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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 26, 2020 | 讞壮 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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Eruvin 78

The gemara continues its discussion regarding objects that can make the wall more accessible – objects jutting out of the wall – do they need ladders – situated where? If the height of the wall is 19 or more than 20, how many items jutting out of the wall need to be there and at what height and position? If there is a beam in the public domain that is 10 high and 4×4 wide and is considered a private domain for purposes of carrying between it and the public domain, if there is a peg on top of it, does that limits its use and therefore its size and would it become an exempt space? There are different opinions about this. When one puts in a ladder – at what angle and at what height would it diminish the space (what would then be the necessary length of the ladder)? Rav Yosef asks Rabba a number of questions of cases where the ladder does not have a minimum of 4 but something else can help it to be as if it has four – would these work? He raises a number of different situations. If a ladder was made out of a tree (which is forbidden by rabbinic law to use of Shabbat) or an Ashera tree (which was used for idol worship and is forbidden to benefit from), is it considered that the courtyards are accessible to each other theoretically, even if not practically. Various opinions are brought. Does it connect to other similar debates regarding eruv techumim in a tree or in a grave, that is also forbidden to benefit from? If there is a ditch 10 high and 4×4 wide, that separates two courtyards, one cannot make an eruv together. What if it was filled with straw or dirt? Is there a difference between the two? Why? If there is a beam that connects the two sides, then one can make an eruv together or separately.

讝讬讝 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 住讜诇诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬注讟讜

If a projection four by four handbreadths in area extends from a wall, and one placed a ladder of any width against it, if the rungs of the ladder are less than three handbreadths apart, he has diminished the height of the wall by means of this ladder and projection.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗专讜讜讞讬 讗专讜讞讬讛

The Gemara qualifies this statement: And we said this only in a case where one placed the ladder directly against the projection, so that the ladder serves as a passage to it. However, if he placed it adjacent to the projection, he has merely widened the projection, while the ladder remains separate from it. Consequently, the projection does not have any connection to the ground, and a projection that is not within three handbreadths of the ground does not diminish the height of a wall.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讜转诇 转砖注讛 注砖专 爪专讬讱 讝讬讝 讗讞讚 诇讛转讬专讜

And Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: If a wall between two courtyards is nineteen handbreadths high, it requires one projection to render the use of the wall permitted. If there is a single projection in the middle of the wall, with a ladder of any width resting against it, it is considered a passageway between the courtyards, as the projection is within ten handbreadths of the top of the wall.

讻讜转诇 注砖专讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬 讝讬讝讬诐 诇讛转讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讛注诪讬讚谉 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

However, if the wall is twenty handbreadths high, it requires two projections to render the use of the wall permitted, one within ten handbreadths of the ground, and the other within ten handbreadths of the top of the wall. Rav 岣sda said: And this applies only where he positioned the projections not directly one above the other, so that it is possible to use a ladder to climb from one projection to the other.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜谞注抓 讘讜 讬转讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬注讟讜

Rav Huna said: If a pillar in the public domain is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it is considered a private domain, and one drove a stake of any size into the top of it, he has diminished its area. The usable area is now less than four handbreadths, and therefore the pillar is no longer considered a private domain.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讘讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This applies only if the stake is at least three handbreadths high. If it is less than three handbreadths high, it is considered part of the top of the pillar, based on the principle of lavud. This is in contrast to Abaye and Rava, who both say: Even if the stake is not three handbreadths high, the pillar is no longer considered a private domain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖转诪砖 诇讬讛

What is the reason for the opinion of Abaye and Rava? It is that the pillar is no longer fit to be used, as a surface of four by four handbreadths is suitable for use only when it is level. If it has even a small projection, it is no longer usable.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚转诇讬讛 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬

Rav Ashi said: Even a stake three handbreadths high does not diminish the area of the pillar. What is the reason for this? It is that it is possible to hang an item on it. Although it is no longer possible to rest objects on top of the pillar, it is still useful in some way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诇讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讬转讚讜转 诪讛讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to your opinion, if he filled it entirely with stakes, i.e., if he drove so many stakes into the top of the post that it was completely filled, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讛 诪爪讟专祝 诇注砖专讛

Rav Ashi said to him: Did you not hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said? He said that a pit and its embankment of stone around the edge join together to complete the measure of ten handbreadths. Similarly, the width of the embankment joins with the diameter of the pit to complete the measure of four by four handbreadths necessary to define the pit as a private domain.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖转诪砖 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪谞讞 诪讬讚讬 讜诪砖转诪砖 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪谞讞 诪讬讚讬 讜诪砖转诪砖

There, too, one can raise the question: But why? He cannot use the embankment, as most of the area is the empty space of the pit. Rather, what have you to say, i.e., how can you solve this problem? The solution is that he places an item, e.g., a board, over the mouth of the pit, and then he can make use of it. Here, too, he places an item over the stakes and can make use of the pillar.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转诇 注砖专讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讛转讬专讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜诪砖讛讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a wall is ten handbreadths high, it requires a ladder fourteen handbreadths high, so that one can place the ladder at a diagonal against the wall. The ladder then functions as a passageway and thereby renders the use of the wall permitted. Rav Yosef said: Even a ladder with a height of thirteen handbreadths and a bit is enough, as it is sufficient if the ladder reaches within one handbreadth of the top of the wall.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 注砖专 讜诪砖讛讜

Abaye said: Even a ladder that is only eleven handbreadths and a bit suffices, as the ladder will still reach a height of over seven handbreadths, i.e., within three handbreadths of the top of the wall.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if the ladder is only seven handbreadths and a bit it is sufficient, as he can stand the ladder upright against the wall. Since it will reach within three handbreadths of the top of the wall, the principle of lavud applies. Therefore, even a ladder placed in this manner is considered a valid passageway between the two courtyards.

讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 讝拽讜祝 诪诪注讟 讙诪专讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Similarly, Rav said: An upright ladder effectively diminishes the height of a wall, as it creates a passageway. I received this teaching as a tradition, but I do not know what the reason is, as people do not generally climb ladders positioned in this manner.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪诇转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗讬爪讟讘讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬爪讟讘讗

Shmuel said: Does Abba, i.e., Rav, actually not know the reason for this matter? The reason here is just as it is in the case of a platform above another platform. Even though it is not easy to climb, since it provides steps that can be climbed, albeit with difficulty, it is considered a valid passageway.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚拽诇讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讘注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讘讬讚谉 拽讜讘注转谉

Rabba said that Rabbi 岣yya said: The trunks of palm trees in Babylonia that were placed next to a wall between two courtyards so that people could climb on them and pass from one courtyard to another do not need to be established permanently and attached to the ground; rather, they serve to diminish the wall as they are. What is the reason for this? It is that their heaviness establishes them as connected to the ground. Although it is permitted to handle them, nevertheless, since their weight makes them difficult to move, they are considered fixed in place.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讜诇诪讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讘注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讘讬讚谉 拽讜讘注转谉

And similarly, Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: Ladders in Babylonia do not need to be established and fixed permanently in place. What is the reason for this? It is that their heaviness establishes them, as the ladders in Babylonia were typically large and heavy.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住讜诇诪讜转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚拽诇讬诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 住讜诇诪讜转 诇讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who said that Babylonian ladders do not need to be fixed in place, all the more so would he agree that the trunks of palm trees, which are placed there from the outset for this purpose, are considered fixed, as both are extremely heavy and also designed to remain in place. On the other hand, the one who said that the trunks of palm trees need not be fixed permanently in the ground, spoke only with regard to palm trees. However, as for ladders, no, they are not considered fixed in place. A ladder, even a heavy one, is designed to be moved from place to place.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘讛 住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜拽砖讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 诪讛讜

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba: If there is a narrow ladder measuring less than two handbreadths wide on one side, and a similarly narrow ladder on the other side, and there are rungs of woven straw in the middle between them which would not support a person鈥檚 weight, what is the halakha? Are the two ladders considered a single unit, forming a ladder four handbreadths wide, which serves to diminish the height of a wall?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻祝 讛专讙诇 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉

Rabba said to him: The sole of the foot cannot climb upon them. A person usually places his foot in the middle of a ladder. Since the middle of this ladder is made of straw, then although it appears to be four handbreadths wide, it is not fit for use and does not diminish the height of the wall.

拽砖讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜拽砖讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜住讜诇诐 讘讗诪爪注 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讻祝 讛专讙诇 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉

Rav Yosef continued to ask: And what if there were rungs of straw on one side and rungs of straw on the other side, and a narrow ladder less than four handbreadths wide in the middle, and their combined width is four handbreadths? What is the halakha in this case? Rabba said to him: The sole of the foot can climb upon them, and the ladder appears to be four handbreadths wide. Therefore, it serves to diminish the height of the wall.

讞拽拽 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讛

Rav Yosef further asked: If the ladder resting against the wall was less than four handbreadths wide, and one dug out grooves in the wall as extensions of the rungs of the ladder to complete the measure, how high must this hollowed-out section be to consider the ladder a valid passageway between the two courtyards? Rabba said to him: If it is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a passageway.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞拽拽讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讜转诇 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诪住转诇拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪住转诇拽 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said to him: If there was no ladder, and one dug out the entire ladder in the wall, so that all the steps are grooves in the wall, how much must he hollow out? Rabba said to him: Those steps must reach the full height of the wall. Rav Yosef asked: And what is the difference in this case? Why must the steps reach higher in this case than in the case where the hollowed-out section was merely an extension of an existing ladder? Rabba said to him: There, where there is a ladder, it is easy to climb to the top of the wall; however, here, where there are only grooves in the wall, it is not easy to climb. If one cannot reach the top of the wall, the steps are not considered a passageway between the courtyards.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘讛 注砖讗讜 诇讗讬诇谉 住讜诇诐 诪讛讜

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba: If one designated a tree as a ladder, what is the halakha? Given that it is prohibited to climb a tree on Shabbat, if a tree stands next to a wall and it is easy to climb, is it considered with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat as an opening in the wall that can serve as a passageway between the two courtyards?

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv te岣min] placed in a tree is valid; and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only stated there that with regard to anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not prohibit it during twilight. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, it is permitted to use an eiruv that was deposited in a tree, as the use of a tree is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. However, this applies only in that case, as the eiruv takes effect during the twilight period. Since there is doubt with regard to whether that period is considered day or night, the decree is not in force, and the eiruv is therefore valid. However, in this case, where the opening must be valid for the entire day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not rule that the decree does not apply. Since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to climb a tree on Shabbat, a tree cannot be considered a valid passageway.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗专讬讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬注 注诇讬讛

Or perhaps it may be argued that even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, this tree is considered an opening. They may have said that a joining of Shabbat boundaries placed in a tree is not valid only because the eiruv must actually be accessible during twilight, and in that case it is not, due to the rabbinic decree. However, in this case, where it is not necessary to make actual use of the tree, they would agree that a tree that serves as a ladder is a valid entrance, but a lion crouches upon it. Just as a lion crouching at an opening does not thereby nullify its status as an entrance, although in practice no one can pass through it, so too, in the case of the tree, the prohibition against climbing it does not nullify its status as a passageway.

注砖讗讜 诇讗砖讬专讛 住讜诇诐 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

Rav Yosef further inquired: If one designated a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [asheira], from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, as a ladder, what is the halakha? Is it considered a valid passageway in the wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat? Here, too, let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚诪讜转专 诇拽谞讜转 讘讬转 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讘转专 讚拽谞讛 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬谞讟专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda only stated there that it is permitted to acquire, i.e., make use of, a house for the purposes of establishing an eiruv even if it is among the items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, such as a grave. This statement applies only there, with regard to acquiring an eiruv in that location, since after the eiruv has acquired a place of residence for him, it is not important to him that it is guarded. He requires the grave only for the moment of the acquisition of the eiruv, and what happens to it afterward is of no consequence to him. However, here, since one desires the continued presence of the ladder, it is possible that even Rabbi Yehuda would agree that one may not rely on an asheira, as one may not climb and make use of it, since it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗专讬讗 讚专讘讬注 注诇讬讛

Or perhaps it may be argued that even though according to the opinion of the Rabbis it is prohibited to use a grave to acquire an eiruv, here they would agree that the asheira is an opening, but a lion crouches upon it, and this does not nullify its status as an opening.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇谉 诪讜转专 讜讗砖讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙讜专诐 诇讜 谞讬转住专

Rabba said to him: A tree is permitted for use as a ladder, but an asheira is prohibited. Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this: On the contrary, a tree, with regard to which a Shabbat prohibition causes it to be prohibited, should be prohibited, so that it will not be said that a Shabbat prohibition has been disregarded in a case involving the halakhot of Shabbat.

讗砖讬专讛 砖讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讜专诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞讬转住专

And the converse is also true: An asheira, with regard to which something else, a halakha unrelated to the halakhot of Shabbat, causes it to be prohibited, should not be prohibited. Rather, it should be considered an opening with regard to Shabbat.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙专诐 诇讜 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜 诪讜转专

Indeed, it was also stated: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anything with regard to which a prohibition of Shabbat causes it to be prohibited is prohibited; and conversely, anything with regard to which something else causes it to be prohibited is permitted.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诇谉 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讗砖讬专讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉:

However, in contrast to Rav Yosef, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k taught as follows: These questions are indeed dependent on the known disputes. Whether a tree serving as a ladder constitutes a valid opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits it and the Rabbis prohibit it. The debate with regard to whether or not an asheira is considered an opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, who permits using items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit for the sake of an eiruv, and the Rabbis, who prohibit making an eiruv with such items.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专讬抓 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 注诪讜拽 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 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 拽砖 讗讜 转讘谉 诪诇讗 注驻专 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to a ditch between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. Even if the ditch is filled with straw or hay, it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, the residents establish one eiruv, but they may not establish two eiruvin, as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.

谞转谉 注诇讬讜 谞住专 砖专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 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 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚:

If one placed a board four handbreadths wide across the ditch so that he could cross it, and similarly, if two balconies [gezuztraot] in two different courtyards are opposite one another, and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one, as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is less than four handbreadths, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.

讙诪壮 讜转讘谉 诇讗 讞讬讬抓 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Does hay not constitute a proper filling to seal the ditch? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the following mishna: With regard to a haystack ten handbreadths high that stands between two courtyards, the residents of the two courtyards establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv. This indicates that hay can create a valid partition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注谞讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讞爪讬爪讛 讗讬 讘讟诇讬讛 讞讬讬抓 讜讗讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讬讛 诇讗 讞讬讬抓:

Abaye said that the matter should be understood as follows: With regard to a partition, everyone agrees that hay is a partition and that it divides between the courtyards as long as it is placed there. But with regard to filling the ditch so that it is considered sealed, one must distinguish between two cases: If one explicitly nullified the hay and decided to leave it there, it fills and seals the ditch; however, if he did not nullify it but intends to remove the hay from the ditch, it does not fill it, and the ditch is not considered sealed.

诪诇讗 注驻专: 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诪讗 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜 讘讟诇

It is written in the mishna: If the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, it is considered sealed. The Gemara asks: Does this apply even if one did not specify his intention to leave it there? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse: If there is a house that one filled with hay or pebbles, and he nullified the hay or pebbles and decided to leave them in the house, then the house (Rambam) is nullified and is no longer considered a house with partitions? Generally, a house containing a corpse is ritually impure on the inside but does not impart impurity to the surrounding area. However, in this case, the house is considered an enclosed grave that imparts ritual impurity to its surroundings.

讘讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉

And one can infer from the mishna: If he nullified the hay or pebbles, yes, the house is nullified and considered sealed.

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 the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

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...

Eruvin 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 78

讝讬讝 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 住讜诇诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬注讟讜

If a projection four by four handbreadths in area extends from a wall, and one placed a ladder of any width against it, if the rungs of the ladder are less than three handbreadths apart, he has diminished the height of the wall by means of this ladder and projection.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讜转讘讬讛 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讜转讘讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗专讜讜讞讬 讗专讜讞讬讛

The Gemara qualifies this statement: And we said this only in a case where one placed the ladder directly against the projection, so that the ladder serves as a passage to it. However, if he placed it adjacent to the projection, he has merely widened the projection, while the ladder remains separate from it. Consequently, the projection does not have any connection to the ground, and a projection that is not within three handbreadths of the ground does not diminish the height of a wall.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻讜转诇 转砖注讛 注砖专 爪专讬讱 讝讬讝 讗讞讚 诇讛转讬专讜

And Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: If a wall between two courtyards is nineteen handbreadths high, it requires one projection to render the use of the wall permitted. If there is a single projection in the middle of the wall, with a ladder of any width resting against it, it is considered a passageway between the courtyards, as the projection is within ten handbreadths of the top of the wall.

讻讜转诇 注砖专讬诐 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬 讝讬讝讬诐 诇讛转讬专讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讛注诪讬讚谉 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛

However, if the wall is twenty handbreadths high, it requires two projections to render the use of the wall permitted, one within ten handbreadths of the ground, and the other within ten handbreadths of the top of the wall. Rav 岣sda said: And this applies only where he positioned the projections not directly one above the other, so that it is possible to use a ladder to climb from one projection to the other.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讜谞注抓 讘讜 讬转讚 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬注讟讜

Rav Huna said: If a pillar in the public domain is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it is considered a private domain, and one drove a stake of any size into the top of it, he has diminished its area. The usable area is now less than four handbreadths, and therefore the pillar is no longer considered a private domain.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讘讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: This applies only if the stake is at least three handbreadths high. If it is less than three handbreadths high, it is considered part of the top of the pillar, based on the principle of lavud. This is in contrast to Abaye and Rava, who both say: Even if the stake is not three handbreadths high, the pillar is no longer considered a private domain.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪砖转诪砖 诇讬讛

What is the reason for the opinion of Abaye and Rava? It is that the pillar is no longer fit to be used, as a surface of four by four handbreadths is suitable for use only when it is level. If it has even a small projection, it is no longer usable.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚转诇讬讛 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬

Rav Ashi said: Even a stake three handbreadths high does not diminish the area of the pillar. What is the reason for this? It is that it is possible to hang an item on it. Although it is no longer possible to rest objects on top of the pillar, it is still useful in some way.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诇讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讬转讚讜转 诪讛讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: According to your opinion, if he filled it entirely with stakes, i.e., if he drove so many stakes into the top of the post that it was completely filled, what is the halakha?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讛 诪爪讟专祝 诇注砖专讛

Rav Ashi said to him: Did you not hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said? He said that a pit and its embankment of stone around the edge join together to complete the measure of ten handbreadths. Similarly, the width of the embankment joins with the diameter of the pit to complete the measure of four by four handbreadths necessary to define the pit as a private domain.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖转诪砖 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪谞讞 诪讬讚讬 讜诪砖转诪砖 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪谞讞 诪讬讚讬 讜诪砖转诪砖

There, too, one can raise the question: But why? He cannot use the embankment, as most of the area is the empty space of the pit. Rather, what have you to say, i.e., how can you solve this problem? The solution is that he places an item, e.g., a board, over the mouth of the pit, and then he can make use of it. Here, too, he places an item over the stakes and can make use of the pillar.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转诇 注砖专讛 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讛转讬专讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜诪砖讛讜

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a wall is ten handbreadths high, it requires a ladder fourteen handbreadths high, so that one can place the ladder at a diagonal against the wall. The ladder then functions as a passageway and thereby renders the use of the wall permitted. Rav Yosef said: Even a ladder with a height of thirteen handbreadths and a bit is enough, as it is sufficient if the ladder reaches within one handbreadth of the top of the wall.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 注砖专 讜诪砖讛讜

Abaye said: Even a ladder that is only eleven handbreadths and a bit suffices, as the ladder will still reach a height of over seven handbreadths, i.e., within three handbreadths of the top of the wall.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if the ladder is only seven handbreadths and a bit it is sufficient, as he can stand the ladder upright against the wall. Since it will reach within three handbreadths of the top of the wall, the principle of lavud applies. Therefore, even a ladder placed in this manner is considered a valid passageway between the two courtyards.

讗诪专 专讘 住讜诇诐 讝拽讜祝 诪诪注讟 讙诪专讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Similarly, Rav said: An upright ladder effectively diminishes the height of a wall, as it creates a passageway. I received this teaching as a tradition, but I do not know what the reason is, as people do not generally climb ladders positioned in this manner.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪诇转讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗讬爪讟讘讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬爪讟讘讗

Shmuel said: Does Abba, i.e., Rav, actually not know the reason for this matter? The reason here is just as it is in the case of a platform above another platform. Even though it is not easy to climb, since it provides steps that can be climbed, albeit with difficulty, it is considered a valid passageway.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚拽诇讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讘注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讘讬讚谉 拽讜讘注转谉

Rabba said that Rabbi 岣yya said: The trunks of palm trees in Babylonia that were placed next to a wall between two courtyards so that people could climb on them and pass from one courtyard to another do not need to be established permanently and attached to the ground; rather, they serve to diminish the wall as they are. What is the reason for this? It is that their heaviness establishes them as connected to the ground. Although it is permitted to handle them, nevertheless, since their weight makes them difficult to move, they are considered fixed in place.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 住讜诇诪讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讘注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讘讬讚谉 拽讜讘注转谉

And similarly, Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: Ladders in Babylonia do not need to be established and fixed permanently in place. What is the reason for this? It is that their heaviness establishes them, as the ladders in Babylonia were typically large and heavy.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 住讜诇诪讜转 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚拽诇讬诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚拽诇讬诐 讗讘诇 住讜诇诪讜转 诇讗

The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who said that Babylonian ladders do not need to be fixed in place, all the more so would he agree that the trunks of palm trees, which are placed there from the outset for this purpose, are considered fixed, as both are extremely heavy and also designed to remain in place. On the other hand, the one who said that the trunks of palm trees need not be fixed permanently in the ground, spoke only with regard to palm trees. However, as for ladders, no, they are not considered fixed in place. A ladder, even a heavy one, is designed to be moved from place to place.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘讛 住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜住讜诇诐 诪讻讗谉 讜拽砖讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 诪讛讜

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba: If there is a narrow ladder measuring less than two handbreadths wide on one side, and a similarly narrow ladder on the other side, and there are rungs of woven straw in the middle between them which would not support a person鈥檚 weight, what is the halakha? Are the two ladders considered a single unit, forming a ladder four handbreadths wide, which serves to diminish the height of a wall?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻祝 讛专讙诇 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉

Rabba said to him: The sole of the foot cannot climb upon them. A person usually places his foot in the middle of a ladder. Since the middle of this ladder is made of straw, then although it appears to be four handbreadths wide, it is not fit for use and does not diminish the height of the wall.

拽砖讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜拽砖讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜住讜诇诐 讘讗诪爪注 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讻祝 讛专讙诇 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉

Rav Yosef continued to ask: And what if there were rungs of straw on one side and rungs of straw on the other side, and a narrow ladder less than four handbreadths wide in the middle, and their combined width is four handbreadths? What is the halakha in this case? Rabba said to him: The sole of the foot can climb upon them, and the ladder appears to be four handbreadths wide. Therefore, it serves to diminish the height of the wall.

讞拽拽 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讛

Rav Yosef further asked: If the ladder resting against the wall was less than four handbreadths wide, and one dug out grooves in the wall as extensions of the rungs of the ladder to complete the measure, how high must this hollowed-out section be to consider the ladder a valid passageway between the two courtyards? Rabba said to him: If it is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a passageway.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞拽拽讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讜转诇 讘讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讜 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诪住转诇拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪住转诇拽 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said to him: If there was no ladder, and one dug out the entire ladder in the wall, so that all the steps are grooves in the wall, how much must he hollow out? Rabba said to him: Those steps must reach the full height of the wall. Rav Yosef asked: And what is the difference in this case? Why must the steps reach higher in this case than in the case where the hollowed-out section was merely an extension of an existing ladder? Rabba said to him: There, where there is a ladder, it is easy to climb to the top of the wall; however, here, where there are only grooves in the wall, it is not easy to climb. If one cannot reach the top of the wall, the steps are not considered a passageway between the courtyards.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讘讛 注砖讗讜 诇讗讬诇谉 住讜诇诐 诪讛讜

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba: If one designated a tree as a ladder, what is the halakha? Given that it is prohibited to climb a tree on Shabbat, if a tree stands next to a wall and it is easy to climb, is it considered with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat as an opening in the wall that can serve as a passageway between the two courtyards?

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

Let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv te岣min] placed in a tree is valid; and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讛转诐 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 诇讗 讙讝专讜 注诇讬讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讘诇 讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only stated there that with regard to anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not prohibit it during twilight. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion, it is permitted to use an eiruv that was deposited in a tree, as the use of a tree is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. However, this applies only in that case, as the eiruv takes effect during the twilight period. Since there is doubt with regard to whether that period is considered day or night, the decree is not in force, and the eiruv is therefore valid. However, in this case, where the opening must be valid for the entire day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not rule that the decree does not apply. Since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to climb a tree on Shabbat, a tree cannot be considered a valid passageway.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗专讬讗 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬注 注诇讬讛

Or perhaps it may be argued that even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, this tree is considered an opening. They may have said that a joining of Shabbat boundaries placed in a tree is not valid only because the eiruv must actually be accessible during twilight, and in that case it is not, due to the rabbinic decree. However, in this case, where it is not necessary to make actual use of the tree, they would agree that a tree that serves as a ladder is a valid entrance, but a lion crouches upon it. Just as a lion crouching at an opening does not thereby nullify its status as an entrance, although in practice no one can pass through it, so too, in the case of the tree, the prohibition against climbing it does not nullify its status as a passageway.

注砖讗讜 诇讗砖讬专讛 住讜诇诐 诪讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉

Rav Yosef further inquired: If one designated a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [asheira], from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, as a ladder, what is the halakha? Is it considered a valid passageway in the wall with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat? Here, too, let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and let the dilemma be raised according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚诪讜转专 诇拽谞讜转 讘讬转 讘讗讬住讜专讬 讛谞讗讛 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讚讘转专 讚拽谞讛 诇讬讛 注讬专讜讘 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讬谞讟专

The Gemara elaborates: Let the dilemma be raised according to the previously stated opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda only stated there that it is permitted to acquire, i.e., make use of, a house for the purposes of establishing an eiruv even if it is among the items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, such as a grave. This statement applies only there, with regard to acquiring an eiruv in that location, since after the eiruv has acquired a place of residence for him, it is not important to him that it is guarded. He requires the grave only for the moment of the acquisition of the eiruv, and what happens to it afterward is of no consequence to him. However, here, since one desires the continued presence of the ladder, it is possible that even Rabbi Yehuda would agree that one may not rely on an asheira, as one may not climb and make use of it, since it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讜讗专讬讗 讚专讘讬注 注诇讬讛

Or perhaps it may be argued that even though according to the opinion of the Rabbis it is prohibited to use a grave to acquire an eiruv, here they would agree that the asheira is an opening, but a lion crouches upon it, and this does not nullify its status as an opening.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇谉 诪讜转专 讜讗砖讬专讛 讗住讜专讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬诇谉 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙讜专诐 诇讜 谞讬转住专

Rabba said to him: A tree is permitted for use as a ladder, but an asheira is prohibited. Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this: On the contrary, a tree, with regard to which a Shabbat prohibition causes it to be prohibited, should be prohibited, so that it will not be said that a Shabbat prohibition has been disregarded in a case involving the halakhot of Shabbat.

讗砖讬专讛 砖讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙讜专诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞讬转住专

And the converse is also true: An asheira, with regard to which something else, a halakha unrelated to the halakhot of Shabbat, causes it to be prohibited, should not be prohibited. Rather, it should be considered an opening with regard to Shabbat.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙专诐 诇讜 讗住讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜 诪讜转专

Indeed, it was also stated: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Anything with regard to which a prohibition of Shabbat causes it to be prohibited is prohibited; and conversely, anything with regard to which something else causes it to be prohibited is permitted.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诇谉 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 讗砖讬专讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉:

However, in contrast to Rav Yosef, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k taught as follows: These questions are indeed dependent on the known disputes. Whether a tree serving as a ladder constitutes a valid opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits it and the Rabbis prohibit it. The debate with regard to whether or not an asheira is considered an opening is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda, who permits using items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit for the sake of an eiruv, and the Rabbis, who prohibit making an eiruv with such items.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专讬抓 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 注诪讜拽 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 讗驻讬诇讜 诪诇讗 拽砖 讗讜 转讘谉 诪诇讗 注驻专 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to a ditch between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. Even if the ditch is filled with straw or hay, it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, the residents establish one eiruv, but they may not establish two eiruvin, as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.

谞转谉 注诇讬讜 谞住专 砖专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 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 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚:

If one placed a board four handbreadths wide across the ditch so that he could cross it, and similarly, if two balconies [gezuztraot] in two different courtyards are opposite one another, and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one, as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is less than four handbreadths, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.

讙诪壮 讜转讘谉 诇讗 讞讬讬抓 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 诪转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Does hay not constitute a proper filling to seal the ditch? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the following mishna: With regard to a haystack ten handbreadths high that stands between two courtyards, the residents of the two courtyards establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv. This indicates that hay can create a valid partition.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注谞讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讛讜讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讞爪讬爪讛 讗讬 讘讟诇讬讛 讞讬讬抓 讜讗讬 诇讗 讘讟诇讬讛 诇讗 讞讬讬抓:

Abaye said that the matter should be understood as follows: With regard to a partition, everyone agrees that hay is a partition and that it divides between the courtyards as long as it is placed there. But with regard to filling the ditch so that it is considered sealed, one must distinguish between two cases: If one explicitly nullified the hay and decided to leave it there, it fills and seals the ditch; however, if he did not nullify it but intends to remove the hay from the ditch, it does not fill it, and the ditch is not considered sealed.

诪诇讗 注驻专: 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诪讗 讜讛转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜 讘讟诇

It is written in the mishna: If the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, it is considered sealed. The Gemara asks: Does this apply even if one did not specify his intention to leave it there? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse: If there is a house that one filled with hay or pebbles, and he nullified the hay or pebbles and decided to leave them in the house, then the house (Rambam) is nullified and is no longer considered a house with partitions? Generally, a house containing a corpse is ritually impure on the inside but does not impart impurity to the surrounding area. However, in this case, the house is considered an enclosed grave that imparts ritual impurity to its surroundings.

讘讬讟诇讜 讗讬谉

And one can infer from the mishna: If he nullified the hay or pebbles, yes, the house is nullified and considered sealed.

Scroll To Top