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

Daf Yomi

October 27, 2020 | 讟壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

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

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

Eruvin 79

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Emma and Richard Rinberg and family in memory of Naftali Meir ben Harav Binyamin Dov and Emily Rickman on his first yahrzeit. Naftali was 15 when he passed away, a beloved son,聽 grandson and brother. May his memory be blessed. And by Jeanne Klempner and Goody Weil for a refuah shleima for Eliyahu Yonatan ben Gitel Mira who is in critical condition and needs a refuah shleima. He is a high-tech executive whose previous experience as a Gemara rebbe shows through in his logic and sharp thinking. His wonderful family and many friends and colleagues all need him to get well.聽

The gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna in Ohalot and our mishna regarding unspecified dirt or rocks that fill a space. Do we assume, they are there permanently or not? The gemara brings three explanations. If there is a board over the ditch or connecting two porches, what are the conditions needed to this to effectively connect the two sides and allow them to make an eruv? The mishna brings a case of a wall made of hay that is ten handbreadths tall. It is considered a barrier between two courtyards and one can even bring one’s animal to eat from the hay, even if the wall may diminish in size which would then require an eruv between the two sides. In what way is one allowed to bring one’s animals to eat? How does this work out with a different braita regarding a house between two courtyards with a large mound of hay in the middle? The gemara delves into all the details mentioned in that braita including comparison to eruv techumim, changes that occur over Shabbat and relinquishing of rights. The mishna discusses how exactly one does shituf mevoot. The gemara then brings various statements made by the elders of Pumbedita. What do these random halachot have to do with each other and with shituf mevoot?

诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗讛诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗


However, if he did not nullify it, no, the house retains the status of a house, although it is filled with hay. Rav Huna said: Who is the tanna who taught tractate Oholot? It is Rabbi Yosei, and the tanna of the mishna does not accept his opinion.


讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 注驻专 讜讘讟诇 注驻专 讜注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara asks: If that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, there is a difficulty, since we heard him say the opposite, as it was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: In a case where there is a house full of hay and the owner does not intend to remove, it is considered as though it were filled with indeterminate dirt, and it is therefore nullified. However, if the house was full of dirt that he intends to remove, it is considered as though it were filled with indeterminate hay, and it is therefore not nullified. Apparently, the decisive factor for Rabbi Yosei is not the specific material in the house, but whether or not the owner intends to remove it.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讬专讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗


Rather, Rav Asi said: Who is the tanna who taught tractate Eiruvin? It is Rabbi Yosei, who does not accept the opinion of the tanna of tractate Oholot.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗砖讘转 拽专诪讬转 讛谞讞 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗专谞拽讬 谞诪讬 诪讘讟诇 讗讬谞讬砖


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of ritual impurity and the halakhot of Shabbat? These two areas of halakha cannot be compared. Leave aside the prohibition of Shabbat. With regard to Shabbat, a person nullifies even a pouch full of money. The pouch may not be moved on Shabbat and is therefore considered fixed in place. However, hay, which may be moved even on Shabbat, is not considered to be fixed in the ditch. With regard to ritual impurity, by contrast, the nullification must be permanent.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讬转 讗讞专讬抓 拽讗 专诪讬转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专讬抓 诇诪讬讟讬讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诇诪讬讟讬讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬:


Rav Ashi said: And are you raising a contradiction between the halakha that governs a house and that which governs a ditch? Granted in the case of a ditch, it typically stands to be permanently filled. As there is no doubt that one鈥檚 intention is to fill the ditch, the assumption is that anything placed inside a ditch will remain there. However, does a house stand to be permanently filled? Of course it does not. Presumably, the hay and dirt will be removed. Consequently, additional proof is necessary in order to conclude that the owner of the house intends to seal it permanently.


谞转谉 注诇讬讜 谞住专 砖专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 诇专讞讘讜 讗讘诇 诇讗专讻讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞诪讬 砖讛专讬 诪讬注讟讜 诪讗专讘注讛:


The mishna states: If one placed a plank that is four handbreadths wide across a ditch that separates two courtyards, the plank is considered an entrance. Rava said: They taught this halakha only in a case where one placed the plank along the width of the ditch. But if one positioned a plank along its length, even if the plank is of minimum width, it is also considered an entrance and reduces the ditch, as he reduced the opening to less than four handbreadths. The ditch was originally only four handbreadths wide. Therefore, if one places a plank of any width along its length, it becomes less than four handbreadths wide and no longer constitutes a partition.


讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讗讬谉 讝讜 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 诇讗 讜讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讙讝讜讝讟专讗 注拽讜诪讛 讛讬讗:


The mishna continues: And similarly, if two balconies are opposite each other, and one placed a plank four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the two courtyards may establish a single eiruv, as the plank is considered an entrance from one courtyard to the other. Rava said: That which you said: If the two balconies are opposite each other, yes, carrying between them is permitted by means of a plank; by inference, if they are not opposite each other, no, carrying is not permitted in this manner, and in a case where one balcony is above the other as well, it is prohibited, as it is not an entrance because it is too dangerous to walk from one to the other by means of the plank. We said the prohibition in these cases only where there is a disparity of at least three handbreadths between this balcony and that balcony. However, if there is a difference of less than three handbreadths between this balcony and that balcony, it is considered a single crooked balcony. Two balconies separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths are considered joined, based on the principle of lavud.


诪转谞讬壮 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 讗诇讜 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 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 haystack that is positioned between two courtyards and is ten handbreadths high, it has the status of a partition, and therefore the residents of the courtyards may establish two eiruvin, and they may not establish one eiruv. These, the inhabitants of one courtyard, may feed their animals from here, from one side of the haystack, and those, the inhabitants of the other courtyard, may feed their animals from there, from the other side of the haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths across its entire length, its legal status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards establish one eiruv, and they do not establish two eiruvin.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that the inhabitants of the two courtyards are permitted to place their animals next to the haystack and feed them, Rav Huna said: And this is the halakha provided that one does not actually put hay into his basket and feed his animals. In that case, there is concern that one might inadvertently reduce the height of the partition to less than ten handbreadths, which would constitute a breach between the courtyards and invalidate both eiruvin.


讜诇讗讜拽诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注砖讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讘砖讘转


The Gemara asks: And if the actual handling of the hay is prohibited, is it permitted to stand one鈥檚 animal next to the haystack and let it eat? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that Rabbi 岣nina said: A person may stand his animal on a patch of grass on Shabbat, as he will certainly be careful not to pull out grass for the animal, due to the severity of the Torah prohibition involved. However, a person may not stand his animal on set-aside items on Shabbat. As the prohibition of set-aside is rabbinic in origin, he might forget and move the set-aside objects himself. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the haystack. If it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to remove hay from the stack manually, it should likewise be prohibited to position one鈥檚 animal alongside the stack.


讚拽讗讬诐 诇讛 讘讗驻讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜讗讻诇讛


The Gemara answers: The mishna is not referring to a case where one directly brings the animal and places it alongside the haystack. Rather, it is dealing with a situation where one stands in front of the animal so that it cannot go elsewhere, and it goes and eats from the haystack of its own accord. In that case, the rabbinic decree does not apply.


讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 转讘谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐


The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 statement itself: And may one not put hay into his basket and feed his animal? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a house that is positioned between two courtyards and the residents filled it with hay, they establish two eiruvin, but they do not establish one eiruv, as the hay is considered a partition that divides the house. The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal, and the resident of that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal. If the hay was reduced to a height less than ten handbreadths, it is prohibited for residents of both to carry in their respective courtyards.


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专


How, then, does the resident of one of the courtyards act if he seeks to permit use of the other courtyard to its resident? He locks his house and renounces his right to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to carry from his house into the courtyard, and it is permitted for the other resident to do so.


讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜讘 砖诇 转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇


And you say likewise with regard to a pit [gov] of hay that is positioned between two Shabbat limits. The residents of each area may feed their animals from the common hay, as there is no concern lest the animals go beyond the limit. In any case, the baraita teaches: The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal, and the resident of that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal. This halakha poses a difficulty to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 (诪讞讬爪讜转 讜)转拽专讛 讻讬 诪讬驻讞讬转 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗:


The Gemara answers: We can say that in the case of a house, since it has walls and a ceiling, when the height of the haystack is reduced the matter is conspicuous. The height disparity between the haystack and the ceiling is obvious. Consequently, when the haystack is reduced to less than ten handbreadths, people will stop carrying in the courtyard. Here, however, with regard to the hay in the pit, the difference in height is not conspicuous. The height of the hay in the pit could become diminished to the extent that the partition is nullified without anyone noticing.


谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉: 讛讗 注砖专讛 砖专讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 转拽专讛 讟讜讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖诪谉 诪讞讬爪讜转


It is stated in the baraita: If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The Gemara infers from the phrasing of the baraita: If the hay was at least ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to carry there, even though the ceiling is much higher than the hay. Conclude from it that the legal status of ten-handbreadth partitions that do not reach the ceiling is that of standard partitions, which was the subject of a dispute elsewhere. Apparently, this baraita proves that they have the status of partitions in all respects.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讘讬转 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讞住专 诪砖讛讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜转讘谉 注砖专讛


Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with the case of a house that is slightly less than thirteen handbreadths high and the hay is ten handbreadths high. The haystack is less than three handbreadths from the ceiling, and based on the principle of lavud, they are considered joined as though the partitions reach the ceiling.


讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讘讬转 注砖专讛


And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that the baraita is dealing with a house ten handbreadths high,


讜转讘谉 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬


and the hay in the house is slightly more than seven handbreadths high it is considered a full-fledged partition that reaches the ceiling, as objects separated by any gap of less than three handbreadths are considered joined, based on the principle of lavud.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖专讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讗讬 诪注砖专讛


The Gemara comments. Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, that is why the baraita teaches: If the height of the haystack was reduced to less than ten handbreadths. However, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, what is the meaning of: Less than ten? Even at the outset it was never as high as ten handbreadths.


诪转讜专转 注砖专讛:


The Gemara answers: It means that it was reduced to less than the law of ten handbreadths. As long as the hay is slightly more than seven handbreadths high, it is regarded as ten handbreadths high, in accordance with the principle of lavud. Once its height is reduced to less than seven handbreadths, the halakha of a partition ten handbreadths high is no longer in effect.


砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉


The same baraita taught that if the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, it is prohibited to carry in both. The Gemara comments: Should we learn from this that residents who arrive on Shabbat prohibit the other residents from carrying? At the onset of Shabbat, both sets of residents were permitted to use the hay and the house, but once the hay was reduced on Shabbat it is as though new residents had been added to each of the courtyards, and it is prohibited for all of them to carry. Why not say that since at the beginning of Shabbat it was permitted to carry in the domain, they are permitted to do so for its duration?


讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬诪注讟 诪讗转诪讜诇:


The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where the hay was already reduced on the previous day, before Shabbat began. In that case, it was never permitted to carry at all.


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转讜: 转专转讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讗讜 诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜


The baraita continues: How, then, does the resident of one of the courtyards act if he seeks to permit use of the other courtyard to its resident? He locks his house and renounces his right to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person. The Gemara is surprised by this ruling: Does he require these two steps? One should suffice. The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the baraita is saying: Either he locks his house or he renounces his right to the courtyard.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 转专转讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讚砖 讘讬讛 讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬:


And if you wish, say a different explanation instead. Actually, both actions are required in this case, even though one of them would ordinarily suffice. The reason is: Since he is accustomed to using the courtyard, he will come to carry. Consequently, the Sages were stringent with a person in this position and obligated him to implement an additional change so that he will not forget and come to carry when it is prohibited.


讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讛讚专 讗讬讚讱 讜讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉:


It was taught in the baraita: If one locks his house and renounces his rights to the courtyard, it is prohibited for him to carry, and it is permitted for the other person to carry. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why was it necessary to state this halakha? The Gemara answers: It was necessary only in a case where the other person then renounced his right in favor of the first person. And the baraita teaches us that one may not renounce his rights in favor of the other, and then have the latter renounce his own rights in favor of the former.


讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜讘 砖诇 转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


It was further taught in the baraita: And you can say likewise with regard to a pit of hay that is situated between two Shabbat limits. The inhabitants of each area may feed their animals from the common hay. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The same principle that is in effect with regard to a haystack between courtyards should apply here as well. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha only according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the principle of Shabbat boundaries is by Torah law. Lest you say that let us issue a decree and prohibit it, lest people come to exchange objects from one boundary to another, which would violate a Torah prohibition; therefore, the baraita teaches us that no distinction is made between the cases, and no decree of this kind is issued.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜


MISHNA: How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may confer possession to them even by means of his adult son or daughter, and likewise by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway.


讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讻讛 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚谉 讻讬讚讜:


However, he may not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into their possession is as if those objects came into his possession. Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 爪专讬讱 诇讛讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讟驻讞


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: With regard to a barrel for the merging of alleyways, the one acquiring it on behalf of the alleyway鈥檚 residents must raise it a handbreadth from the ground, as he must perform a valid act of acquisition on their behalf.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讚讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 讛诪拽讚砖 讗诐 讟注诐 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗


Rava said: The elders of Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda and his students, stated these two matters. One was this mentioned above with regard to lifting the barrel; and the other was: With regard to one who recites kiddush over wine on Shabbat or a Festival, if he tasted a mouthful of wine, he fulfilled his obligation; however, if he did not taste a mouthful, he did not fulfill his obligation.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 诪讚讜专讛 诇讞讬讛 讘砖讘转


Rav 岣viva said: In addition to the aforementioned pair of teachings, the elders of Pumbedita stated this too, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One builds a fire for a woman in childbirth on Shabbat.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诇讞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗


The Gemara comments that the Sages thought to infer from here: For a woman in childbirth, yes, one builds a fire, due to her highly precarious state; for a sick person, no, one does not build a fire. Likewise, in the rainy season, when the danger of catching cold is ever present, yes, one builds a fire; in the summer, no, one may not.


讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 讜谞爪讟谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 诪讚讜专讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转拽讜驻转 转诪讜讝


The Gemara adds that which was stated: Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who let blood and caught cold, one builds a fire for him on Shabbat, even during the season of Tammuz, i.e., the summer. Clearly, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling is limited neither to a woman in childbirth nor to the rainy season.


讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖讬专讛 住转诐


Ameimar said: This too was stated by the elders of Pumbedita, as it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to which tree is presumed to be a tree designated for idolatry [asheira], even though no one actually saw it worshipped.


讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讻讜诪专讬谉 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛


Rav said: It is any tree that idolatrous priests guard.


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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 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 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 79

诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗讛诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗


However, if he did not nullify it, no, the house retains the status of a house, although it is filled with hay. Rav Huna said: Who is the tanna who taught tractate Oholot? It is Rabbi Yosei, and the tanna of the mishna does not accept his opinion.


讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 转讘谉 讜讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 注驻专 讜讘讟诇 注驻专 讜注转讬讚 诇驻谞讜转讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻住转诐 转讘谉 讜诇讗 讘讟讬诇


The Gemara asks: If that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, there is a difficulty, since we heard him say the opposite, as it was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Yosei says: In a case where there is a house full of hay and the owner does not intend to remove, it is considered as though it were filled with indeterminate dirt, and it is therefore nullified. However, if the house was full of dirt that he intends to remove, it is considered as though it were filled with indeterminate hay, and it is therefore not nullified. Apparently, the decisive factor for Rabbi Yosei is not the specific material in the house, but whether or not the owner intends to remove it.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 注讬专讜讘讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗


Rather, Rav Asi said: Who is the tanna who taught tractate Eiruvin? It is Rabbi Yosei, who does not accept the opinion of the tanna of tractate Oholot.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗讛 讗砖讘转 拽专诪讬转 讛谞讞 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗专谞拽讬 谞诪讬 诪讘讟诇 讗讬谞讬砖


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of ritual impurity and the halakhot of Shabbat? These two areas of halakha cannot be compared. Leave aside the prohibition of Shabbat. With regard to Shabbat, a person nullifies even a pouch full of money. The pouch may not be moved on Shabbat and is therefore considered fixed in place. However, hay, which may be moved even on Shabbat, is not considered to be fixed in the ditch. With regard to ritual impurity, by contrast, the nullification must be permanent.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讬转 讗讞专讬抓 拽讗 专诪讬转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞专讬抓 诇诪讬讟讬讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诇诪讬讟讬讬诪讬讛 拽讗讬:


Rav Ashi said: And are you raising a contradiction between the halakha that governs a house and that which governs a ditch? Granted in the case of a ditch, it typically stands to be permanently filled. As there is no doubt that one鈥檚 intention is to fill the ditch, the assumption is that anything placed inside a ditch will remain there. However, does a house stand to be permanently filled? Of course it does not. Presumably, the hay and dirt will be removed. Consequently, additional proof is necessary in order to conclude that the owner of the house intends to seal it permanently.


谞转谉 注诇讬讜 谞住专 砖专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛: 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 诇专讞讘讜 讗讘诇 诇讗专讻讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞诪讬 砖讛专讬 诪讬注讟讜 诪讗专讘注讛:


The mishna states: If one placed a plank that is four handbreadths wide across a ditch that separates two courtyards, the plank is considered an entrance. Rava said: They taught this halakha only in a case where one placed the plank along the width of the ditch. But if one positioned a plank along its length, even if the plank is of minimum width, it is also considered an entrance and reduces the ditch, as he reduced the opening to less than four handbreadths. The ditch was originally only four handbreadths wide. Therefore, if one places a plank of any width along its length, it becomes less than four handbreadths wide and no longer constitutes a partition.


讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 讗讬谉 讝讜 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 诇讗 讜讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讙讝讜讝讟专讗 注拽讜诪讛 讛讬讗:


The mishna continues: And similarly, if two balconies are opposite each other, and one placed a plank four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the two courtyards may establish a single eiruv, as the plank is considered an entrance from one courtyard to the other. Rava said: That which you said: If the two balconies are opposite each other, yes, carrying between them is permitted by means of a plank; by inference, if they are not opposite each other, no, carrying is not permitted in this manner, and in a case where one balcony is above the other as well, it is prohibited, as it is not an entrance because it is too dangerous to walk from one to the other by means of the plank. We said the prohibition in these cases only where there is a disparity of at least three handbreadths between this balcony and that balcony. However, if there is a difference of less than three handbreadths between this balcony and that balcony, it is considered a single crooked balcony. Two balconies separated by a gap of less than three handbreadths are considered joined, based on the principle of lavud.


诪转谞讬壮 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 讗诇讜 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗诇讜 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 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 haystack that is positioned between two courtyards and is ten handbreadths high, it has the status of a partition, and therefore the residents of the courtyards may establish two eiruvin, and they may not establish one eiruv. These, the inhabitants of one courtyard, may feed their animals from here, from one side of the haystack, and those, the inhabitants of the other courtyard, may feed their animals from there, from the other side of the haystack. There is no concern that the haystack might become too small to serve as a partition. If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths across its entire length, its legal status is no longer that of a partition. Consequently, the residents of both courtyards establish one eiruv, and they do not establish two eiruvin.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that the inhabitants of the two courtyards are permitted to place their animals next to the haystack and feed them, Rav Huna said: And this is the halakha provided that one does not actually put hay into his basket and feed his animals. In that case, there is concern that one might inadvertently reduce the height of the partition to less than ten handbreadths, which would constitute a breach between the courtyards and invalidate both eiruvin.


讜诇讗讜拽诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注砖讘讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讛诪转讜 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讘砖讘转


The Gemara asks: And if the actual handling of the hay is prohibited, is it permitted to stand one鈥檚 animal next to the haystack and let it eat? Didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that Rabbi 岣nina said: A person may stand his animal on a patch of grass on Shabbat, as he will certainly be careful not to pull out grass for the animal, due to the severity of the Torah prohibition involved. However, a person may not stand his animal on set-aside items on Shabbat. As the prohibition of set-aside is rabbinic in origin, he might forget and move the set-aside objects himself. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the haystack. If it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to remove hay from the stack manually, it should likewise be prohibited to position one鈥檚 animal alongside the stack.


讚拽讗讬诐 诇讛 讘讗驻讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜讗讻诇讛


The Gemara answers: The mishna is not referring to a case where one directly brings the animal and places it alongside the haystack. Rather, it is dealing with a situation where one stands in front of the animal so that it cannot go elsewhere, and it goes and eats from the haystack of its own accord. In that case, the rabbinic decree does not apply.


讜诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 转讘谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 转讘谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐


The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav Huna鈥檚 statement itself: And may one not put hay into his basket and feed his animal? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of a house that is positioned between two courtyards and the residents filled it with hay, they establish two eiruvin, but they do not establish one eiruv, as the hay is considered a partition that divides the house. The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal, and the resident of that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal. If the hay was reduced to a height less than ten handbreadths, it is prohibited for residents of both to carry in their respective courtyards.


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专


How, then, does the resident of one of the courtyards act if he seeks to permit use of the other courtyard to its resident? He locks his house and renounces his right to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to carry from his house into the courtyard, and it is permitted for the other resident to do so.


讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜讘 砖诇 转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讱 拽讜驻转讜 讜讬讗讻讬诇


And you say likewise with regard to a pit [gov] of hay that is positioned between two Shabbat limits. The residents of each area may feed their animals from the common hay, as there is no concern lest the animals go beyond the limit. In any case, the baraita teaches: The resident of this courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal, and the resident of that courtyard puts hay into his basket and feeds his animal. This halakha poses a difficulty to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专讬 讘讬转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 (诪讞讬爪讜转 讜)转拽专讛 讻讬 诪讬驻讞讬转 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗:


The Gemara answers: We can say that in the case of a house, since it has walls and a ceiling, when the height of the haystack is reduced the matter is conspicuous. The height disparity between the haystack and the ceiling is obvious. Consequently, when the haystack is reduced to less than ten handbreadths, people will stop carrying in the courtyard. Here, however, with regard to the hay in the pit, the difference in height is not conspicuous. The height of the hay in the pit could become diminished to the extent that the partition is nullified without anyone noticing.


谞转诪注讟 讛转讘谉 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉: 讛讗 注砖专讛 砖专讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讚诇讬讗 转拽专讛 讟讜讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇转拽专讛 砖诪谉 诪讞讬爪讜转


It is stated in the baraita: If the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths it is prohibited to carry in both courtyards. The Gemara infers from the phrasing of the baraita: If the hay was at least ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to carry there, even though the ceiling is much higher than the hay. Conclude from it that the legal status of ten-handbreadth partitions that do not reach the ceiling is that of standard partitions, which was the subject of a dispute elsewhere. Apparently, this baraita proves that they have the status of partitions in all respects.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讘讬转 砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讞住专 诪砖讛讜 注住拽讬谞谉 讜转讘谉 注砖专讛


Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with the case of a house that is slightly less than thirteen handbreadths high and the hay is ten handbreadths high. The haystack is less than three handbreadths from the ceiling, and based on the principle of lavud, they are considered joined as though the partitions reach the ceiling.


讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讘讬转 注砖专讛


And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that the baraita is dealing with a house ten handbreadths high,


讜转讘谉 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讻诇讘讜讚 讚诪讬


and the hay in the house is slightly more than seven handbreadths high it is considered a full-fledged partition that reaches the ceiling, as objects separated by any gap of less than three handbreadths are considered joined, based on the principle of lavud.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖专讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讗讬 诪注砖专讛


The Gemara comments. Granted, according to the opinion of Abaye, that is why the baraita teaches: If the height of the haystack was reduced to less than ten handbreadths. However, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, what is the meaning of: Less than ten? Even at the outset it was never as high as ten handbreadths.


诪转讜专转 注砖专讛:


The Gemara answers: It means that it was reduced to less than the law of ten handbreadths. As long as the hay is slightly more than seven handbreadths high, it is regarded as ten handbreadths high, in accordance with the principle of lavud. Once its height is reduced to less than seven handbreadths, the halakha of a partition ten handbreadths high is no longer in effect.


砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉


The same baraita taught that if the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, it is prohibited to carry in both. The Gemara comments: Should we learn from this that residents who arrive on Shabbat prohibit the other residents from carrying? At the onset of Shabbat, both sets of residents were permitted to use the hay and the house, but once the hay was reduced on Shabbat it is as though new residents had been added to each of the courtyards, and it is prohibited for all of them to carry. Why not say that since at the beginning of Shabbat it was permitted to carry in the domain, they are permitted to do so for its duration?


讚诇诪讗 讚讗讬诪注讟 诪讗转诪讜诇:


The Gemara rejects this contention: Perhaps the baraita is referring to a case where the hay was already reduced on the previous day, before Shabbat began. In that case, it was never permitted to carry at all.


讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讜诪讘讟诇 专砖讜转讜: 转专转讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 讗讜 诪讘讟诇 讗转 专砖讜转讜


The baraita continues: How, then, does the resident of one of the courtyards act if he seeks to permit use of the other courtyard to its resident? He locks his house and renounces his right to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person. The Gemara is surprised by this ruling: Does he require these two steps? One should suffice. The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna of the baraita is saying: Either he locks his house or he renounces his right to the courtyard.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 转专转讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讚砖 讘讬讛 讗转讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬:


And if you wish, say a different explanation instead. Actually, both actions are required in this case, even though one of them would ordinarily suffice. The reason is: Since he is accustomed to using the courtyard, he will come to carry. Consequently, the Sages were stringent with a person in this position and obligated him to implement an additional change so that he will not forget and come to carry when it is prohibited.


讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讜转专: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讛讚专 讗讬讚讱 讜讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讜讞讜讝专讬谉 讜诪讘讟诇讬谉:


It was taught in the baraita: If one locks his house and renounces his rights to the courtyard, it is prohibited for him to carry, and it is permitted for the other person to carry. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why was it necessary to state this halakha? The Gemara answers: It was necessary only in a case where the other person then renounced his right in favor of the first person. And the baraita teaches us that one may not renounce his rights in favor of the other, and then have the latter renounce his own rights in favor of the former.


讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讙讜讘 砖诇 转讘谉 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 转讞讜诪讬 砖讘转: 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 转讞讜诪讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬讞诇讜驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


It was further taught in the baraita: And you can say likewise with regard to a pit of hay that is situated between two Shabbat limits. The inhabitants of each area may feed their animals from the common hay. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The same principle that is in effect with regard to a haystack between courtyards should apply here as well. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state this halakha only according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that the principle of Shabbat boundaries is by Torah law. Lest you say that let us issue a decree and prohibit it, lest people come to exchange objects from one boundary to another, which would violate a Torah prohibition; therefore, the baraita teaches us that no distinction is made between the cases, and no decree of this kind is issued.


诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讜讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讝讻讛 诇讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛注讘专讬诐 讜注诇 讬讚讬 讗砖转讜


MISHNA: How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may confer possession to them even by means of his adult son or daughter, and likewise by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway.


讗讘诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讝讻讛 诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讘谞讜 讜讘转讜 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讜砖驻讞转讜 讛讻谞注谞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚谉 讻讬讚讜:


However, he may not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into their possession is as if those objects came into his possession. Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 爪专讬讱 诇讛讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 讟驻讞


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said: With regard to a barrel for the merging of alleyways, the one acquiring it on behalf of the alleyway鈥檚 residents must raise it a handbreadth from the ground, as he must perform a valid act of acquisition on their behalf.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讞讚讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 讛诪拽讚砖 讗诐 讟注诐 诪诇讗 诇讜讙诪讬讜 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讬爪讗


Rava said: The elders of Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda and his students, stated these two matters. One was this mentioned above with regard to lifting the barrel; and the other was: With regard to one who recites kiddush over wine on Shabbat or a Festival, if he tasted a mouthful of wine, he fulfilled his obligation; however, if he did not taste a mouthful, he did not fulfill his obligation.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 诪讚讜专讛 诇讞讬讛 讘砖讘转


Rav 岣viva said: In addition to the aforementioned pair of teachings, the elders of Pumbedita stated this too, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One builds a fire for a woman in childbirth on Shabbat.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诇讞讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讞讜诇讛 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诇讗


The Gemara comments that the Sages thought to infer from here: For a woman in childbirth, yes, one builds a fire, due to her highly precarious state; for a sick person, no, one does not build a fire. Likewise, in the rainy season, when the danger of catching cold is ever present, yes, one builds a fire; in the summer, no, one may not.


讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 讜谞爪讟谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 诪讚讜专讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转拽讜驻转 转诪讜讝


The Gemara adds that which was stated: Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who let blood and caught cold, one builds a fire for him on Shabbat, even during the season of Tammuz, i.e., the summer. Clearly, Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling is limited neither to a woman in childbirth nor to the rainy season.


讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讗 谞诪讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讗砖讬专讛 住转诐


Ameimar said: This too was stated by the elders of Pumbedita, as it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to which tree is presumed to be a tree designated for idolatry [asheira], even though no one actually saw it worshipped.


讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖讻讜诪专讬谉 砖讜诪专讬谉 讗讜转讛


Rav said: It is any tree that idolatrous priests guard.


Scroll To Top