv.


讛讬讜 讘专讗砖讜 驻讬专讜转 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜专讬讚讜 诇诪讟谉


If there was produce on top of the wall, these residents of one courtyard may ascend from this side and eat from it, and those residents of the other courtyard may ascend from that side and eat from it, provided that they do not lower the produce down from on top of the wall to one of the courtyards.


谞驻专爪讛 讛讻讜转诇 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻驻转讞 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐:


If the wall was breached, the following distinction applies: If the breach was up to ten cubits wide, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, as it is similar to an entrance, like any opening less than ten cubits wide. If the breach was more than this, they establish one eiruv, and they may not establish two, as a breach of this size nullifies the partition and joins the two courtyards into a single domain.


讙诪壮 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬专 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 谞讬诪讗


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: If this wall is not four handbreadths in width, what is the halakha? Rav said: In this case, the air of two domains controls it. Since the wall is not broad enough to be regarded a domain of its own, the top of the wall is seen as belonging to both courtyards and is then prohibited to both of them. Accordingly, one may not move anything on top of the wall, even as much as a hair鈥檚 breadth.


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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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 76: The Optional Cooperative

When you have an outer house and an inner house, is the outer house a gatehouse, which would have implications...

Eruvin 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 76

讝讛 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讝讛 讜讝讛 谞注砖讛 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讝讛 讗诪爪注讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖诪谞讬讞讬谉 讘讜 注讬专讜讘 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛驻转


this outer house becomes a gatehouse to this courtyard, and that outer house becomes a gatehouse to that courtyard, and therefore the residents of the outer houses need not contribute to the eiruv. The middle house between them is the house in which the eiruv is placed, and therefore its residents need not contribute bread for the eiruv.


讘讚讬拽 诇讛讜 专讞讘讛 诇专讘谞谉 砖转讬 讞爪专讜转 讜砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讝讛 讘讗 讚专讱 讝讛 讜谞转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讗 讚专讱 讝讛 讜谞转谉 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讝讛 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 诪砖讜讬转 诇讛讜 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 [讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 讜诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转]


The Sage Ra岣va tested the other Sages: If there were two courtyards and two houses between them, and a resident of this courtyard came through this house that opens to his courtyard and placed his eiruv in that house farther from his courtyard, and a resident of this other courtyard came through this house that opens to his courtyard and placed his eiruv in that house that opens to the other courtyard, did they acquire the eiruv or not, i.e., are the two eiruvin valid? Do you render it a house with regard to this courtyard, whose eiruv was placed there, and a gatehouse with regard to that one who passed through it in order to place his eiruv in the other house? And similarly, do you render the other house a gatehouse with regard to this one and a house with regard to that one?


讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诇讗 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 讛谞讜转谉 讗转 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讘讬转 砖注专 讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讗讬谞讜 注讬专讜讘 讗讬 讘讬转 诪砖讜讬转 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诇讘讬转 讚诇讗 诪注专讘 诇讬讛


The Sages said to Ra岣va: Neither of them has acquired his eiruv. Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If you consider either house a gatehouse, the halakha with regard to one who places his eiruv in a gatehouse, a porch, or a balcony, is that it is not a valid eiruv. And if you consider either one a house, he would be carrying into a house for which he is not establishing an eiruv. Since the assumption that benefits one of them harms the other, and there is no way to establish firmly the status of these houses, the residents of both courtyards fail to acquire their eiruv.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 爪讗 讜注专讘 注诇讬谞讜 诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞讚 注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讝讛 砖注讬专讘 注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 谞讗讻诇 注讬专讜讘讜 诪砖转讞砖讱 砖谞讬讛诐 拽谞讜 注讬专讜讘


Ra岣va asked: What makes this case different from the ruling of Rava? As Rava said: In the case of two people who said to one person: Go and establish an eiruv of Shabbat limits for each of us, and he established an eiruv for one of them while it was still day, and he established an eiruv for the other one during twilight, and the eiruv of the one for whom he established an eiruv while it was still day was eaten during twilight, and the eiruv of the one for whom he established an eiruv during twilight was eaten after nightfall, both of them have acquired their eiruv. Twilight is of doubtful status as to whether it is considered day or night. If it is night, any eiruv established at that time is invalid, and if it is day, any eiruv eaten at that time is invalid. Rava nonetheless ruled leniently, despite the fact that two contradictory assumptions are involved, in keeping with the principle that in cases of doubt relating to an eiruv, the halakha is lenient. Consequently, with regard to the one whose eiruv was eaten during twilight, it is considered as though it was already night, and therefore his eiruv had already taken effect while it was still day before it was eaten. Conversely, with regard to the one whose eiruv was established during twilight, that period of time is viewed as day, and therefore his eiruv is valid as well.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 住驻拽 讬诪诪讗 住驻拽 诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讚诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 讗讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 讘讬转 砖注专 诇讙讘讬 讚讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讬转 砖注专:


The Sages respond: How can these cases be compared? There, where there is uncertainty whether it is day and uncertainty whether it is night, the matter is not noticeable, as no one sees exactly when each eiruv was established. But here, where the houses are clearly distinguishable, if with regard to this one, who placed his eiruv there, it is a house, then with regard to that one, who passed through it, it should also be regarded as a house. And if, with regard to this one, who passed through it, it is a gatehouse, then with regard to that one, who placed his eiruv there, it should also be considered a gatehouse. Therefore, neither of them acquires his eiruv.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讚专



诪转谞讬壮 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


MISHNA: If there is a window in a wall that separates between two courtyards, and the window measures four by four handbreadths and is within ten handbreadths of the ground, the inhabitants of the courtyards establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard. And if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, thereby merging the two courtyards, as they may be considered as one due to the window.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讗讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚:


However, if the window measures less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, it is no longer considered a valid opening, and the two courtyards cannot be considered a single courtyard. Therefore, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.


讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 determination that the size of the window must be four by four handbreadths, the Gemara asks: Let us say that we learned an unattributed mishna in accordance with the previously cited opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: Any gap less than four handbreadths is considered lavud, i.e., two objects are considered connected if the space between them is less than four handbreadths. That would explain why the window must be four handbreadths in size, as otherwise it would be considered as though it were sealed, based on the principle of lavud.


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 诇讘讜讚讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 驻转讞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘:


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that only gaps of less than three handbreadths are included in the principle of lavud, the Rabbis disagreed with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the halakhot of lavud, i.e., what is considered connected. But with regard to an opening, even the Rabbis agree that if there is an opening of four by four handbreadths, it is significant, and if not, it is not significant.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪诪讬诇讗 讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讗


It was taught in the mishna: If the window is less than four by four handbreadths, or above ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents of each courtyard must establish a separate eiruv. The Gemara objects: This is obvious. Since the mishna stated in the previous clause that if the window is four by four handbreadths and within ten handbreadths from the ground, they establish one eiruv, from this halakha itself I know that if the window is less than four by four handbreadths or above ten handbreadths, they may not establish one eiruv. Why was it necessary to teach this in the mishna?


讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讟注诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗讘诇 诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


The Gemara answers: It teaches us this matter: The reason is specifically that the entire window is above ten handbreadths; however, if part of it is within ten handbreadths of the ground, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv.


转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


The Gemara comments: According to this explanation, we already learned in the mishna that which the Sages taught in a baraita: If nearly all of the window is above ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is within ten handbreadths, or if nearly all of it is within ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is above ten handbreadths, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv.


讛砖转讗 讻讜诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讗诪专转 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讻讜诇讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讜诪拽爪转讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗


The essential meaning of this baraita is clear, but the Gemara raises a question with regard to its formulation: Now, if nearly all of it is above ten handbreadths and only a small part of it is within ten handbreadths, you said that they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, i.e., the window has the status of an opening and therefore the two courtyards may establish a joint eiruv, then is it necessary to state the halakha governing the case where almost all of it is within ten and only a small part of it is above ten?


讝讜 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讝讜 拽转谞讬


The Gemara answers that indeed, this baraita teaches employing the style: This, and it is unnecessary to say that, moving from the more difficult and novel case to the easier, more straightforward one.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜谉 注讙讜诇 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讘讛讬拽驻讜 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讜诪砖讛讜 诪讛谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 砖讗诐 讬专讘注谞讜 谞诪爪讗 诪砖讛讜 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A circular window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, with two and a bit of them within ten handbreadths of the ground, so that when he squares the window, i.e., if he forms the shape of a square inside it, it measures four by four handbreadths, and a bit of it is then within ten handbreadths of the ground.


诪讻讚讬 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讛讬拽驻讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 讘专讜讞讘讜 讟驻讞 讘转专讬住专 住讙讬讗


The Gemara poses a question with regard to this calculation: Now, since there is a general principle that any circle with a circumference of three handbreadths is one handbreadth in diameter, then according to this formula, a window with a circumference of twelve handbreadths, meaning that it has a diameter of four handbreadths, should be sufficient to create a window of four by four.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘注讬讙讜诇讗 讗讘诇 讘专讬讘讜注讗 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬


This measurement applies only to a circle and the ratio between its circumference and diameter, but with regard to a square that must fit entirely within that circle, we require a circle with a larger circumference. In order for a square of four by four handbreadths to be entirely contained within a circle, the circumference of the circle must measure more than twelve handbreadths


诪讻讚讬 讻诪讛 诪专讜讘注 讬转专 注诇 讛注讙讜诇 专讘讬注 讘砖讬转住专 住讙讬讗


The Gemara asks: Now, how much larger is a square than a circle? It is larger by one quarter. If so, a circle with a circumference of sixteen handbreadths at most should suffice.


讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讬讙讜诇讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讙讜 专讬讘讜注讗 讗讘诇 专讬讘讜注讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讙讜 注讬讙讜诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讟驻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗


The Gemara answers: This statement that a square is larger than a circle by a quarter applies only to a circle circumscribed by a square, but with regard to a square circumscribed by a circle, we require more, and the difference between the square and the circle is greater. What is the reason for this? It is due to the projection of the corners of the square, as the distance from the center of the square to its corners is greater than the distance from the center to its sides.


诪讻讚讬 讻诇 讗诪转讗 讘专讬讘讜注 讗诪转讗 讜转专讬 讞讜诪砖讬 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讗 讘砖讬讘住专 谞讻讬 讞讜诪砖讗 住讙讬讗


The Gemara further objects: Since every cubit in the side of a square is a cubit and two-fifths in the diagonal, a square of four by four handbreadths has a diagonal of five and three-fifths handbreadths. And since the diameter of a circle equals the diagonal of the square that it encompasses, the circle circumscribing a square of four by four handbreadths has a diameter of five and three-fifths handbreadths. If that measure is multiplied by three to arrive at the circumference of that circle, the result is that a circle with a circumference of seventeen handbreadths minus a fifth is sufficient to circumscribe a square of four by four handbreadths. Why, then, does Rabbi Yo岣nan say that a circular window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths?


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讚拽讬住专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚拽讬住专讬 讚讗诪专讬 注讬讙讜诇讗 诪讙讜 专讬讘讜注讗 专讬讘注讗 专讬讘讜注讗 诪讙讜 注讬讙讜诇讗 驻诇讙讗:


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yo岣nan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讘诇 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 谞诪讬 讗诐 专爪讜 诇注专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬


It was taught in the mishna: If a window is less than four by four handbreadths, or if it is above ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents of the two courtyards may not establish one joint eiruv but must instead establish two independent ones. Rav Na岣an said: They taught this halakha of a window within ten handbreadths of the ground only with regard to a window between two courtyards. But with regard to a window between two houses, even if it is above ten handbreadths as well, if they wish to establish an eiruv, they establish one eiruv. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that a house is considered as though it were filled, and therefore there is no difference between below and above ten handbreadths with regard to a window in a house.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 注诇讬讜转 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讙讙讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诇讬 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 讞讚专讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from that which was taught in a baraita: A window between two courtyards, and a window between two houses, and a window between two attics, and a window between two roofs, and a window between two rooms are all one and the same to me; they all must be four by four handbreadths and within ten handbreadths from the ground. This directly contradicts Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion.


转专讙讜诪讗 讗讞爪讬专讜转 讜讛讗 讗讞讚 诇讬 拽转谞讬 转专讙讜诪讗 讗讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara answers: Explain that this halakha of ten handbreadths mentioned in the baraita is referring only to courtyards. The Gemara objects: Doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach: Are all one and the same to me, indicating that they are all equal in this regard? Rather, explain that they are all equal in that the window must be the size of four by four handbreadths, but not that all must be within ten handbreadths of the ground.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讜诇 讛驻转讜讞 诪谉 讘讬转 诇注诇讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜


Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to an aperture that opens from the ceiling of a house occupied by one person to an attic occupied by another, must a permanent ladder be positioned in the opening to render carrying from one level to the other permitted by turning the two into a single residence? Or, is a permanent ladder not necessary to render it permitted?


讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诪诇讬 讚诪讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讗讘诇 讘讗诪爪注 诇讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the question: When we say that a house is considered as though it were filled, does this apply only to a window positioned on the side, but not to a window in the middle? In that case, the opening would not be viewed as near the full part of the house, and a permanent ladder would be required. Or perhaps there is no difference, and since the house is considered filled, no ladder is necessary.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛讗 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 爪专讬讱 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讞讚 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗讞讚 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱:


Rav Na岣an said to him: It is not necessary. The Sages understood from this response that he meant that a permanent ladder is not required, but a temporary ladder is required. However, it is stated in this regard: Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: Neither a permanent ladder nor a temporary ladder is required, as the fact that the opening is located within the house is sufficient to render it permitted to carry from the house to the attic.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚


MISHNA: If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, a separate one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv.


讛讬讜 讘专讗砖讜 驻讬专讜转 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜专讬讚讜 诇诪讟谉


If there was produce on top of the wall, these residents of one courtyard may ascend from this side and eat from it, and those residents of the other courtyard may ascend from that side and eat from it, provided that they do not lower the produce down from on top of the wall to one of the courtyards.


谞驻专爪讛 讛讻讜转诇 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 专爪讜 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻驻转讞 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐:


If the wall was breached, the following distinction applies: If the breach was up to ten cubits wide, they establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one eiruv, as it is similar to an entrance, like any opening less than ten cubits wide. If the breach was more than this, they establish one eiruv, and they may not establish two, as a breach of this size nullifies the partition and joins the two courtyards into a single domain.


讙诪壮 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬专 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 诇讗 讬讝讬讝 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 谞讬诪讗


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: If this wall is not four handbreadths in width, what is the halakha? Rav said: In this case, the air of two domains controls it. Since the wall is not broad enough to be regarded a domain of its own, the top of the wall is seen as belonging to both courtyards and is then prohibited to both of them. Accordingly, one may not move anything on top of the wall, even as much as a hair鈥檚 breadth.


Scroll To Top