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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 31, 2020 | 讬状讙 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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Eruvin 83

This shiur is dedicated by the Greenstone cousins in honor of the birthday of our cousin, Lana Kerzner, a lawyer and advocate of social justice, a role model to the women and men of our family.聽
The loaf mentioned in the mishna is relevant for various measurements – for what? Why isn’t the measurement for food impurities listed in the mishna as that is also based on the loaf. The gemara goes through various measurements and discusses where the size of an egg used in these measurements is exactly an egg or not. The sizes used in measurements got larger over time. What are the differences between them? On what size loaf is one obligated to separate challah? The mishna describes a situation with a porch and a courtyard that had mead an eruv separately as they are considered two separate spaces. If there is an item in the courtyard at a height of 10 handbreadths and close to the porch, it is considered part of the porch. Otherwise, it is considered part of the courtyard.

 

转谞讗 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬


A Sage taught in the Tosefta: And half of one half of its half, one-eighth of this loaf, is the minimum measure of food that contracts the ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: And our tanna, in the mishna, for what reason did he did not teach the measure of the impurity of foods? The Gemara answers: He did not state this halakha because their measures are not precisely identical. The measure for the impurity of foods is not exactly half the amount of ritually impure food that disqualifies one from eating teruma.


讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讞爪讬 驻专住 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讞住专 拽讬诪注讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 砖讜讞拽讜转 砖讬注专 专讘讬 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讜注讜讚 讻诪讛 讜注讜讚 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讘讘讬爪讛


As it was taught in a baraita: How much is half a peras? Two eggs minus a little; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: Two large eggs, slightly larger ones than average. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi measured the amount of half a peras after calculating the number of kav in the se鈥檃 brought before him, and found it to be a little more than two eggs. The tanna asks: How much is this little more? One-twentieth of an egg.


讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讻讘讬爪讛 砖讗诪专讜 讻诪讜讛 讜讻拽诇讬驻转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪讜讛 讘诇讗 拽诇讬驻转讛


In contrast, concerning the impurity of foods, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Dosa said that the measure of an egg-bulk, which the Sages said is the amount that contracts the impurity of foods, is equivalent to it, i.e., the egg, and its shell. And the Rabbis say: It is equivalent to it without its shell. These amounts are not precisely half of any of the measurements given for half a peras.


讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讘讬爪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛


As for the issue itself, Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: This baraita that clarifies the measure of half a peras is in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, a measure that is identical to that of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. But the Rabbis say: One and one half large egg-bulks. And who are these Rabbis? Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.


驻砖讬讟讗 砖讜讞拽讜转 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉


The Gemara registers surprise: This is obvious, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka maintains that half a loaf is three egg-bulks, half of which is an egg-bulk and one half. The Gemara explains: The novel aspect of this teaching is not the amount itself; rather, he came to teach us that the measurement is performed with large eggs.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖讬讙专 讘讜谞讬讜住 诇专讘讬 诪讜讚讬讗 讚拽讜谞讚讬住 讚诪谉 谞讗讜住讗 讜砖讬注专 专讘讬 诪讗转谉 讜砖讘注 注砖专讛 讘讬注讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: A person named Bonyos sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a measure [modya] of a se鈥檃 from a place called Na鈥檜sa, where they had a tradition that it was an ancient and accurate measure (Ritva). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi measured it and found it contained 217 eggs.


讛讗 住讗讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚诪讚讘专讬转 诪讗讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讛讜讬讗


The Gemara asks: This se鈥檃, from where is it, i.e., on what measure is it based? If it is based on the wilderness se鈥檃, the standard measure used by Moses in the wilderness, which is the basis for all the Torah鈥檚 measurements of volume, the difficulty is that a se鈥檃 is composed of six kav, where each kav is equivalent to four log and each log is equivalent to six egg-bulks. This means that a se鈥檃 is equivalent to a total of 144 egg-bulks.


讜讗讬 讚讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 讛讜讬讗


And if it is the Jerusalem se鈥檃, then the se鈥檃 is only 173 egg-bulks, as they enlarged the measures in Jerusalem by adding a fifth to the measures of the wilderness.


讜讗讬 讚爪讬驻讜专讬转 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖讘注 讛讜讬讬谉


And if it is a se鈥檃 of Tzippori, as the measures were once again increased in Tzippori, where another fifth was added to the Jerusalem measure, the se鈥檃 is 207 egg-bulks. The se鈥檃 measured by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not correspond to any of these measures of a se鈥檃.


诇注讜诇诐 讚爪讬驻讜专讬转 讗讬讬转讬 讞诇转讗 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


The Gemara answers: Actually, this measure is based on the se鈥檃 of Tzippori, but you must bring the amount of the 岣lla given to a priest, and add it to them. That is to say, although this measure is slightly larger than a se鈥檃, if it is used for flour and you deduct the amount due as 岣lla, you are left with exactly one se鈥檃, or 207 egg-bulks.


讞诇转讗 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讬谉 转诪谞讬 讗讻转讬 讘爪专 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: The amount of 岣lla, how many egg-bulks is it? Approximately eight egg-bulks, one-twenty-fourth of 207. Yet in that case, it remains less than 217 egg-bulks, for even if we were to add another eight egg-bulks for 岣lla to the 207 egg-bulks, we would have only 215 egg-bulks, almost 216 to be more precise, which is still less than 217.


讗诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 讜注讜讚讜转 讚专讘讬 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


Rather, you must bring the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the little more he included in his measure, and add these to them. In Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 calculations, he did not factor in the 岣lla that had to be separated. Instead, the egg-bulks he used to measure the se鈥檃 were small egg-bulks. Consequently, one-twentieth of an egg-bulk must be added for each egg-bulk. Since one-twentieth of 207 egg-bulks is roughly ten, the total amount equals 217 egg-bulks.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讘讬爪讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, it is still slightly more than 217 egg-bulks, by seven-twentieths of an egg-bulk, to be precise. The Gemara answers: Since it is not more than 217 egg-bulks by a whole egg, he did not count it.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讗讛 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖转讜转 讜砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖转讜转 谞诪爪讗转 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖诇讬砖


The Sages taught in a baraita: A Jerusalem se鈥檃 is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by one-sixth, and that of Tzippori is larger than a Jerusalem se鈥檃 by one-sixth. Consequently, a se鈥檃 of Tzippori is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by one-third.


砖诇讬砖 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬砖 讚诪讚讘专讬转 诪讻讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讚诪讚讘专讬转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖讬转讬谉 讜转诇转


The Gemara inquires: One-third of which measurement? If you say it means one-third of a wilderness se鈥檃, now you must consider: One-third of a wilderness se鈥檃, how much is it? Forty-eight egg-bulks, and yet the difference between the wilderness se鈥檃 and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three egg-bulks. As stated above, a Tzippori se鈥檃 is 207 egg-bulks, whereas a wilderness se鈥檃 is only 144 egg-bulks.


讜讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖 讚讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖诇讬砖 讚讬讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 谞讻讬 转讬诇转讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖转讬谉 讜转诇转 讜讗诇讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 砖诇讬砖 讚讬讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 砖讘注讬谉 谞讻讬 讞讚讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖


But rather, this one-third mentioned in the baraita is referring to one-third of a Jerusalem se鈥檃, which is 173 egg-bulks, as stated above. The Gemara again examines the calculation: One-third of that se鈥檃, how much is it? Fifty-eight less one-third, and yet the difference between the wilderness and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three. Rather, you must say that it is referring to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃. One-third of that se鈥檃, how much is it? Seventy less one-third, and yet the difference between the wilderness se鈥檃 and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three egg-bulks. The difference between the measures is not exactly one-third according to any of the known se鈥檃 measurements.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 住讗讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 拽专讜讘 诇砖诇讬砖 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讬砖 砖诇讛 拽专讜讘 诇诪讞爪讛 讚诪讚讘专讬转


Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said that this is what the tanna is saying: Consequently, a se鈥檃 of Tzippori is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by sixty-three egg-bulks, which is close to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 of sixty-nine egg-bulks. And one-third of it, sixty-nine egg-bulks, is close to half of a wilderness se鈥檃 of seventy-two egg-bulks.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 砖诇讬砖 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讘讜注讜讚讬讜转 砖诇 专讘讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖诇讬砖 讘讬爪讛


Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya: Does the baraita state either: Close to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 or: Close to half of a wilderness se鈥檃? The wording of the baraita indicates an exact amount. Rather, Ravina said that this is what the tanna is saying: Consequently, one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 together with the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is greater than half of a wilderness se鈥檃 of seventy-two egg-bulks by only one-third of an egg. In other words, a Tzippori se鈥檃 of 207 egg-bulks added to the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi of one-twentieth of an egg-bulk for each egg-bulk amounts to a total of 217 egg-bulks, one-third of which is seventy-two and one-third egg-bulks.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗砖讬转 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐


Our Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall set apart a cake of the first of your dough as a gift; like the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart鈥 (Numbers 15:20).


讻讚讬 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讜讻诪讛 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讻讚讬 注讬住转 讛诪讚讘专 讜讻诪讛 注讬住转 讛诪讚讘专


What is the quantity of dough from which 岣lla must be separated? The amount of 鈥測our dough.鈥 And how much is 鈥測our dough鈥? This amount is left unspecified by the verse. The Gemara answers: It is as the amount of the dough of the wilderness. The Gemara again asks: And how much is the dough of the wilderness?


讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注讜诪专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讛讜讗 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 砖讘注讛 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 砖讛谉 砖砖讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖讛谉 讞诪砖讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬


The Gemara responds: The Torah states that the manna, the dough of the wilderness, was 鈥渁n omer a head鈥 (Exodus 16:16). A later verse elaborates on that measure, as it is written: 鈥淎nd an omer is the tenth part of an eifa (Exodus 16:36). An eifa is three se鈥檃, which are eighteen kav or seventy-two log. An omer is one-tenth of this measure. From here, this calculation, Sages said that dough prepared from seven quarters of a kav of flour and more is obligated in 岣lla. This is equal to six quarter-kav of the Jerusalem measure, which is five quarter-kav of the Tzippori measure.


诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讗讜讻诇 讻诪讚讛 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘专讬讗 讜诪讘讜专讱 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 专注讘转谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇 讘诪注讬讜:


From here the Sages also said: One who eats roughly this amount each day, is healthy, as he is able to eat a proper meal; and he is also blessed, as he is not a glutton who requires more. One who eats more than this is a glutton, while one who eats less than this has damaged bowels and must see to his health.


诪转谞讬壮 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讻诇 砖讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


MISHNA: If both the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything in the courtyard that is ten handbreadths high, e.g., a mound or a post, is part of the balcony. The residents of the apartments open to the balcony may transfer objects to and from their apartments onto the mound or post. Any post or mound that is lower than this height is part of the courtyard.


讞讜诇讬讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 讙讘讜讛讬诐 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


A similar halakha applies to an embankment that surrounds a cistern or a rock: If the embankments that surround a cistern or rock are ten handbreadths high, they belong to the balcony; if they are lower than this, they may be used only by the inhabitants of the courtyard.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讞爪专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 住诪讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐:


In what case are these matters, the halakha that anything higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the balcony, stated? When the mound or embankment is near the balcony. But in a case where the embankment or mound is distant from it, even if it is ten handbreadths high, the right to use the embankment or mound goes to the members of the courtyard. And what is considered near? Anything that is not four handbreadths removed from the balcony.


讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讛讬讬谞讜 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the residents of two courtyards established separate eiruvin, and the residents of both courtyards have convenient access to a certain area, the residents of this courtyard through an entrance, and the residents of that courtyard through another entrance, this is similar to the case of a window between two courtyards. If the residents did not establish a joint eiruv, the use of this window is prohibited to the residents of both courtyards.


诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讞专讬抓 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转


It is similarly obvious that if a place can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by throwing an object onto it and by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing, but it cannot be conveniently used by either set of residents, then this is equivalent to the case of a wall between two courtyards. If there is a wall between two courtyards, it may not be used by either courtyard. Likewise, if a place can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of that courtyard by a similar act of lowering, this is comparable to the halakha of a ditch between two courtyards, which may not be used by the residents of either courtyard.


诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉


It is likewise obvious that in a place that can be conveniently used by the residents of this courtyard through an entrance but can be used by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing an object onto it, this is governed by the ruling of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said that Rav Na岣an said: This place may be used only by those who have access to the area by way of an entrance. Likewise, a place that can be conveniently used by the residents of this courtyard through an entrance but can be used by the residents of that courtyard only by lowering an object down to it, this is governed by the ruling of Rav Sheizvi, who said that Rav Na岣an said: This place may be used only by those who have convenient access to it.


诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讗讬


The ruling in each of the aforementioned cases is clear. What is the halakha concerning a place that can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing an object on top of it? In other words, if an area is lower than one courtyard but higher than the other, so that neither set of residents has convenient access to it, which of them is entitled to use it?


讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖讘砖诇砖讜诇 砖诇讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘拽砖讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 诇讝讛 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 讘拽砖讛 谞讜转谞讬诐 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转


Rav said: It is prohibited for both sets of residents to use it. As the use of the area is equally inconvenient to the residents of both courtyards, they retain equal rights to it and render it prohibited for the other group to use. And Shmuel said: The use of the area is granted to those who can reach it by lowering, as it is relatively easy for them to lower objects to it, and therefore its use is more convenient; whereas for the others, who must throw onto it, its use is more demanding. And there is a principle concerning Shabbat: Anything whose use is convenient for one party and more demanding for another party, one provides it to that one whose use of it is convenient.


转谞谉 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讻诇 砖讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


In order to decide between these two opinions, the Gemara attempts to adduce a proof from the mishna: If the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything in the courtyard that is ten handbreadths high belongs to the balcony, while anything that is less than this height belongs to the courtyard.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗讬 诪专驻住转


The Gemara first explains: It might have entered your mind to say: What is the meaning of the balcony mentioned in the mishna?

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聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 83

转谞讗 讜讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讜讜 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬


A Sage taught in the Tosefta: And half of one half of its half, one-eighth of this loaf, is the minimum measure of food that contracts the ritual impurity of foods. The Gemara asks: And our tanna, in the mishna, for what reason did he did not teach the measure of the impurity of foods? The Gemara answers: He did not state this halakha because their measures are not precisely identical. The measure for the impurity of foods is not exactly half the amount of ritually impure food that disqualifies one from eating teruma.


讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专 讞爪讬 驻专住 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讞住专 拽讬诪注讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 砖讜讞拽讜转 砖讬注专 专讘讬 砖转讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讜注讜讚 讻诪讛 讜注讜讚 讗讞讚 诪注砖专讬诐 讘讘讬爪讛


As it was taught in a baraita: How much is half a peras? Two eggs minus a little; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: Two large eggs, slightly larger ones than average. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi measured the amount of half a peras after calculating the number of kav in the se鈥檃 brought before him, and found it to be a little more than two eggs. The tanna asks: How much is this little more? One-twentieth of an egg.


讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讻讘讬爪讛 砖讗诪专讜 讻诪讜讛 讜讻拽诇讬驻转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诪讜讛 讘诇讗 拽诇讬驻转讛


In contrast, concerning the impurity of foods, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Dosa said that the measure of an egg-bulk, which the Sages said is the amount that contracts the impurity of foods, is equivalent to it, i.e., the egg, and its shell. And the Rabbis say: It is equivalent to it without its shell. These amounts are not precisely half of any of the measurements given for half a peras.


讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讘讬爪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 砖讜讞拽讜转 讜诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛


As for the issue itself, Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav 岣sda said: This baraita that clarifies the measure of half a peras is in accordance with the statements of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, a measure that is identical to that of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. But the Rabbis say: One and one half large egg-bulks. And who are these Rabbis? Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.


驻砖讬讟讗 砖讜讞拽讜转 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉


The Gemara registers surprise: This is obvious, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka maintains that half a loaf is three egg-bulks, half of which is an egg-bulk and one half. The Gemara explains: The novel aspect of this teaching is not the amount itself; rather, he came to teach us that the measurement is performed with large eggs.


讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 砖讬讙专 讘讜谞讬讜住 诇专讘讬 诪讜讚讬讗 讚拽讜谞讚讬住 讚诪谉 谞讗讜住讗 讜砖讬注专 专讘讬 诪讗转谉 讜砖讘注 注砖专讛 讘讬注讬谉


The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: A person named Bonyos sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a measure [modya] of a se鈥檃 from a place called Na鈥檜sa, where they had a tradition that it was an ancient and accurate measure (Ritva). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi measured it and found it contained 217 eggs.


讛讗 住讗讛 讚讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讚诪讚讘专讬转 诪讗讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讛讜讬讗


The Gemara asks: This se鈥檃, from where is it, i.e., on what measure is it based? If it is based on the wilderness se鈥檃, the standard measure used by Moses in the wilderness, which is the basis for all the Torah鈥檚 measurements of volume, the difficulty is that a se鈥檃 is composed of six kav, where each kav is equivalent to four log and each log is equivalent to six egg-bulks. This means that a se鈥檃 is equivalent to a total of 144 egg-bulks.


讜讗讬 讚讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖诇砖 讛讜讬讗


And if it is the Jerusalem se鈥檃, then the se鈥檃 is only 173 egg-bulks, as they enlarged the measures in Jerusalem by adding a fifth to the measures of the wilderness.


讜讗讬 讚爪讬驻讜专讬转 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖讘注 讛讜讬讬谉


And if it is a se鈥檃 of Tzippori, as the measures were once again increased in Tzippori, where another fifth was added to the Jerusalem measure, the se鈥檃 is 207 egg-bulks. The se鈥檃 measured by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not correspond to any of these measures of a se鈥檃.


诇注讜诇诐 讚爪讬驻讜专讬转 讗讬讬转讬 讞诇转讗 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


The Gemara answers: Actually, this measure is based on the se鈥檃 of Tzippori, but you must bring the amount of the 岣lla given to a priest, and add it to them. That is to say, although this measure is slightly larger than a se鈥檃, if it is used for flour and you deduct the amount due as 岣lla, you are left with exactly one se鈥檃, or 207 egg-bulks.


讞诇转讗 讻诪讛 讛讜讬讬谉 转诪谞讬 讗讻转讬 讘爪专 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: The amount of 岣lla, how many egg-bulks is it? Approximately eight egg-bulks, one-twenty-fourth of 207. Yet in that case, it remains less than 217 egg-bulks, for even if we were to add another eight egg-bulks for 岣lla to the 207 egg-bulks, we would have only 215 egg-bulks, almost 216 to be more precise, which is still less than 217.


讗诇讗 讗讬讬转讬 讜注讜讚讜转 讚专讘讬 砖讚讬 注诇讬讬讛讜


Rather, you must bring the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the little more he included in his measure, and add these to them. In Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 calculations, he did not factor in the 岣lla that had to be separated. Instead, the egg-bulks he used to measure the se鈥檃 were small egg-bulks. Consequently, one-twentieth of an egg-bulk must be added for each egg-bulk. Since one-twentieth of 207 egg-bulks is roughly ten, the total amount equals 217 egg-bulks.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讟驻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讘讬爪讛 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, it is still slightly more than 217 egg-bulks, by seven-twentieths of an egg-bulk, to be precise. The Gemara answers: Since it is not more than 217 egg-bulks by a whole egg, he did not count it.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讗讛 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖转讜转 讜砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖转讜转 谞诪爪讗转 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬转 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖诇讬砖


The Sages taught in a baraita: A Jerusalem se鈥檃 is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by one-sixth, and that of Tzippori is larger than a Jerusalem se鈥檃 by one-sixth. Consequently, a se鈥檃 of Tzippori is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by one-third.


砖诇讬砖 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诇讬砖 讚诪讚讘专讬转 诪讻讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讚诪讚讘专讬转 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖讬转讬谉 讜转诇转


The Gemara inquires: One-third of which measurement? If you say it means one-third of a wilderness se鈥檃, now you must consider: One-third of a wilderness se鈥檃, how much is it? Forty-eight egg-bulks, and yet the difference between the wilderness se鈥檃 and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three egg-bulks. As stated above, a Tzippori se鈥檃 is 207 egg-bulks, whereas a wilderness se鈥檃 is only 144 egg-bulks.


讜讗诇讗 砖诇讬砖 讚讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖诇讬砖 讚讬讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讞诪砖讬谉 讜转诪谞讬讗 谞讻讬 转讬诇转讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖转讬谉 讜转诇转 讜讗诇讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 砖诇讬砖 讚讬讚讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 砖讘注讬谉 谞讻讬 讞讚讗 讜讗讬诇讜 注讜讚驻讗 砖砖讬诐 讜砖诇砖


But rather, this one-third mentioned in the baraita is referring to one-third of a Jerusalem se鈥檃, which is 173 egg-bulks, as stated above. The Gemara again examines the calculation: One-third of that se鈥檃, how much is it? Fifty-eight less one-third, and yet the difference between the wilderness and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three. Rather, you must say that it is referring to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃. One-third of that se鈥檃, how much is it? Seventy less one-third, and yet the difference between the wilderness se鈥檃 and the Tzippori se鈥檃 is sixty-three egg-bulks. The difference between the measures is not exactly one-third according to any of the known se鈥檃 measurements.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 住讗讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讚讘专讬转 拽专讜讘 诇砖诇讬砖 砖诇讛 讜砖诇讬砖 砖诇讛 拽专讜讘 诇诪讞爪讛 讚诪讚讘专讬转


Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya said that this is what the tanna is saying: Consequently, a se鈥檃 of Tzippori is larger than a wilderness se鈥檃 by sixty-three egg-bulks, which is close to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 of sixty-nine egg-bulks. And one-third of it, sixty-nine egg-bulks, is close to half of a wilderness se鈥檃 of seventy-two egg-bulks.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 拽专讜讘 拽专讜讘 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 砖诇讬砖 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讘讜注讜讚讬讜转 砖诇 专讘讬 讬转讬专讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖诇 诪讚讘专讬转 砖诇讬砖 讘讬爪讛


Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya: Does the baraita state either: Close to one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 or: Close to half of a wilderness se鈥檃? The wording of the baraita indicates an exact amount. Rather, Ravina said that this is what the tanna is saying: Consequently, one-third of a Tzippori se鈥檃 together with the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is greater than half of a wilderness se鈥檃 of seventy-two egg-bulks by only one-third of an egg. In other words, a Tzippori se鈥檃 of 207 egg-bulks added to the excess amounts of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi of one-twentieth of an egg-bulk for each egg-bulk amounts to a total of 217 egg-bulks, one-third of which is seventy-two and one-third egg-bulks.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗砖讬转 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐


Our Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall set apart a cake of the first of your dough as a gift; like the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart鈥 (Numbers 15:20).


讻讚讬 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讜讻诪讛 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讻讚讬 注讬住转 讛诪讚讘专 讜讻诪讛 注讬住转 讛诪讚讘专


What is the quantity of dough from which 岣lla must be separated? The amount of 鈥測our dough.鈥 And how much is 鈥測our dough鈥? This amount is left unspecified by the verse. The Gemara answers: It is as the amount of the dough of the wilderness. The Gemara again asks: And how much is the dough of the wilderness?


讚讻转讬讘 讜讛注讜诪专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讛讜讗 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 砖讘注讛 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 砖讛谉 砖砖讛 砖诇 讬专讜砖诇诪讬转 砖讛谉 讞诪砖讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬


The Gemara responds: The Torah states that the manna, the dough of the wilderness, was 鈥渁n omer a head鈥 (Exodus 16:16). A later verse elaborates on that measure, as it is written: 鈥淎nd an omer is the tenth part of an eifa (Exodus 16:36). An eifa is three se鈥檃, which are eighteen kav or seventy-two log. An omer is one-tenth of this measure. From here, this calculation, Sages said that dough prepared from seven quarters of a kav of flour and more is obligated in 岣lla. This is equal to six quarter-kav of the Jerusalem measure, which is five quarter-kav of the Tzippori measure.


诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讗讜讻诇 讻诪讚讛 讝讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘专讬讗 讜诪讘讜专讱 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 专注讘转谉 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪拽讜诇拽诇 讘诪注讬讜:


From here the Sages also said: One who eats roughly this amount each day, is healthy, as he is able to eat a proper meal; and he is also blessed, as he is not a glutton who requires more. One who eats more than this is a glutton, while one who eats less than this has damaged bowels and must see to his health.


诪转谞讬壮 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讻诇 砖讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


MISHNA: If both the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything in the courtyard that is ten handbreadths high, e.g., a mound or a post, is part of the balcony. The residents of the apartments open to the balcony may transfer objects to and from their apartments onto the mound or post. Any post or mound that is lower than this height is part of the courtyard.


讞讜诇讬讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 讙讘讜讛讬诐 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


A similar halakha applies to an embankment that surrounds a cistern or a rock: If the embankments that surround a cistern or rock are ten handbreadths high, they belong to the balcony; if they are lower than this, they may be used only by the inhabitants of the courtyard.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讞爪专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 住诪讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 专讞讜拽讛 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐:


In what case are these matters, the halakha that anything higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the balcony, stated? When the mound or embankment is near the balcony. But in a case where the embankment or mound is distant from it, even if it is ten handbreadths high, the right to use the embankment or mound goes to the members of the courtyard. And what is considered near? Anything that is not four handbreadths removed from the balcony.


讙诪壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讛讬讬谞讜 讞诇讜谉 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the residents of two courtyards established separate eiruvin, and the residents of both courtyards have convenient access to a certain area, the residents of this courtyard through an entrance, and the residents of that courtyard through another entrance, this is similar to the case of a window between two courtyards. If the residents did not establish a joint eiruv, the use of this window is prohibited to the residents of both courtyards.


诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讞专讬抓 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转


It is similarly obvious that if a place can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by throwing an object onto it and by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing, but it cannot be conveniently used by either set of residents, then this is equivalent to the case of a wall between two courtyards. If there is a wall between two courtyards, it may not be used by either courtyard. Likewise, if a place can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of that courtyard by a similar act of lowering, this is comparable to the halakha of a ditch between two courtyards, which may not be used by the residents of either courtyard.


诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉


It is likewise obvious that in a place that can be conveniently used by the residents of this courtyard through an entrance but can be used by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing an object onto it, this is governed by the ruling of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said that Rav Na岣an said: This place may be used only by those who have access to the area by way of an entrance. Likewise, a place that can be conveniently used by the residents of this courtyard through an entrance but can be used by the residents of that courtyard only by lowering an object down to it, this is governed by the ruling of Rav Sheizvi, who said that Rav Na岣an said: This place may be used only by those who have convenient access to it.


诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讗讬


The ruling in each of the aforementioned cases is clear. What is the halakha concerning a place that can be used by the residents of this courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of that courtyard only by throwing an object on top of it? In other words, if an area is lower than one courtyard but higher than the other, so that neither set of residents has convenient access to it, which of them is entitled to use it?


讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖讘砖诇砖讜诇 砖诇讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 转砖诪讬砖讜 讘拽砖讛 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 诇讝讛 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 讘拽砖讛 谞讜转谞讬诐 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转


Rav said: It is prohibited for both sets of residents to use it. As the use of the area is equally inconvenient to the residents of both courtyards, they retain equal rights to it and render it prohibited for the other group to use. And Shmuel said: The use of the area is granted to those who can reach it by lowering, as it is relatively easy for them to lower objects to it, and therefore its use is more convenient; whereas for the others, who must throw onto it, its use is more demanding. And there is a principle concerning Shabbat: Anything whose use is convenient for one party and more demanding for another party, one provides it to that one whose use of it is convenient.


转谞谉 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 诪专驻住转 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讻诇 砖讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专


In order to decide between these two opinions, the Gemara attempts to adduce a proof from the mishna: If the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything in the courtyard that is ten handbreadths high belongs to the balcony, while anything that is less than this height belongs to the courtyard.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗讬 诪专驻住转


The Gemara first explains: It might have entered your mind to say: What is the meaning of the balcony mentioned in the mishna?

Scroll To Top