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

Daf Yomi

November 8, 2020 | 讻状讗 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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 91

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, HaRav Yaakov Zvi ben David Aryeh, zt鈥漧 who passed away yesterday. His teachings of Torah and human values will be shared and valued for generations. May his memory be blessed and may his family be comforted among the mourners of Zion.

Rav Yehuda delves into the opinions of Rabbi Meir, the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon and explains what there would hold about carrying from the various areas to each other – like roof to courtyard to enclosure. The gemara brings a proof to support Rav’s view of the rabbis that one can only carry four cubits on the roof if it is adjacent to another. Rav disagrees with Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan regarding whether Rabbi Shimon allows carrying between areas even in a case where the courtyard residents made a eruv or only in a case where no eruv was made? The gemara brings questions against each of the opinions.

拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讙讬谉 讜讞爪讬专讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


Similarly, enclosures are a domain in and of themselves, and one is therefore permitted to carry from one enclosure to another. According to the statement of the Rabbis, roofs and courtyards constitute one domain, and therefore, one may carry even from a roof to a courtyard; however, enclosures are one discrete domain. According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, all of them, roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, are one domain, and therefore it is permitted to carry between any of them.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讙讙讜转 讛注讬专 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 讜诇讛讜专讬讚 诪谉 讛讙讙讬谉 诇讞爪专 讜诪谉 讛讞爪专 诇讙讙讬谉 讜讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘讞爪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讞爪专 讘讙讙讬谉 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讙讙讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注


The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara elaborates. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that according to the Rabbis one may carry only four cubits on each roof: All the roofs of a city are one domain, and it is prohibited to carry objects up or carry them down, from the roofs to the courtyard or from the courtyard to the roofs. And with regard to vessels that were inside a courtyard when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them in the courtyard even if an eiruv was not established, and it is likewise permitted to carry them from that courtyard to other courtyards. With regard to vessels that were on the roofs when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them on the roofs, provided that one roof is neither ten handbreadths higher nor ten handbreadths lower than the other. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself, and one may move objects on each roof only within four cubits.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛讬讬谞讜 诇讜诪讚讬诐 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘转拽讜注 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讗诇讜谞讟讬转 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 讜诪讙讙 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇拽专驻祝 讜诪拽专驻祝 诇拽专驻祝 讗讞专 注讚 砖讛讬讬谞讜 诪讙讬注讬谉 讗爪诇 讛诪注讬讬谉 砖讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讜


Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 转讜专讛 诪讞爪专 诇讙讙 讜诪讙讙 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇拽专驻祝 诇拽专讜转 讘讜


And similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when decrees were issued that banned religious observance, and we would carry a Torah scroll from courtyard to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, to read from it.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 专讗讬讛:


The Sages said to him: The halakha cannot be determined from that incident, as an incident occurring during a time of danger is no proof. At a time of danger it is permitted to carry even in places where carrying is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic law.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讬谉 讜讻讜壮:


Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began, and one may therefore carry from one of these areas to the other. However, they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 讚讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, provided that the residents of each courtyard did not establish a separate eiruv for themselves, as in that case they may not move objects from their houses into the courtyard. However, if they established a separate eiruv for each courtyard, without establishing an eiruv between the various courtyards, no, that is not the halakha, as we issue a decree lest one come to take out vessels from one of the houses to the courtyard, an action that is fundamentally permitted, and subsequently proceed to carry them out to a different courtyard with which an eiruv had not been established, which everyone agrees is prohibited.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 诇讞砖讱 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, whether they established an eiruv or whether they did not establish an eiruv. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Who whispered to you, who told you that there is a difference whether they established an eiruv or whether they did not establish an eiruv?


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讗诪专讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讝讛 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this ruling. According to Shmuel and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, people will say with regard to two vessels located in the same courtyard, one of which was in the courtyard when Shabbat began while the other was in the house, that moving this one, which was in the courtyard at the start of Shabbat, to another courtyard is permitted, while moving that one, which was in the house at the start of Shabbat, to another courtyard, is prohibited.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讙讝专 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讘讜 砖转讬 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讝讜 注诐 讝讜


The Gemara answers: In this regard, Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard reasoning, as he did not issue a decree due to these concerns. As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to three courtyards that are open into each other, and that are also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards each established an eiruv with the middle one, it is permitted for the residents of the middle one to carry into the two outer ones, and they, the residents of the two outer ones, are permitted to carry into it, but for the residents of the two outer courtyards it is prohibited to carry into each other, as they did not establish an eiruv together.


讜诇讗 讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞爪专 诇讛讗 讞爪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


And in that case Rabbi Shimon did not issue a decree prohibiting one to carry objects from the middle courtyard to one of the outer ones lest one come to take out vessels from this outer courtyard to that outer courtyard, despite the fact that both sets of vessels are located in the middle courtyard. Here too, we do not issue a decree lest one come to take out utensils from one of the houses to the courtyard, and carry them to a different courtyard.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚注讬专讘讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专


Rav Sheshet raised an objection. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began. But they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began. Granted, if you say that it is dealing with a case where the residents of the courtyards established an eiruv, that is how you find vessels that were taken from the house in the courtyard. Because those vessels were in the house at the beginning of Shabbat, they may not be moved to a different courtyard.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘讻讜诪转讗 讜住讜讚专讗


However, if you say it is referring to a case where they did not establish an eiruv, under what circumstances can the case of vessels from the house in the courtyard be found? This poses a difficulty for Rav. Rav Sheshet raised the objection, and he resolved it: It refers to the case of a hat or a shawl, which one wore in the house and subsequently went out to the courtyard and placed it there. In this manner, it is possible that objects taken from the house can be found in the courtyard, even if an eiruv was not established.


转讗 砖诪注 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 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讘讜 讗诇讜 诇注爪诪谉 讜讗诇讜 诇注爪诪谉 讗讜 砖诇 讬讞讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘


Come and hear proof from a baraita: With regard to the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of upper stories that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard, who forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything ten handbreadths high in the courtyard, e.g., a mound or a pillar, is attributed to the balcony in terms of its use on Shabbat. The residents of the balcony may move objects between the mound or pillar and their apartments. Anything lower than that is attributed to the courtyard. In what case is this statement, that it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry to the balcony and vice versa, stated? It is in a case where the residents of the courtyard were many, and the residents of the balcony were many, and these established an eiruv for themselves, and those established an eiruv for themselves; or if the courtyard and the balcony were occupied by individuals who need not establish an eiruv for themselves.


讗讘诇 讛讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讙讙 讜讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


However, if the residents of the courtyard and the balcony were many, and they forgot and did not establish an eiruv for their courtyard or balcony, in that case roof, and courtyard, and portico, and balcony are all one domain, and it is permitted to carry from one to another any vessels that were located in any one of them when Shabbat began.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara infers: The reason that carrying between them is permitted is that they did not each establish their own eiruv; however, if they each established their own eiruv, no, it is prohibited to carry between them. This inference supports Rav and poses a difficulty for Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is represented by this baraita? It is that of the Rabbis, who maintain that roofs and courtyards form a single domain, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Rabbis indeed issued a decree that carrying is prohibited if each group established a separate eiruv.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 拽专驻祝 讜诪讘讜讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it is not teaching the cases of an enclosure and an alleyway, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but only the cases of a roof and a courtyard, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the correct understanding.


转讗 砖诪注 讞诪砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞讜 讻讜诇诐 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗住讜专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讞爪专 诇诪讘讜讬 讜诪谉 讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪专 讜讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘讞爪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讞爪专 讜讘诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


Come and hear from another baraita: With regard to five courtyards that are open to each other and are also open to an alleyway, and the residents of all the courtyards forgot and did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry in or carry out, from a courtyard to the alleyway or from the alleyway to a courtyard. And with regard to vessels that were in the courtyard when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them in the courtyard, but in the alleyway it is prohibited to carry them.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讙讙 讜讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讜拽专驻祝 讜诪讘讜讬 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so, as Rabbi Shimon would say: Whenever the courtyards are in the possession of many people, and they forgot and did not establish an eiruv, the roof, and courtyard, and portico, and balcony, and enclosure, and alleyway are all one domain. These areas are all classified as private domains, and therefore, it is permitted to carry from one to the other.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 讞爪专 讜讘转讬诐 注讬专讘讜


The Gemara infers: The reason that carrying between them is permitted is that they did not each establish their own eiruv; however, if they each established their own eiruv, no, it is prohibited to carry between them. This inference supports Rav and poses a difficulty for Shmuel. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: They did not establish an eiruv? It means that the residents of the courtyards did not establish an eiruv with each other; however, the residents of each courtyard established an eiruv with the residents of the houses inside it, and it is nevertheless permitted to carry between them, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


讜讛讗 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜


The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn鈥檛 the baraita state: They did not establish an eiruv, indicating that they did not establish any eiruv at all, either with the residents of the other courtyard or within each courtyard? The Gemara rejects this argument. What is the meaning of: They did not establish an eiruv? It means that they did not merge the courtyards facing the alleyway.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 注讬专讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛讬讗


And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Shimon is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own opinion, not enumerating the leniencies inherent in his own ruling. His statement should therefore be understood as follows: According to my own opinion, there is no difference if they established an eiruv and there is no difference if they did not establish an eiruv. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case where they did not establish an eiruv it is all considered one domain.


讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讛谉


And the Rabbis said to him: No, although we agree with you in the cases of a roof, courtyard, portico, and balcony, in the cases of an enclosure and an alleyway we disagree, as they are two domains and therefore it is prohibited to carry from one to the other.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讘诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


The Master said above in the baraita: Vessels that were in a courtyard at the start of Shabbat may be carried within the courtyard, but in the alleyway it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this supports that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: In an alleyway in which they did not merge the courtyards facing it, one may carry only within four cubits. The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Say that the baraita means: But to an alleyway it is prohibited, i.e., it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard to the alleyway; however, within the alleyway itself it is permitted to carry.


讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. If so, that is identical to the first clause of the baraita. The tanna would not have taught the very same thing twice. The Gemara answers: The apparently superfluous teaching was necessary, lest you say: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon, it is only in a case where they established an eiruv, but in a case where they did not establish an eiruv, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir that it is all considered one domain and carrying is permitted. The baraita therefore teaches us that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon in both cases, as they prohibit carrying in the alleyway even if the residents did not establish an eiruv.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬


Ravina said to Rav Ashi:


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 Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 87-93 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a ledge over water and how one can draw water from it. We will...
alon shvut women

Understanding Rebbi Shimon

Eruvin Daf 91 Today's daf starts with a summary review of all opinions in the mishna by Rav Yehuda (actually...

Eruvin 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 91

拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讙讬谉 讜讞爪讬专讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


Similarly, enclosures are a domain in and of themselves, and one is therefore permitted to carry from one enclosure to another. According to the statement of the Rabbis, roofs and courtyards constitute one domain, and therefore, one may carry even from a roof to a courtyard; however, enclosures are one discrete domain. According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, all of them, roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, are one domain, and therefore it is permitted to carry between any of them.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讻诇 讙讙讜转 讛注讬专 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 讜讗住讜专 诇讛注诇讜转 讜诇讛讜专讬讚 诪谉 讛讙讙讬谉 诇讞爪专 讜诪谉 讛讞爪专 诇讙讙讬谉 讜讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘讞爪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讞爪专 讘讙讙讬谉 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讙讙讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注


The Gemara comments: A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda. The Gemara elaborates. A baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that according to the Rabbis one may carry only four cubits on each roof: All the roofs of a city are one domain, and it is prohibited to carry objects up or carry them down, from the roofs to the courtyard or from the courtyard to the roofs. And with regard to vessels that were inside a courtyard when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them in the courtyard even if an eiruv was not established, and it is likewise permitted to carry them from that courtyard to other courtyards. With regard to vessels that were on the roofs when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them on the roofs, provided that one roof is neither ten handbreadths higher nor ten handbreadths lower than the other. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself, and one may move objects on each roof only within four cubits.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻砖讛讬讬谞讜 诇讜诪讚讬诐 转讜专讛 讗爪诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘转拽讜注 讛讬讬谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讗诇讜谞讟讬转 诪讙讙 诇讙讙 讜诪讙讙 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇拽专驻祝 讜诪拽专驻祝 诇拽专驻祝 讗讞专 注讚 砖讛讬讬谞讜 诪讙讬注讬谉 讗爪诇 讛诪注讬讬谉 砖讛讬讬谞讜 专讜讞爪讬谉 讘讜


Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诪注诇讬谉 转讜专讛 诪讞爪专 诇讙讙 讜诪讙讙 诇讞爪专 讜诪讞爪专 诇拽专驻祝 诇拽专讜转 讘讜


And similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when decrees were issued that banned religious observance, and we would carry a Torah scroll from courtyard to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, to read from it.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 专讗讬讛:


The Sages said to him: The halakha cannot be determined from that incident, as an incident occurring during a time of danger is no proof. At a time of danger it is permitted to carry even in places where carrying is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic law.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讬谉 讜讻讜壮:


Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began, and one may therefore carry from one of these areas to the other. However, they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 讚讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, provided that the residents of each courtyard did not establish a separate eiruv for themselves, as in that case they may not move objects from their houses into the courtyard. However, if they established a separate eiruv for each courtyard, without establishing an eiruv between the various courtyards, no, that is not the halakha, as we issue a decree lest one come to take out vessels from one of the houses to the courtyard, an action that is fundamentally permitted, and subsequently proceed to carry them out to a different courtyard with which an eiruv had not been established, which everyone agrees is prohibited.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 诇讞砖讱 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜


And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, whether they established an eiruv or whether they did not establish an eiruv. And similarly, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Who whispered to you, who told you that there is a difference whether they established an eiruv or whether they did not establish an eiruv?


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬讗诪专讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗讞转 讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讝讛 讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda strongly objects to this ruling. According to Shmuel and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, people will say with regard to two vessels located in the same courtyard, one of which was in the courtyard when Shabbat began while the other was in the house, that moving this one, which was in the courtyard at the start of Shabbat, to another courtyard is permitted, while moving that one, which was in the house at the start of Shabbat, to another courtyard, is prohibited.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讙讝专 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讘讜 砖转讬 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 注诐 讛讗诪爪注讬转 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 注诪讛谉 讜讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 注诪讛 讜砖转讬 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讝讜 注诐 讝讜


The Gemara answers: In this regard, Rabbi Shimon conforms to his standard reasoning, as he did not issue a decree due to these concerns. As we learned in a mishna, Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to three courtyards that are open into each other, and that are also open into a public domain. If the two outer courtyards each established an eiruv with the middle one, it is permitted for the residents of the middle one to carry into the two outer ones, and they, the residents of the two outer ones, are permitted to carry into it, but for the residents of the two outer courtyards it is prohibited to carry into each other, as they did not establish an eiruv together.


讜诇讗 讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞爪专 诇讛讗 讞爪专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞爪专


And in that case Rabbi Shimon did not issue a decree prohibiting one to carry objects from the middle courtyard to one of the outer ones lest one come to take out vessels from this outer courtyard to that outer courtyard, despite the fact that both sets of vessels are located in the middle courtyard. Here too, we do not issue a decree lest one come to take out utensils from one of the houses to the courtyard, and carry them to a different courtyard.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚注讬专讘讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专


Rav Sheshet raised an objection. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began. But they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began. Granted, if you say that it is dealing with a case where the residents of the courtyards established an eiruv, that is how you find vessels that were taken from the house in the courtyard. Because those vessels were in the house at the beginning of Shabbat, they may not be moved to a different courtyard.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘讻讜诪转讗 讜住讜讚专讗


However, if you say it is referring to a case where they did not establish an eiruv, under what circumstances can the case of vessels from the house in the courtyard be found? This poses a difficulty for Rav. Rav Sheshet raised the objection, and he resolved it: It refers to the case of a hat or a shawl, which one wore in the house and subsequently went out to the courtyard and placed it there. In this manner, it is possible that objects taken from the house can be found in the courtyard, even if an eiruv was not established.


转讗 砖诪注 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 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜讗诇讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜注讬专讘讜 讗诇讜 诇注爪诪谉 讜讗诇讜 诇注爪诪谉 讗讜 砖诇 讬讞讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇注专讘


Come and hear proof from a baraita: With regard to the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of upper stories that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard, who forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything ten handbreadths high in the courtyard, e.g., a mound or a pillar, is attributed to the balcony in terms of its use on Shabbat. The residents of the balcony may move objects between the mound or pillar and their apartments. Anything lower than that is attributed to the courtyard. In what case is this statement, that it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry to the balcony and vice versa, stated? It is in a case where the residents of the courtyard were many, and the residents of the balcony were many, and these established an eiruv for themselves, and those established an eiruv for themselves; or if the courtyard and the balcony were occupied by individuals who need not establish an eiruv for themselves.


讗讘诇 讛讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讙讙 讜讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


However, if the residents of the courtyard and the balcony were many, and they forgot and did not establish an eiruv for their courtyard or balcony, in that case roof, and courtyard, and portico, and balcony are all one domain, and it is permitted to carry from one to another any vessels that were located in any one of them when Shabbat began.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara infers: The reason that carrying between them is permitted is that they did not each establish their own eiruv; however, if they each established their own eiruv, no, it is prohibited to carry between them. This inference supports Rav and poses a difficulty for Shmuel. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is represented by this baraita? It is that of the Rabbis, who maintain that roofs and courtyards form a single domain, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Rabbis indeed issued a decree that carrying is prohibited if each group established a separate eiruv.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 拽专驻祝 讜诪讘讜讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it is not teaching the cases of an enclosure and an alleyway, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, but only the cases of a roof and a courtyard, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the correct understanding.


转讗 砖诪注 讞诪砖 讞爪讬专讜转 讛驻转讜讞讜转 讝讜 诇讝讜 讜驻转讜讞讜转 诇诪讘讜讬 讜砖讻讞讜 讻讜诇诐 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗住讜专 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讞爪专 诇诪讘讜讬 讜诪谉 讛诪讘讜讬 诇讞爪专 讜讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘讞爪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘讞爪专 讜讘诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


Come and hear from another baraita: With regard to five courtyards that are open to each other and are also open to an alleyway, and the residents of all the courtyards forgot and did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry in or carry out, from a courtyard to the alleyway or from the alleyway to a courtyard. And with regard to vessels that were in the courtyard when Shabbat began, it is permitted to carry them in the courtyard, but in the alleyway it is prohibited to carry them.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讙讙 讜讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 讜诪专驻住转 讜拽专驻祝 讜诪讘讜讬 讻讜诇谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉


And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so, as Rabbi Shimon would say: Whenever the courtyards are in the possession of many people, and they forgot and did not establish an eiruv, the roof, and courtyard, and portico, and balcony, and enclosure, and alleyway are all one domain. These areas are all classified as private domains, and therefore, it is permitted to carry from one to the other.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讞爪讬专讜转 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 讞爪专 讜讘转讬诐 注讬专讘讜


The Gemara infers: The reason that carrying between them is permitted is that they did not each establish their own eiruv; however, if they each established their own eiruv, no, it is prohibited to carry between them. This inference supports Rav and poses a difficulty for Shmuel. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase: They did not establish an eiruv? It means that the residents of the courtyards did not establish an eiruv with each other; however, the residents of each courtyard established an eiruv with the residents of the houses inside it, and it is nevertheless permitted to carry between them, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


讜讛讗 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜


The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn鈥檛 the baraita state: They did not establish an eiruv, indicating that they did not establish any eiruv at all, either with the residents of the other courtyard or within each courtyard? The Gemara rejects this argument. What is the meaning of: They did not establish an eiruv? It means that they did not merge the courtyards facing the alleyway.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 注讬专讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛讬讗


And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Shimon is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own opinion, not enumerating the leniencies inherent in his own ruling. His statement should therefore be understood as follows: According to my own opinion, there is no difference if they established an eiruv and there is no difference if they did not establish an eiruv. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case where they did not establish an eiruv it is all considered one domain.


讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讛谉


And the Rabbis said to him: No, although we agree with you in the cases of a roof, courtyard, portico, and balcony, in the cases of an enclosure and an alleyway we disagree, as they are two domains and therefore it is prohibited to carry from one to the other.


讗诪专 诪专 讜讘诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


The Master said above in the baraita: Vessels that were in a courtyard at the start of Shabbat may be carried within the courtyard, but in the alleyway it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this supports that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: In an alleyway in which they did not merge the courtyards facing it, one may carry only within four cubits. The Gemara rejects this suggestion. Say that the baraita means: But to an alleyway it is prohibited, i.e., it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard to the alleyway; however, within the alleyway itself it is permitted to carry.


讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 诪砖谞讛 讬转讬专讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. If so, that is identical to the first clause of the baraita. The tanna would not have taught the very same thing twice. The Gemara answers: The apparently superfluous teaching was necessary, lest you say: When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon, it is only in a case where they established an eiruv, but in a case where they did not establish an eiruv, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir that it is all considered one domain and carrying is permitted. The baraita therefore teaches us that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon in both cases, as they prohibit carrying in the alleyway even if the residents did not establish an eiruv.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬


Ravina said to Rav Ashi:


Scroll To Top