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

Daf Yomi

October 28, 2020 | 讬壮 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 80

A week of Daf Yomi learning has been dedicated by Jeanne Klempner and Goody Weil for the refuah shleimah u’mehira of Eliahu Yonatan ben Gittel Mira. Yehi Ratzon that all of our learning from all over the world will help give our beloved Eli the strength to recover and return home in good health to his family and friends.
Today’s daf is聽 dedicated by Judy and Jerel Shapiro in memory of the 7th yahrzeit of their dear brother David Tychman, z”l and by Risa Tzohar in loving memory of her grandmother Rissel bat Deena v’Shmuel Lev z”l on her yahrtzeit.
Does one need to give possession of the food to all other others in shituf mevoot? What about eruv techumim or eruv tavshilin? Can a woman join on behalf of her husband without his knowledge? Can a gentile woman rent out her husband’s house? What if he is against joining? Can one be forced to pay into the expense of the post or crossbeam for the eruv? Can one use an Ashera tree (one used for idol worship) for the post or crossbeam? What happens if the food diminishes and doesn’t have the requisite amount – does one need to add food? Does one need to tell the other members that one is adding on their behalf? On what does it depend? If a new person joins, do they need to be included with their knowledge or can one pass on rights to them without telling them? What is the minimum amount of food needed?

 

讜讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 诪驻讬专讜转讬讛


and whose fruit they do not taste. This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 诇砖讬讻专讗 讚讘讬 谞爪专驻讬 讚砖转讜 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讞讙诐 (讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专) 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇


And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival, then this is enough to establish the tree as an asheira. Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me with regard to this issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转诪专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara returns to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling that the barrel used for merging the alleyway must be raised a handbreadth from the ground. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How does one merge an alleyway? One brings a barrel of wine, or oil, or dates, or dried figs, or any other type of produce for merging the alleyway.


讗诐 诪砖诇讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜讗诐 诪砖诇讛谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讜诪讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 诪砖讛讜 诪讗讬 诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 讟驻讞


If one contributed a barrel of his own, he must confer possession to all the other residents by means of another person who acquires it on their behalf. And if the barrel is theirs, he must at least inform them that he is merging the alleyway. And the one acquiring it on behalf of the others raises the barrel a minimal amount from the ground. Apparently, the barrel need not be raised a handbreadth. The Gemara answers: Here too, what is this minimal amount of which the tanna of the baraita spoke? This expression means a handbreadth, but no less.


讗讬转诪专 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a merging of alleyways. Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession to them. They likewise disagreed with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but the opinions are reversed. Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession of the food to all those who wish to be included in the eiruv, and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession to them.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 转谞谉 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Shmuel, his reasoning is clear, as here, with regard to a merging of the alleyways, we learned in the mishna that he must confer possession, whereas there, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, we did not learn that this is the halakha. However, according to Rav, what is the reason that he differentiates between the cases in this manner?


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讻诇转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讛诇讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讛 讜注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讞诪讜转讛


The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.


讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗住专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讻诇 讻讱 讗转讛 诪讞诪讬专 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讱 诇讛拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛拽诇


And the incident came before Rabbi 岣yya for a ruling as to whether the eiruv is valid, and he ruled that it was not valid and prohibited her return. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an eiruv? This is what my father said: Any case where you have the ability to be lenient with regard to an eiruv, be lenient.


讜讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖诇讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛


And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession to her, i.e., she merely prepared the eiruv but did not confer possession of the food, and an eiruv of this kind is not effective? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law鈥檚 own food, but the eiruv was invalid because it was prepared without her knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛


One of the Sages, named Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to them: It was personally explained to me by Rabbi Yo岣nan that the mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 (讘专讬讛) 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讜讝讬诇 诇住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜讘注讬讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬


Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path, and go to the Ladder of Tyre and raise this dilemma before Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖诇讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov did so and raised a dilemma before him: With regard to that incident, did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law from the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law鈥檚 own food, but the eiruv was invalidated because it was prepared without her knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛


Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: The mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her. Like his master and uncle, Rabbi 岣yya, Rav also maintains that possession of the food must be conferred upon those who wish to be included in a joining of Shabbat boundaries.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讞讚 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗讞讚 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讞讚 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讘注讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


Rav Na岣an said: We hold based on tradition that with regard to all of them, joining of Shabbat boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession. After issuing this statement, Rav Na岣an raised a dilemma concerning an issue that was not sufficiently clear to him: With regard to a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday, is it necessary to confer possession, or is it not necessary to confer possession?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Did he not hear that which Rav Na岣an bar Rav Adda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a joining of cooked foods, it is necessary to confer possession? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It is obvious that he did not hear that ruling, as had he heard it, why would he have raised this dilemma?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


Rav Yosef said to him: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, that it is not necessary to confer possession, and Rav Na岣an nonetheless said that it is necessary to confer possession? Perhaps here too Rav Na岣an did not accept Shmuel鈥檚 ruling.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讞讜诪专讬谉 讚诪专 讜讻讬 讞讜诪专讬谉 讚诪专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙


Abaye replied: How can you compare the two cases? Granted, there, with regard to a merging of alleyways and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, Rav and Shmuel disagree, and Rav Na岣an teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the stringency of this master and the stringency of that master, i.e., his ruling is based on both opinions. However, here, with regard to a joining of cooked foods, if it is so, if he actually heard Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, is there anyone who disputes it? If one of his teachers issued an uncontested ruling, it is presumably an established halakha.


讛讛讜讗 讟讜专讝讬谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讬讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讜讙讬专 诇谉 专砖讜转讱 诇讗 讗讜讙讬专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讙专 诪讚讘讬转讛讜


A certain gentile superintendent [turzina] lived in Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 neighborhood. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may carry on Shabbat. However, he would not rent it to them. They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent the domain from his wife without her husband鈥檚 knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注专讘转 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


Rabbi Zeira said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, and who is this great man? It is Rabbi 岣nina. He stated: A man鈥檚 wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge. According to this principle, the superintendent鈥檚 wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.


讛讛讜讗 讟讜专讝讬谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讬讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讙专 诇谉 专砖讜转讱 诇讗 讗讜讙专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讙专 诪讚讘讬转讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注专讘转 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain superintendent lived in the neighborhood of Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may establish an eiruv and carry on Shabbat, but he would not rent it to them. They came before Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya and said to him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent it from his wife? He did not have a ready answer at hand. They subsequently came before Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer at hand. They came before Rav Yehuda, who said to them that Shmuel said as follows: A man鈥檚 wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge, and the same applies to renting out his property.


诪讬转讬讘讬 谞砖讬诐 砖注讬专讘讜 讜谞砖转转驻讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讘注诇讬讛谉 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讗讬谉 砖讬转讜驻谉 砖讬转讜祝


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Women who joined the courtyards or merged the alleyways without the knowledge of their husbands, their eiruv is not a valid eiruv, and their merging of alleyways is not a valid merging. How can Shmuel rule against an explicit baraita?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗住专


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, where Shmuel said that a wife may establish an eiruv without her husband鈥檚 knowledge, he was referring to a situation where the husband would prohibit his neighbors from carrying if he did not join their eiruv, and the halakha is therefore lenient, as a wife may establish an eiruv on his behalf. However, in that case, the baraita, which states that his wife may not establish an eiruv without his knowledge, is referring to a situation where he would not prohibit his neighbors from carrying.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖专讙讬诇 诇讛砖转转祝 注诐 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转祝 讘谞讬 讛诪讘讜讬 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讬转讜驻谉 诪诪谞讜 讘注诇 讻专讞讜


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as if you do not say this, there is a contradiction between this ruling of Shmuel and another ruling of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to one of the residents of an alleyway who was accustomed to join in a merging of alleyways with the other residents of the alleyway, but one Shabbat he did not join in a merging of alleyways with them, the other residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to their merging of alleyways from him even against his will.


专讙讬诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讙讬诇 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara infers: If he was accustomed to join in their merging of the alleyway, yes, they may enter his house to collect his contribution, but if he was not accustomed to do so, no, they may not do so. Clearly, it is not possible in all cases to compel a person to participate in a merging of alleyways against his will. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that it is so.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诇诪讘讜讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports him. The residents of an alleyway may compel anyone who lives in the alleyway to erect a side post and a cross beam for the alleyway. This teaching indicates that with regard to these Shabbat enactments, a person鈥檚 wishes are not taken into account; rather, others may act on his behalf even against his will.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara answers: It is different there, as there are no partitions. That alley is breached, and it is therefore fitting to compel its residents to establish some sort of partition, if only for the sake of protection. However, if there are partitions, one is not obligated to join in a merging of alleyways.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪爪讚 砖讗谞讬


Another version of this explanation: From the side it is different, i.e., the preparation of an eiruv does not involve an adjustment to the alleyway itself, but rather it is a side issue. Consequently, an individual cannot be forced to participate in its preparation (Meir Netiv).


讗转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 诇讞讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 拽讜专讛 讗砖讬专讛


It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said: One may build a side post from the wood of an asheira. Although it is prohibited to benefit from the tree and it must be burned, setting up a side post is a mitzva, and mitzvot were not given for benefit, i.e., the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One may build a cross beam from the wood of an asheira.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜专讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 讗讘诇 拽讜专讛 诇讗 讻转讜转讬 诪讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛:


The Gemara clarifies their opinions: With regard to the one who said that one may build a cross beam from the wood of an asheira, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, all the more so he would permit a side post to be prepared from an asheira. And the one who said that one may build a side post from an asheira, Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, spoke only of a side post; but as for a cross beam, no, he did not permit one to build it from an asheira. The reason is that an asheira must be burned, and it is therefore as though its size has already been crushed. Consequently, a cross beam, which must be at least a handbreadth in size, may not be prepared from an asheira. With regard to a side post, by contrast, a minimum width suffices, which means that even wood from an asheira is fit, despite the fact that it is viewed as burned.


诪转谞讬壮 谞转诪注讟 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 谞转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注


MISHNA: If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add a little of his own and confer possession to the others, and he need not inform them of his addition. However, if new residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food on behalf of those residents and confer possession to them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.


讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬注讜专谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇讻讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? When the residents of the alley are numerous, food for two meals is sufficient for all of them; when they are few, less than a certain number, a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them is enough.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讬专讬 注讬专讜讘 讻诇 砖讛讜讗


Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the beginning of an eiruv, when it is initially established. However, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, e.g., if the eiruv decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even any amount remains.


讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转:


And in general they said that it is necessary to join the courtyards, even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, only so that the halakhic category of eiruv will not be forgotten by the children, i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an eiruv can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 谞转诪注讟 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讛 谞诪讬


GEMARA: The mishna stated: If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add to it without informing the others. The Gemara poses a question: With what case are we dealing here? If you say that he added the same type of food that had initially been used for the merging of the alleyway, why specify this particular case where the food decreased in measure? Even if the food was entirely finished, he should likewise not be obligated to inform them.


讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转诪注讟 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讛 讛讗讜讻诇 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注


Rather, perhaps it is referring to two types of food, i.e., one added a different kind of food that had not been used beforehand. If so, even if it only decreased in measure, no, he should also not be permitted to add to the merging of the alleyway without informing them. As it was taught in a baraita: If the food of a merging of the alleyway was entirely finished, and he added the same type of food to it, he need not inform the other residents; however, if the amount he added was from two types of food, i.e., if the added food was different from the original, he must inform them. The Gemara assumes that the same halakha is in effect even if the food of the merging of the alleyway only decreased in measure.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 谞转诪注讟 谞转诪讟诪讟


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was from the same kind of food, and if you wish, say instead that it was from two kinds. The Gemara clarifies the previous statement: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case where his addition was from the same kind of food, and what is the meaning of decreased? It means that the food entirely crumbled away, so that nothing at all remained.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讻诇讛 砖讗谞讬:


And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was from two kinds of food, for if the eiruv was entirely finished, the halakha is different. That is to say, the halakha of the baraita that he must inform the others is in effect only if the food was entirely finished, but if any of it remains there is no need to inform them of his addition, and he may confer possession of even a different kind of food.


谞讬转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


We learned in the mishna: If other residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food for those residents and confer possession to them, but he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of the alleyway. Rav Sheizvi said that Rav 岣sda said: That is to say, i.e., we can infer from the mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him.


讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉


As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement, that an eiruv may be established for a person only with his knowledge, said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries; however, with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for another person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion conflicts with that of the tanna of the mishna, who does not permit a person to be included in a joining of courtyards without his knowledge. The Gemara is surprised at this statement: It is obvious that they disagree; why did Rav 岣sda find it necessary to teach us something so evident?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讗讘诇 讞爪专 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: It was nonetheless necessary, lest you say that this ruling, i.e., that he must inform them, applies only to a courtyard that is situated between two alleyways, in which case the residents of the courtyard may join in a merging of alleyways with whichever alleyway they prefer. Consequently, he must inform them with which alleyway he prepared the merging, in case they preferred to join the other alleyway. However, with regard to a courtyard that opens into only one alleyway, the merging of the alleyway only benefits them and does not harm them in any way, and you might therefore say no, that even the tanna of the mishna concedes that it is not necessary to inform them. Rav 岣sda therefore teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that he must inform them in all cases, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讜讻讜壮: 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬诇讱


The mishna continues: What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? It then specifies different amounts when the residents of the alley are numerous and when they are few. The Gemara asks: How many are numerous, and how many are considered few? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Eighteen people are considered numerous. The Gemara registers surprise: Eighteen and no more? The Gemara answers: Say: From eighteen upward.


讜诪讗讬 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讚谞拽讟 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪谞讬讛 讚讗讘讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讞诇拽讜 诇诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙注转 讙专讜讙专转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛谉 讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜住讙讬 讘诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讬 诇讗 (讛谉 讛谉) 诪讜注讟讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


The Gemara asks: And what is the significance of the number eighteen that he cited? Why this figure in particular? The Gemara answers that Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It was explained to me personally by my father, Rav Yehuda: Any case where, if one were to divide the food of two meals between them and it does not amount to the measure of a dried fig for each and every one of them, these are the very ones the tanna called numerous, and in this case food for two meals suffices for all of them. And if not, these are the very ones the tanna termed few, which means food in the measure of a dried fig is required for each of them.


讜讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讛讜讬讬谉 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讙专讜讙专讜转:


And Rav Yehuda incidentally teaches us that food for two meals consists of a measure equal to eighteen dried figs. Consequently, if there were numerous residents in the alley, then eighteen dried figs, which is food sufficient for two meals, is enough for them.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讛讜讗 注讬专讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗驻讛 住讗讛 讜讛讜讗 驻专讜住讛 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讻讻专 讻讗讬住专 讜讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜:


MISHNA: One may join courtyards and merge alleyways with all types of food, except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says that a different limitation applies: A whole loaf may be used for an eiruv. With regard to a baked product even the size of a se鈥檃, if it consists of pieces, one may not join courtyards with it. However, with regard to a loaf, even one the size of an issar, if it is whole, one may join courtyards with it.


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 80-86 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss if various people can make an eruv for others, including mothers-in-law for daughters-in-law and parents...

Eruvin 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 80

讜讗讬谉 讟讜注诪讬谉 诪驻讬专讜转讬讛


and whose fruit they do not taste. This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 诇砖讬讻专讗 讚讘讬 谞爪专驻讬 讚砖转讜 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讞讙诐 (讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专) 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇


And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival, then this is enough to establish the tree as an asheira. Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me with regard to this issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘诪讘讜讬 诪讘讬讗讬诐 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转诪专讬诐 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转


The Gemara returns to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling that the barrel used for merging the alleyway must be raised a handbreadth from the ground. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How does one merge an alleyway? One brings a barrel of wine, or oil, or dates, or dried figs, or any other type of produce for merging the alleyway.


讗诐 诪砖诇讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜讗诐 诪砖诇讛谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 讜诪讙讘讬讛 诪谉 讛拽专拽注 诪砖讛讜 诪讗讬 诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 讚拽讗诪专 讟驻讞


If one contributed a barrel of his own, he must confer possession to all the other residents by means of another person who acquires it on their behalf. And if the barrel is theirs, he must at least inform them that he is merging the alleyway. And the one acquiring it on behalf of the others raises the barrel a minimal amount from the ground. Apparently, the barrel need not be raised a handbreadth. The Gemara answers: Here too, what is this minimal amount of which the tanna of the baraita spoke? This expression means a handbreadth, but no less.


讗讬转诪专 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a merging of alleyways. Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession to them. They likewise disagreed with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but the opinions are reversed. Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession of the food to all those who wish to be included in the eiruv, and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession to them.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 转谞谉 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Shmuel, his reasoning is clear, as here, with regard to a merging of the alleyways, we learned in the mishna that he must confer possession, whereas there, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, we did not learn that this is the halakha. However, according to Rav, what is the reason that he differentiates between the cases in this manner?


转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讻诇转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖讛诇讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讜讞砖讻讛 诇讛 讜注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讞诪讜转讛


The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.


讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗住专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讘诇讗讬 讻诇 讻讱 讗转讛 诪讞诪讬专 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗诪专 讗讘讗 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讱 诇讛拽诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛拽诇


And the incident came before Rabbi 岣yya for a ruling as to whether the eiruv is valid, and he ruled that it was not valid and prohibited her return. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an eiruv? This is what my father said: Any case where you have the ability to be lenient with regard to an eiruv, be lenient.


讜讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖诇讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛


And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession to her, i.e., she merely prepared the eiruv but did not confer possession of the food, and an eiruv of this kind is not effective? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law鈥檚 own food, but the eiruv was invalid because it was prepared without her knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛


One of the Sages, named Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, said to them: It was personally explained to me by Rabbi Yo岣nan that the mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 (讘专讬讛) 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讻讬 诪讟讬转 讛转诐 讗拽讬祝 讜讝讬诇 诇住讜诇诪讗 讚爪讜专 讜讘注讬讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬


Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path, and go to the Ladder of Tyre and raise this dilemma before Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖诇讛 注讬专讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 诪讚注转讛


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov did so and raised a dilemma before him: With regard to that incident, did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law from the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law鈥檚 own food, but the eiruv was invalidated because it was prepared without her knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖诇 讞诪讜转讛 注讬专讘讛 诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 诇讛


Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to him: The mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law鈥檚 food, and Rabbi 岣yya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her. Like his master and uncle, Rabbi 岣yya, Rav also maintains that possession of the food must be conferred upon those who wish to be included in a joining of Shabbat boundaries.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讞讚 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗讞讚 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讗讞讚 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讘注讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


Rav Na岣an said: We hold based on tradition that with regard to all of them, joining of Shabbat boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession. After issuing this statement, Rav Na岣an raised a dilemma concerning an issue that was not sufficiently clear to him: With regard to a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday, is it necessary to confer possession, or is it not necessary to confer possession?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讬专讜讘讬 转讘砖讬诇讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Did he not hear that which Rav Na岣an bar Rav Adda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a joining of cooked foods, it is necessary to confer possession? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It is obvious that he did not hear that ruling, as had he heard it, why would he have raised this dilemma?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇讝讻讜转


Rav Yosef said to him: Didn鈥檛 Shmuel say, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, that it is not necessary to confer possession, and Rav Na岣an nonetheless said that it is necessary to confer possession? Perhaps here too Rav Na岣an did not accept Shmuel鈥檚 ruling.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讞讜诪专讬谉 讚诪专 讜讻讬 讞讜诪专讬谉 讚诪专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讗谉 讚驻诇讬讙


Abaye replied: How can you compare the two cases? Granted, there, with regard to a merging of alleyways and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, Rav and Shmuel disagree, and Rav Na岣an teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the stringency of this master and the stringency of that master, i.e., his ruling is based on both opinions. However, here, with regard to a joining of cooked foods, if it is so, if he actually heard Shmuel鈥檚 ruling, is there anyone who disputes it? If one of his teachers issued an uncontested ruling, it is presumably an established halakha.


讛讛讜讗 讟讜专讝讬谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讬讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讜讙讬专 诇谉 专砖讜转讱 诇讗 讗讜讙讬专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讙专 诪讚讘讬转讛讜


A certain gentile superintendent [turzina] lived in Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 neighborhood. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may carry on Shabbat. However, he would not rent it to them. They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent the domain from his wife without her husband鈥檚 knowledge?


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注专讘转 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


Rabbi Zeira said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, and who is this great man? It is Rabbi 岣nina. He stated: A man鈥檚 wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge. According to this principle, the superintendent鈥檚 wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.


讛讛讜讗 讟讜专讝讬谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讘砖讬讘讘讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讙专 诇谉 专砖讜转讱 诇讗 讗讜讙专 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇诪讬讙专 诪讚讘讬转讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 诪注专讘转 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜


The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain superintendent lived in the neighborhood of Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may establish an eiruv and carry on Shabbat, but he would not rent it to them. They came before Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya and said to him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent it from his wife? He did not have a ready answer at hand. They subsequently came before Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer at hand. They came before Rav Yehuda, who said to them that Shmuel said as follows: A man鈥檚 wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge, and the same applies to renting out his property.


诪讬转讬讘讬 谞砖讬诐 砖注讬专讘讜 讜谞砖转转驻讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 讘注诇讬讛谉 讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讗讬谉 砖讬转讜驻谉 砖讬转讜祝


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Women who joined the courtyards or merged the alleyways without the knowledge of their husbands, their eiruv is not a valid eiruv, and their merging of alleyways is not a valid merging. How can Shmuel rule against an explicit baraita?


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住专 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗住专


The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, where Shmuel said that a wife may establish an eiruv without her husband鈥檚 knowledge, he was referring to a situation where the husband would prohibit his neighbors from carrying if he did not join their eiruv, and the halakha is therefore lenient, as a wife may establish an eiruv on his behalf. However, in that case, the baraita, which states that his wife may not establish an eiruv without his knowledge, is referring to a situation where he would not prohibit his neighbors from carrying.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 砖专讙讬诇 诇讛砖转转祝 注诐 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讗 谞砖转转祝 讘谞讬 讛诪讘讜讬 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讬转讜驻谉 诪诪谞讜 讘注诇 讻专讞讜


The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as if you do not say this, there is a contradiction between this ruling of Shmuel and another ruling of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to one of the residents of an alleyway who was accustomed to join in a merging of alleyways with the other residents of the alleyway, but one Shabbat he did not join in a merging of alleyways with them, the other residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to their merging of alleyways from him even against his will.


专讙讬诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讙讬诇 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara infers: If he was accustomed to join in their merging of the alleyway, yes, they may enter his house to collect his contribution, but if he was not accustomed to do so, no, they may not do so. Clearly, it is not possible in all cases to compel a person to participate in a merging of alleyways against his will. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that it is so.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诇诪讘讜讬


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports him. The residents of an alleyway may compel anyone who lives in the alleyway to erect a side post and a cross beam for the alleyway. This teaching indicates that with regard to these Shabbat enactments, a person鈥檚 wishes are not taken into account; rather, others may act on his behalf even against his will.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讞讬爪讜转


The Gemara answers: It is different there, as there are no partitions. That alley is breached, and it is therefore fitting to compel its residents to establish some sort of partition, if only for the sake of protection. However, if there are partitions, one is not obligated to join in a merging of alleyways.


诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪爪讚 砖讗谞讬


Another version of this explanation: From the side it is different, i.e., the preparation of an eiruv does not involve an adjustment to the alleyway itself, but rather it is a side issue. Consequently, an individual cannot be forced to participate in its preparation (Meir Netiv).


讗转诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 诇讞讬 讗砖讬专讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讜砖讬谉 拽讜专讛 讗砖讬专讛


It is stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this issue. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said: One may build a side post from the wood of an asheira. Although it is prohibited to benefit from the tree and it must be burned, setting up a side post is a mitzva, and mitzvot were not given for benefit, i.e., the fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One may build a cross beam from the wood of an asheira.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜专讛 讻诇 砖讻谉 诇讞讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讞讬 讗讘诇 拽讜专讛 诇讗 讻转讜转讬 诪讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛:


The Gemara clarifies their opinions: With regard to the one who said that one may build a cross beam from the wood of an asheira, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, all the more so he would permit a side post to be prepared from an asheira. And the one who said that one may build a side post from an asheira, Rav 岣yya bar Ashi, spoke only of a side post; but as for a cross beam, no, he did not permit one to build it from an asheira. The reason is that an asheira must be burned, and it is therefore as though its size has already been crushed. Consequently, a cross beam, which must be at least a handbreadth in size, may not be prepared from an asheira. With regard to a side post, by contrast, a minimum width suffices, which means that even wood from an asheira is fit, despite the fact that it is viewed as burned.


诪转谞讬壮 谞转诪注讟 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 谞转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注


MISHNA: If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add a little of his own and confer possession to the others, and he need not inform them of his addition. However, if new residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food on behalf of those residents and confer possession to them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways.


讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬注讜专谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 诇讻讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 讻讙专讜讙专转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? When the residents of the alley are numerous, food for two meals is sufficient for all of them; when they are few, less than a certain number, a dried fig-bulk for each and every one of them is enough.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讞讬诇转 注讬专讜讘 讗讘诇 讘砖讬专讬 注讬专讜讘 讻诇 砖讛讜讗


Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to the beginning of an eiruv, when it is initially established. However, with regard to the remnants of an eiruv, e.g., if the eiruv decreased in size on Shabbat, it remains valid if even any amount remains.


讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讘讞爪讬专讜转 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 诇砖讻讞 讗转 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转:


And in general they said that it is necessary to join the courtyards, even though a merging of the alleyways was already in place, only so that the halakhic category of eiruv will not be forgotten by the children, i.e., so that the next generation should be aware that an eiruv can be established for a courtyard, for otherwise they would be entirely unaware of this halakhic category.


讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 谞转诪注讟 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讛 谞诪讬


GEMARA: The mishna stated: If the food in the barrel for the merging of the alleyway diminished and was less than the requisite measure, one may add to it without informing the others. The Gemara poses a question: With what case are we dealing here? If you say that he added the same type of food that had initially been used for the merging of the alleyway, why specify this particular case where the food decreased in measure? Even if the food was entirely finished, he should likewise not be obligated to inform them.


讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转诪注讟 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻诇讛 讛讗讜讻诇 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讛讜讚讬注


Rather, perhaps it is referring to two types of food, i.e., one added a different kind of food that had not been used beforehand. If so, even if it only decreased in measure, no, he should also not be permitted to add to the merging of the alleyway without informing them. As it was taught in a baraita: If the food of a merging of the alleyway was entirely finished, and he added the same type of food to it, he need not inform the other residents; however, if the amount he added was from two types of food, i.e., if the added food was different from the original, he must inform them. The Gemara assumes that the same halakha is in effect even if the food of the merging of the alleyway only decreased in measure.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讗讬 谞转诪注讟 谞转诪讟诪讟


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was from the same kind of food, and if you wish, say instead that it was from two kinds. The Gemara clarifies the previous statement: If you wish, say that it is referring to a case where his addition was from the same kind of food, and what is the meaning of decreased? It means that the food entirely crumbled away, so that nothing at all remained.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讻诇讛 砖讗谞讬:


And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is referring to a case where his addition was from two kinds of food, for if the eiruv was entirely finished, the halakha is different. That is to say, the halakha of the baraita that he must inform the others is in effect only if the food was entirely finished, but if any of it remains there is no need to inform them of his addition, and he may confer possession of even a different kind of food.


谞讬转讜住驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讝讻讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


We learned in the mishna: If other residents were added to the residents of the alleyway, he may add food for those residents and confer possession to them, but he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of the alleyway. Rav Sheizvi said that Rav 岣sda said: That is to say, i.e., we can infer from the mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him.


讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注讬专讜讘讬 转讞讜诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讘注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讚注转 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇讚注转 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉


As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement, that an eiruv may be established for a person only with his knowledge, said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries; however, with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for another person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion conflicts with that of the tanna of the mishna, who does not permit a person to be included in a joining of courtyards without his knowledge. The Gemara is surprised at this statement: It is obvious that they disagree; why did Rav 岣sda find it necessary to teach us something so evident?


诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讗讘诇 讞爪专 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉:


The Gemara answers: It was nonetheless necessary, lest you say that this ruling, i.e., that he must inform them, applies only to a courtyard that is situated between two alleyways, in which case the residents of the courtyard may join in a merging of alleyways with whichever alleyway they prefer. Consequently, he must inform them with which alleyway he prepared the merging, in case they preferred to join the other alleyway. However, with regard to a courtyard that opens into only one alleyway, the merging of the alleyway only benefits them and does not harm them in any way, and you might therefore say no, that even the tanna of the mishna concedes that it is not necessary to inform them. Rav 岣sda therefore teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that he must inform them in all cases, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


讻诪讛 讛讜讗 砖讬注讜专讜 讜讻讜壮: 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬诇讱


The mishna continues: What is the measure of food required for a merging of the alleyways? It then specifies different amounts when the residents of the alley are numerous and when they are few. The Gemara asks: How many are numerous, and how many are considered few? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Eighteen people are considered numerous. The Gemara registers surprise: Eighteen and no more? The Gemara answers: Say: From eighteen upward.


讜诪讗讬 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讚谞拽讟 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪谞讬讛 讚讗讘讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讞诇拽讜 诇诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讙注转 讙专讜讙专转 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讛谉 讛谉 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜住讙讬 讘诪讝讜谉 砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讜讗讬 诇讗 (讛谉 讛谉) 诪讜注讟讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜


The Gemara asks: And what is the significance of the number eighteen that he cited? Why this figure in particular? The Gemara answers that Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It was explained to me personally by my father, Rav Yehuda: Any case where, if one were to divide the food of two meals between them and it does not amount to the measure of a dried fig for each and every one of them, these are the very ones the tanna called numerous, and in this case food for two meals suffices for all of them. And if not, these are the very ones the tanna termed few, which means food in the measure of a dried fig is required for each of them.


讜讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖转讬 住注讜讚讜转 讛讜讬讬谉 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讙专讜讙专讜转:


And Rav Yehuda incidentally teaches us that food for two meals consists of a measure equal to eighteen dried figs. Consequently, if there were numerous residents in the alley, then eighteen dried figs, which is food sufficient for two meals, is enough for them.


诪转谞讬壮 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诪诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻讻专 讛讜讗 注讬专讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗驻讛 住讗讛 讜讛讜讗 驻专讜住讛 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讛 讻讻专 讻讗讬住专 讜讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜:


MISHNA: One may join courtyards and merge alleyways with all types of food, except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says that a different limitation applies: A whole loaf may be used for an eiruv. With regard to a baked product even the size of a se鈥檃, if it consists of pieces, one may not join courtyards with it. However, with regard to a loaf, even one the size of an issar, if it is whole, one may join courtyards with it.


Scroll To Top