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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 29, 2020 | 讬状讗 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

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

Eruvin 81

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Cohen, Raye and Maybaum families in honor of the 35th yahrzeit of their father Michael Maybaum, Michael Avraham Zerach z”l. “A very unique and special man who loved Torah learning and inspired his children on this path”. And by Navah Levine in memory of my spouse Claudia Yellin (Tzivya bat Leah v’ Woolf z”l), on her 3rd yahrzeit a beloved partner and mother, relative, therapist, and friend, who brought love and laughter into a complicated world. And by Nina Black in memory of her father, Sidney Black, Shlomo Nissan ben Yakov Reuven z”l, on his yahrzeit. “He was a good, kind man who would have been so pleased that his daughter is doing Daf Yomi.”

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree in the mishna about what can be used for eruv chatzerot. How does the gemara understand their disagreement? Rabbi Yehoshua does not allow slices on bread in order to decrease bad feelings between neighbors. The gemara asks several other details regarding these laws such as what if only a little piece was removed for challa for instance? What kinds of breads can be used – can one use lentil bread for instance? The gemara quotes a verse from Ezekiel 4:9 regarding a bread made from many different types of grains that was looked down upon as something for poor, desolate people – a sign of the impending destruction. If one wants to purchase one’s share in the eruv and asks for the person to transfer them rights, if they only put money down, does that work? Are they in effect trying to do a purchase (and did not succeed as money does not create an acquisition) or were they just telling the person to be their messenger (which can be done). Is there a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding whether or not in eruv chatzerot the principle applicable that we can transfer ownership to someone without their knowledge if it is good for them? Or do they agree?

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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 讜讛诪诇讞

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling concerning the foods which may or may not be used for an eiruv and to merge alleyways, the Gemara poses a question: This ruling is apparently superfluous, as we have already learned it once before in another mishna: One may establish an eiruv and a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food, except for water and salt.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 讻讻专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇

Rabba said: This addition comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishna, who said that a loaf, yes, it may be used for an eiruv; but anything else, no, other foods may not be used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that an eiruv may be established with all kinds of food, not only bread.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪砖转转驻讬谉 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讘驻转 讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讘诇讘讚 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻转 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜拽转谞讬 讘讻诇

Abaye raised an objection from a baraita: One may establish a joining of courtyards with all kinds of food, and likewise one may establish a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food. They said that one must establish an eiruv with bread only with regard to an eiruv of a courtyard. Who did you hear that said that bread, yes, it may be used for an eiruv, but anything else, no, it may not be used? It was Rabbi Yehoshua, and yet the baraita teaches: With all kinds of food. This proves that the phrase: One may establish an eiruv with all kinds of food, does not necessarily exclude Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬诪讛 讗讬谉 驻专讜住讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇

Rather, Rabba bar bar 岣na said: It comes to exclude a different aspect of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: A whole loaf, yes, it is fit to be used as an eiruv, but a broken loaf, no, it is not suitable for this purpose. The mishna therefore teaches us that one may prepare an eiruv with all kinds of bread, even a broken loaf.

讜驻专讜住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 注讬专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻专讜住讜转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If they all established the eiruv with broken loaves of bread, what is the halakha? In this case there is no cause for enmity. Rav Ashi said to him: There is nonetheless a concern lest the problem recur, as one of them might give an entire loaf and proceed to complain about his neighbor who donated only a partial loaf.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讞诇转讛 讜讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

A portion of dough, known as 岣lla, must be set aside and given to the priests. If 岣lla was not set aside from the dough, it must be separated from the baked bread. Moreover, if one part teruma fell into a hundred parts non-sacred produce, a proportionate amount must be removed from the mixture and given to a priest, after which the remainder may be eaten. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Shaul said: If one removed from the loaf as much as must be set aside for its 岣lla, or as much as must be separated from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, he may establish an eiruv with that loaf. The reason is that in this case people would not complain that he did not give a whole loaf, as they would assume the loaf had a small part missing because 岣lla had been separated from it, or because teruma had fallen into the dough, which necessitated the separation of a certain portion. However, if more than this amount was missing, people would suspect him of eating from the eiruv.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇转讛 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it was taught otherwise in a baraita: If a loaf was missing as much as must be removed from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, one may establish an eiruv with it, but if it was missing as much as must be removed for its 岣lla, one may not establish an eiruv with it?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞诇转 谞讞转讜诐 讛讗 讘讞诇转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the two sources are not dealing with the same amounts. In this case, where the tanna permitted a loaf that was missing the amount that must be removed for 岣lla, he is referring to a baker鈥檚 岣lla, which is a smaller amount and is therefore not considered a significant reduction of the loaf. However, in that case, where the tanna did not permit a loaf that was lacking the amount that must be removed for 岣lla, it is referring to an ordinary homeowner鈥檚 岣lla. This 岣lla portion is larger in size, and consequently the loaf may not be used for an eiruv if it is missing such a large amount.

讚转谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讞诇讛 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛注讜砖讛 注讬住讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜注讬住讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 谞讞转讜诐 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖注砖转讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讗讞讚 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna: The measure of 岣lla fixed by the Sages is one twenty-fourth of the dough. Consequently, one who prepares dough for himself or dough for his son鈥檚 wedding feast, the measure for 岣lla is one twenty-fourth. However, a baker who prepares dough for sale in the market, and likewise a woman who prepares dough for sale in the market, is required to separate only one forty-eighth of the dough, as the Sages were lenient with those who sell their wares so that they should not suffer loss.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转驻专讛 讘拽讬住诐 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬注 转讬驻专讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 转讬驻专讛

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who connected the two portions of a broken loaf with a wood chip, one may establish an eiruv with it, as it looks whole. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to a case of this kind that one may not establish an eiruv with it? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as in this case, where it may not be used for an eiruv, we are dealing with a situation where the seam is conspicuous; however, in that case, where it may be used for an eiruv, the reference is to a situation where the seam is not conspicuous.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗讜专讝 讜讘驻转 讚讜讞谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻转 讗讜专讝 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讘驻转 讚讜讞谉 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv even with rice bread or with millet bread. Mar Ukva said: This ruling was explained to me by Mar Shmuel himself. With rice bread one may establish an eiruv, but with millet bread one may not establish an eiruv, as it is difficult to bake edible bread out of millet.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 注讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讗讬 讘砖谞讬 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜砖讚讬讬讛 诇讻诇讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with lentil bread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Is such bread edible? But there was that lentil bread in the days of Mar Shmuel, which he threw to his dog, and even it would not eat it. Clearly, lentil bread is not fit for human consumption.

讛讛讬讗 讚砖讗专 诪讬谞讬诐 讛讜讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 拽讞 诇讱 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬诐 讜驻讜诇 讜注讚砖讬诐 讜讚讜讞谉 讜讻讜住诪讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara answers: That bread which the dog refused to eat was a mixture of various types of grain. It was baked in order to discover the taste of a bread of mixed ingredients and was similar to that which the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to eat, as it is written: 鈥淭ake you for yourself wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make them for yourself into bread鈥 (Ezekiel 4:9). This bread is unfit for human consumption, as even a dog at times will not eat it. However, bread prepared from lentils alone is edible.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讛讬讗 爪诇讜讬讛 讘爪讜讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛讜讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 讘讙诇诇讬 爪讗转 讛讗讚诐 转注讙谞讛 诇注讬谞讬讛诐

Rav Pappa said: That bread of Ezekiel鈥檚 was roasted in human excrement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with human excrement, in their sight鈥 (Ezekiel 4:12).

诪讗讬 讜注讜讙转 砖注专讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讬注讜专讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注专讬讘转讛 讻注专讬讘转 砖注讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻注专讬讘转 讞讟讬诐:

Having mentioned this verse, the Gemara asks a related question: What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it as barley [seorim] cakes鈥? Rav 岣sda said: The verse means that he should eat it in small measures [leshiurim], not as a satisfying meal. Rav Pappa said: Its preparation must be like the preparation of barley bread, coarse bread with regard to which one invests little effort, and not like the preparation of wheat bread.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 诪注讛 诇讞谞讜谞讬 讜诇谞讞转讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 诇讜 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

MISHNA: A person may give a ma鈥檃 coin to a grocer or a baker, if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, so that the grocer or baker will confer upon him possession of wine or bread for a merging of the alleyway or an eiruv, if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讝讻讜 诇讜 诪注讜转讬讜

And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him, as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one鈥檚 possession, to transfer ownership.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 砖讝讻讜 诇讜 诪注讜转讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诪讚注转讜

And the Rabbis concede with regard to all other people, apart from grocers and bakers, that if one gave them money for the food of an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him, as one may establish an eiruv for a person only with his knowledge and at his bidding. With regard to a grocer or baker, the person giving the money does not intend to appoint the grocer or the baker as his agent and the money itself does not effect an acquisition, and consequently, he did not accomplish anything. With regard to anyone else, however, there is no doubt that he must have intended to appoint him his agent, and his act is effective.

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 诇讚注转讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讚注转讜 诇驻讬 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜:

Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person鈥檚 benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person鈥檚 disadvantage in his absence. As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the eiruv, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person鈥檚 disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person鈥檚 behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that one who gave money to a grocer or a baker has acquired possession of the food for the eiruv? This ruling is difficult, as he did not perform a transaction by pulling the food into his possession, and one can acquire an object only by performing a valid act of acquisition.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讛讜 注砖讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讚转谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 诪砖讞讬讟讬谉 讗转 讛讟讘讞 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讚讬谞专 讜讗讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讗诇讗 讚讬谞专 讗讞讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇砖讞讜讟

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Abbahu said: Rabbi Eliezer established this acquisition so that it should be like the four times during the year that the payment of money effects acquisition, as we learned in a mishna: On these four times every year, on the eves of Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShana, and the Eighth Day of Assembly, one who paid for meat may force the butcher to slaughter an animal against his will. Even if his ox was worth a thousand dinar, and the customer has paid for only one dinar鈥檚 worth of meat, the customer may force the butcher to slaughter it, so that the buyer can receive his meat. The reason is that on these four occasions everyone buys meat, and therefore the butcher who promised to supply the customer with meat must give it to him, even if this causes the butcher a considerable loss.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 诪转 诇诇讜拽讞 诪转 诇诇讜拽讞 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诪砖讱

Therefore, if the ox died, it died at the buyer鈥檚 expense. That is to say, he must bear the loss and is not entitled to get his dinar back. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? The customer did not pull the ox into his possession. As he did not perform an act of acquisition, he has not acquired any part of the ox, and his dinar should therefore be restored to him. Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he did pull the ox into his possession.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 诪转 诇诪讜讻专 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪砖讱

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that mishna as follows: With regard to the rest of the days of the year, it is not so. Therefore, if the animal died, it died at the seller鈥檚 expense. If, as Rav Huna claims, the mishna is referring to a case where the purchaser had already pulled the animal into his possession, why must the seller suffer the loss? Since the customer pulled it into his possession and has acquired it, the ox died in his possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the customer did not pull the animal into his possession. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the butcher conferred possession upon his customer by means of another person, i.e., the butcher conferred possession upon the customer by instructing another person to acquire a dinar鈥檚 worth of the ox鈥檚 meat on his behalf, without having obtained his consent.

讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讚讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讜 讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

Consequently, at these four times, when it is for his benefit, as everyone wishes to buy meat on these days, one may act for his benefit in his absence, and the acquisition is valid. With regard to the rest of the days of the year, when it is to his disadvantage, as it obligates him in payment and he might have no interest in this purchase, one may act to his disadvantage only in his presence.

讜专讘 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讛注诪讬讚讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讘专讬讛谉 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转

And Rav Ila said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: At these four times, the Sages based their statement on Torah law, i.e., they ruled in accordance with Torah law. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: By Torah law, the payment of money is an effective act of acquisition, which acquires movable property. Merchandise that is purchased with money is immediately transferred to the ownership of the buyer.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讬讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛:

And why, then, did the Sages say that the mode of acquisition of pulling, not monetary payment, acquires movable goods? It is a decree issued by the Sages, lest the seller say to a buyer who has already paid for his merchandise: Your wheat was burned in the upper story of my house, and you have lost everything. According to Torah law, once the buyer pays, he owns the merchandise wherever it is located. As this state of affairs can lead to fraud, the Sages instituted that only an act of physical transfer of the item purchased can finalize the sale. On these four occasions, however, the Sages ordained that Torah law remains in effect. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that this enactment applies to an eiruv as well.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The mishna stated: The Rabbis concede with regard to all other people that if he gave them money for food for an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him. The Gemara asks: Who is included among all other people? Rav said: The reference is to an ordinary homeowner, not a merchant, who was asked by someone to receive possession of food for an eiruv on his behalf, by means of the money that he provided.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽讜谞讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪注讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讬 拽讜谞讛

And likewise, Shmuel said: The reference is to an ordinary homeowner. As Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a baker, but an ordinary homeowner may acquire the food on behalf of another person. And Shmuel also said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he gave him a ma鈥檃, but if he gave him a utensil, he acquires the food for the eiruv by the mode of acquisition known as exchange. By handing over the utensil in exchange for the food of the eiruv, he acquires that food wherever it is located. However, one cannot perform the mode of acquisition of exchange with money.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜 讝讻讛 诇讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 注专讘 诇讬 砖诇讬讞 砖讜讬讛 讜拽谞讬:

And Shmuel further said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he said to the grocer or baker: Confer possession upon me; but if he said to him: Establish an eiruv on my behalf, he clearly intended to appoint him his agent to establish an eiruv on his behalf, and therefore the eiruv is acquired by means of his agency.

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 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement, that one may establish an eiruv only with a person鈥檚 knowledge, said? This halakha applies to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but not a joining of courtyards. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this regard, and not only that, but any place where Rabbi Yehuda taught a halakha with regard to eiruvin, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜

Rav 岣na from Baghdad said to Rav Yehuda: Did Shmuel state this ruling even with regard to an alleyway whose cross beam or side post was removed during Shabbat? Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is permitted to carry in this alleyway on that same Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘诪讞讬爪讜转

He said to him: I spoke to you with regard to the acquisition of eiruvin, and not with regard to partitions. The halakhot of partitions are not considered part of the halakhot of eiruvin, as they touch upon several areas of halakha, only one of which is the issue of an eiruv. With regard to partitions, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讜讘诪讛 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: As it is stated that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, this proves by inference that there is a dispute concerning this issue. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Any place where Rabbi Yehuda says when, or in what case is this, in the Mishna, he intends only to explain the earlier statement of the Rabbis, not to disagree with them. Why, then, did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi he is merely clarifying the opinion of the Rabbis, and there is no dispute between them?

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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

Before addressing this question, the Gemara expresses surprise over the claim itself: And do Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages not dispute this issue? Didn鈥檛 we learn in an earlier mishna: If new residents were added to the original residents of the alleyway, he may add to the eiruv for those residents and confer possession on them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways. Apparently, this tanna maintains that one must inform them even with regard to a joining of courtyards. This ruling contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which proves that there is at least one Sage who does not accept his opinion.

讛转诐 讘讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转

The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to a courtyard situated between two alleyways, in which case the residents of the courtyard may join a merging with whichever alleyway they prefer. As their participation in the merging involves a certain disadvantage, for perhaps the residents of the courtyard would not want to establish a merging of alleyways with one alleyway and lose out on a potential merging with the other, it is necessary to inform them.

讜讛讗诪专 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

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rav Sheizvi say that Rav 岣sda said with regard to that same mishna: That is to say that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him over the need to inform the other residents about the eiruv? This statement indicates that at least some Sages hold that the matter is in dispute, and not everyone agrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗

Rather, the Gemara resolves both difficulties together:

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

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 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...
bread

The Staff of Life

Eruvin聽81 talks about what food you can use to make an eiruv. In essence, all food is acceptable but Rabbi...

Eruvin 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 81

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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 讜讛诪诇讞

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 ruling concerning the foods which may or may not be used for an eiruv and to merge alleyways, the Gemara poses a question: This ruling is apparently superfluous, as we have already learned it once before in another mishna: One may establish an eiruv and a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food, except for water and salt.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 讻讻专 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇

Rabba said: This addition comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in the mishna, who said that a loaf, yes, it may be used for an eiruv; but anything else, no, other foods may not be used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that an eiruv may be established with all kinds of food, not only bread.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讻诇 诪注专讘讬谉 注讬专讜讘讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪砖转转驻讬谉 砖讬转讜驻讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇注专讘 讘驻转 讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讘诇讘讚 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻转 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜拽转谞讬 讘讻诇

Abaye raised an objection from a baraita: One may establish a joining of courtyards with all kinds of food, and likewise one may establish a merging of alleyways with all kinds of food. They said that one must establish an eiruv with bread only with regard to an eiruv of a courtyard. Who did you hear that said that bread, yes, it may be used for an eiruv, but anything else, no, it may not be used? It was Rabbi Yehoshua, and yet the baraita teaches: With all kinds of food. This proves that the phrase: One may establish an eiruv with all kinds of food, does not necessarily exclude Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 opinion.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬诪讛 讗讬谉 驻专讜住讛 诇讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇

Rather, Rabba bar bar 岣na said: It comes to exclude a different aspect of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as Rabbi Yehoshua said: A whole loaf, yes, it is fit to be used as an eiruv, but a broken loaf, no, it is not suitable for this purpose. The mishna therefore teaches us that one may prepare an eiruv with all kinds of bread, even a broken loaf.

讜驻专讜住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 注讬专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻专讜住讜转 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 讚讘专 诇拽诇拽讜诇讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If they all established the eiruv with broken loaves of bread, what is the halakha? In this case there is no cause for enmity. Rav Ashi said to him: There is nonetheless a concern lest the problem recur, as one of them might give an entire loaf and proceed to complain about his neighbor who donated only a partial loaf.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讞诇转讛 讜讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

A portion of dough, known as 岣lla, must be set aside and given to the priests. If 岣lla was not set aside from the dough, it must be separated from the baked bread. Moreover, if one part teruma fell into a hundred parts non-sacred produce, a proportionate amount must be removed from the mixture and given to a priest, after which the remainder may be eaten. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Shaul said: If one removed from the loaf as much as must be set aside for its 岣lla, or as much as must be separated from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, he may establish an eiruv with that loaf. The reason is that in this case people would not complain that he did not give a whole loaf, as they would assume the loaf had a small part missing because 岣lla had been separated from it, or because teruma had fallen into the dough, which necessitated the separation of a certain portion. However, if more than this amount was missing, people would suspect him of eating from the eiruv.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讻讚讬 讞诇转讛 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it was taught otherwise in a baraita: If a loaf was missing as much as must be removed from a mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, one may establish an eiruv with it, but if it was missing as much as must be removed for its 岣lla, one may not establish an eiruv with it?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞诇转 谞讞转讜诐 讛讗 讘讞诇转 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the two sources are not dealing with the same amounts. In this case, where the tanna permitted a loaf that was missing the amount that must be removed for 岣lla, he is referring to a baker鈥檚 岣lla, which is a smaller amount and is therefore not considered a significant reduction of the loaf. However, in that case, where the tanna did not permit a loaf that was lacking the amount that must be removed for 岣lla, it is referring to an ordinary homeowner鈥檚 岣lla. This 岣lla portion is larger in size, and consequently the loaf may not be used for an eiruv if it is missing such a large amount.

讚转谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讞诇讛 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讛注讜砖讛 注讬住讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜注讬住讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 谞讞转讜诐 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖注砖转讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘砖讜拽 讗讞讚 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讜砖诪讜谞讛

The Gemara explains that this is as we learned in a mishna: The measure of 岣lla fixed by the Sages is one twenty-fourth of the dough. Consequently, one who prepares dough for himself or dough for his son鈥檚 wedding feast, the measure for 岣lla is one twenty-fourth. However, a baker who prepares dough for sale in the market, and likewise a woman who prepares dough for sale in the market, is required to separate only one forty-eighth of the dough, as the Sages were lenient with those who sell their wares so that they should not suffer loss.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转驻专讛 讘拽讬住诐 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬注 转讬驻专讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讬讚讬注 转讬驻专讛

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to one who connected the two portions of a broken loaf with a wood chip, one may establish an eiruv with it, as it looks whole. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to a case of this kind that one may not establish an eiruv with it? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as in this case, where it may not be used for an eiruv, we are dealing with a situation where the seam is conspicuous; however, in that case, where it may be used for an eiruv, the reference is to a situation where the seam is not conspicuous.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 讗讜专讝 讜讘驻转 讚讜讞谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻转 讗讜专讝 诪注专讘讬谉 讜讘驻转 讚讜讞谉 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: One may establish an eiruv even with rice bread or with millet bread. Mar Ukva said: This ruling was explained to me by Mar Shmuel himself. With rice bread one may establish an eiruv, but with millet bread one may not establish an eiruv, as it is difficult to bake edible bread out of millet.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪注专讘讬谉 讘驻转 注讚砖讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讗讬 讘砖谞讬 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜砖讚讬讬讛 诇讻诇讘讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with lentil bread. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Is such bread edible? But there was that lentil bread in the days of Mar Shmuel, which he threw to his dog, and even it would not eat it. Clearly, lentil bread is not fit for human consumption.

讛讛讬讗 讚砖讗专 诪讬谞讬诐 讛讜讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转讛 拽讞 诇讱 讞讟讬谉 讜砖注讜专讬诐 讜驻讜诇 讜注讚砖讬诐 讜讚讜讞谉 讜讻讜住诪讬诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara answers: That bread which the dog refused to eat was a mixture of various types of grain. It was baked in order to discover the taste of a bread of mixed ingredients and was similar to that which the prophet Ezekiel was commanded to eat, as it is written: 鈥淭ake you for yourself wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make them for yourself into bread鈥 (Ezekiel 4:9). This bread is unfit for human consumption, as even a dog at times will not eat it. However, bread prepared from lentils alone is edible.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讛讬讗 爪诇讜讬讛 讘爪讜讗转 讛讗讚诐 讛讜讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讗 讘讙诇诇讬 爪讗转 讛讗讚诐 转注讙谞讛 诇注讬谞讬讛诐

Rav Pappa said: That bread of Ezekiel鈥檚 was roasted in human excrement, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with human excrement, in their sight鈥 (Ezekiel 4:12).

诪讗讬 讜注讜讙转 砖注专讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讬注讜专讬诐 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注专讬讘转讛 讻注专讬讘转 砖注讜专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻注专讬讘转 讞讟讬诐:

Having mentioned this verse, the Gemara asks a related question: What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd you shall eat it as barley [seorim] cakes鈥? Rav 岣sda said: The verse means that he should eat it in small measures [leshiurim], not as a satisfying meal. Rav Pappa said: Its preparation must be like the preparation of barley bread, coarse bread with regard to which one invests little effort, and not like the preparation of wheat bread.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜转谉 讗讚诐 诪注讛 诇讞谞讜谞讬 讜诇谞讞转讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 诇讜 注讬专讜讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

MISHNA: A person may give a ma鈥檃 coin to a grocer or a baker, if they live in the same alleyway or courtyard, so that the grocer or baker will confer upon him possession of wine or bread for a merging of the alleyway or an eiruv, if other residents come to them to purchase these products for that purpose. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讝讻讜 诇讜 诪注讜转讬讜

And the Rabbis say: His money did not confer possession on him, as the transfer of money alone is not a valid mode of acquisition and cannot confer possession. One must perform a valid mode of acquisition, e.g., pulling an article into one鈥檚 possession, to transfer ownership.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 砖讝讻讜 诇讜 诪注讜转讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 诪讚注转讜

And the Rabbis concede with regard to all other people, apart from grocers and bakers, that if one gave them money for the food of an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him, as one may establish an eiruv for a person only with his knowledge and at his bidding. With regard to a grocer or baker, the person giving the money does not intend to appoint the grocer or the baker as his agent and the money itself does not effect an acquisition, and consequently, he did not accomplish anything. With regard to anyone else, however, there is no doubt that he must have intended to appoint him his agent, and his act is effective.

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 诇讚注转讜 讜砖诇讗 诇讚注转讜 诇驻讬 砖讝讻讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜:

Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an eiruv for a person either with his knowledge or without his knowledge. The reason is because one may act for a person鈥檚 benefit in his absence, but one may not act to a person鈥檚 disadvantage in his absence. As a participant in a joining of courtyards benefits from his inclusion in the eiruv, his consent is not required. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, although it enables one to go farther in one direction, he loses the option of traveling in the opposite direction. When an action is to a person鈥檚 disadvantage, or if it entails both benefits and disadvantages, one may act on that person鈥檚 behalf only if he has been explicitly appointed his agent.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that one who gave money to a grocer or a baker has acquired possession of the food for the eiruv? This ruling is difficult, as he did not perform a transaction by pulling the food into his possession, and one can acquire an object only by performing a valid act of acquisition.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讛讜 注砖讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讚转谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 诪砖讞讬讟讬谉 讗转 讛讟讘讞 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 砖讜讛 讗诇祝 讚讬谞专 讜讗讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讗诇讗 讚讬谞专 讗讞讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇砖讞讜讟

Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Abbahu said: Rabbi Eliezer established this acquisition so that it should be like the four times during the year that the payment of money effects acquisition, as we learned in a mishna: On these four times every year, on the eves of Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShana, and the Eighth Day of Assembly, one who paid for meat may force the butcher to slaughter an animal against his will. Even if his ox was worth a thousand dinar, and the customer has paid for only one dinar鈥檚 worth of meat, the customer may force the butcher to slaughter it, so that the buyer can receive his meat. The reason is that on these four occasions everyone buys meat, and therefore the butcher who promised to supply the customer with meat must give it to him, even if this causes the butcher a considerable loss.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 诪转 诇诇讜拽讞 诪转 诇诇讜拽讞 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘砖诪砖讱

Therefore, if the ox died, it died at the buyer鈥檚 expense. That is to say, he must bear the loss and is not entitled to get his dinar back. The Gemara asks: Why is this so? The customer did not pull the ox into his possession. As he did not perform an act of acquisition, he has not acquired any part of the ox, and his dinar should therefore be restored to him. Rav Huna said: We are dealing here with a case where he did pull the ox into his possession.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 诪转 诪转 诇诪讜讻专 讗诪讗讬 讛讗 诪砖讱

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that mishna as follows: With regard to the rest of the days of the year, it is not so. Therefore, if the animal died, it died at the seller鈥檚 expense. If, as Rav Huna claims, the mishna is referring to a case where the purchaser had already pulled the animal into his possession, why must the seller suffer the loss? Since the customer pulled it into his possession and has acquired it, the ox died in his possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖诇讗 诪砖讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a case where the customer did not pull the animal into his possession. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the butcher conferred possession upon his customer by means of another person, i.e., the butcher conferred possession upon the customer by instructing another person to acquire a dinar鈥檚 worth of the ox鈥檚 meat on his behalf, without having obtained his consent.

讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讚讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讜 讗讬谉 讞讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜

Consequently, at these four times, when it is for his benefit, as everyone wishes to buy meat on these days, one may act for his benefit in his absence, and the acquisition is valid. With regard to the rest of the days of the year, when it is to his disadvantage, as it obligates him in payment and he might have no interest in this purchase, one may act to his disadvantage only in his presence.

讜专讘 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讗专讘注讛 驻专拽讬诐 讗诇讜 讛注诪讬讚讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讘专讬讛谉 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转

And Rav Ila said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: At these four times, the Sages based their statement on Torah law, i.e., they ruled in accordance with Torah law. As Rabbi Yo岣nan said: By Torah law, the payment of money is an effective act of acquisition, which acquires movable property. Merchandise that is purchased with money is immediately transferred to the ownership of the buyer.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 谞砖专驻讜 讞讬讟讬讱 讘注诇讬讬讛:

And why, then, did the Sages say that the mode of acquisition of pulling, not monetary payment, acquires movable goods? It is a decree issued by the Sages, lest the seller say to a buyer who has already paid for his merchandise: Your wheat was burned in the upper story of my house, and you have lost everything. According to Torah law, once the buyer pays, he owns the merchandise wherever it is located. As this state of affairs can lead to fraud, the Sages instituted that only an act of physical transfer of the item purchased can finalize the sale. On these four occasions, however, the Sages ordained that Torah law remains in effect. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that this enactment applies to an eiruv as well.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讗专 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 砖讗专 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讘注诇 讛讘讬转

The mishna stated: The Rabbis concede with regard to all other people that if he gave them money for food for an eiruv, his money confers possession upon him. The Gemara asks: Who is included among all other people? Rav said: The reference is to an ordinary homeowner, not a merchant, who was asked by someone to receive possession of food for an eiruv on his behalf, by means of the money that he provided.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讞转讜诐 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 拽讜谞讛 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪注讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讬 拽讜谞讛

And likewise, Shmuel said: The reference is to an ordinary homeowner. As Shmuel said: They taught this halakha only with regard to a baker, but an ordinary homeowner may acquire the food on behalf of another person. And Shmuel also said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he gave him a ma鈥檃, but if he gave him a utensil, he acquires the food for the eiruv by the mode of acquisition known as exchange. By handing over the utensil in exchange for the food of the eiruv, he acquires that food wherever it is located. However, one cannot perform the mode of acquisition of exchange with money.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜 讝讻讛 诇讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 注专讘 诇讬 砖诇讬讞 砖讜讬讛 讜拽谞讬:

And Shmuel further said: They taught this halakha only in a case where he said to the grocer or baker: Confer possession upon me; but if he said to him: Establish an eiruv on my behalf, he clearly intended to appoint him his agent to establish an eiruv on his behalf, and therefore the eiruv is acquired by means of his agency.

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 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: In what case is this statement, that one may establish an eiruv only with a person鈥檚 knowledge, said? This halakha applies to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but not a joining of courtyards. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this regard, and not only that, but any place where Rabbi Yehuda taught a halakha with regard to eiruvin, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞讗 讘讙讚转讗讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜

Rav 岣na from Baghdad said to Rav Yehuda: Did Shmuel state this ruling even with regard to an alleyway whose cross beam or side post was removed during Shabbat? Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it is permitted to carry in this alleyway on that same Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘诪讞讬爪讜转

He said to him: I spoke to you with regard to the acquisition of eiruvin, and not with regard to partitions. The halakhot of partitions are not considered part of the halakhot of eiruvin, as they touch upon several areas of halakha, only one of which is the issue of an eiruv. With regard to partitions, the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讜讘诪讛 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专砖 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: As it is stated that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, this proves by inference that there is a dispute concerning this issue. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: Any place where Rabbi Yehuda says when, or in what case is this, in the Mishna, he intends only to explain the earlier statement of the Rabbis, not to disagree with them. Why, then, did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi he is merely clarifying the opinion of the Rabbis, and there is no dispute between them?

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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

Before addressing this question, the Gemara expresses surprise over the claim itself: And do Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages not dispute this issue? Didn鈥檛 we learn in an earlier mishna: If new residents were added to the original residents of the alleyway, he may add to the eiruv for those residents and confer possession on them, and he must inform the new residents of their inclusion in the merging of alleyways. Apparently, this tanna maintains that one must inform them even with regard to a joining of courtyards. This ruling contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which proves that there is at least one Sage who does not accept his opinion.

讛转诐 讘讞爪专 砖讘讬谉 砖谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转

The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to a courtyard situated between two alleyways, in which case the residents of the courtyard may join a merging with whichever alleyway they prefer. As their participation in the merging involves a certain disadvantage, for perhaps the residents of the courtyard would not want to establish a merging of alleyways with one alleyway and lose out on a potential merging with the other, it is necessary to inform them.

讜讛讗诪专 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

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Didn鈥檛 Rav Sheizvi say that Rav 岣sda said with regard to that same mishna: That is to say that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him over the need to inform the other residents about the eiruv? This statement indicates that at least some Sages hold that the matter is in dispute, and not everyone agrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗

Rather, the Gemara resolves both difficulties together:

Scroll To Top