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

Daf Yomi

November 10, 2020 | 讻状讙 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.

Eruvin 93

Abaye disagrees with those who said that the larger courtyard absorbs the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard as how can there be a barrier that connects rather than separates and therefore forbids (like planting near a vineyard? Various rabbis try to show Abaye that walls can connect/forbid in various situations but each time Abaye responds that the case isn’t comparable. Rav Yehuda brings a case of encampments in large spaces shared like the courtyards discussed (walls seen from one side but not the other) – they are viewed as one whole unit if the outer ones can see walls when going into the inner one for the same logic as stated before that the larger courtyard absorbs the inhabitants of the smaller. Rav Chisda and Rav Mesharshia disagree about whether an embankment of 5 handbreadths can join with a wall of 5 and be considered a proper wall for laws of courtyards. A bratia is brought against Rav Chisda and three answers are brought. If the situation changes on Shabbat and a wall between courtyards is breached, does this prevent the inhabitants from carrying as they are now viewed as one whole, or can they rely on the fact that when Shabbat started, they were permitted and therefore also now. Can we learn the answer from our mishna?

住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖讬专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 驻爪讬诪讬讛 驻住讜诇讛


If one placed roofing on top of a portico that has doorposts, i.e., a portico with two parallel walls that are valid for a sukka, as well as posts in the corners supporting the portico and protruding like doorposts, which are considered as sealing the other two sides of the portico, it is a valid sukka. However, if he evened the doorposts by constructing walls adjacent to the existing walls, obscuring the posts so that they do not protrude, the sukka is invalid. This teaching indicates that the creation of a partition can cause prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讻砖讬专讛 诇讚讬讚讱 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讬讗


Abaye said to him: In my opinion, with regard to that case of a portico, the sukka is valid. However, even according to your opinion, this is another instance of the removal of partitions. Evening the doorposts does not render the sukka invalid through the establishment of new partitions, but because it negates the original partitions of the sukka.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讞爪讬讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讙驻谞讬诐 讻讗谉 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜注 讻讗谉


Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find that a partition causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a house, half of which is roofed and half unroofed, if there are vines here, under the roofed section of the house, it is permitted to sow crops there, in the open section. The reason is that it is as though the edge of the roof descends to the ground and forms a partition between the two sections of the house.


讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 讗转 拽专讜讬讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讜讗


And if he evened its roofing, by extending the roof to cover the entire house, it would be prohibited to sow other crops there. It is evident that the very placement of a partition, in this case a roof, causes prohibition. Abaye said to him: There too it is an instance of the removal of partitions. It is prohibited to sow not due to the added roofing; rather, it is prohibited due to the negation of the imaginary partition.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讘讬讚 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝注讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讝讜专注 诪注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛拽诇


Rava sent a different proof to Abaye by means of Rav Shemaya bar Ze鈥檈ira, with regard to the same issue. And didn鈥檛 we find a partition causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There is an element in the partitions of a vineyard that causes leniency with regard to diverse kinds of seeds and an element that causes stringency. How so? With regard to a vineyard that is planted until the very base of a partition, one sows crops from the base of the other side of the partition onward. This is a leniency, as were there no partition there, he would be required to distance himself four cubits from the last vine and only then sow there. And this is an element in partitions of a vineyard that causes leniency.


讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 诪砖讜讱 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 砖讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讝讜讛讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛讞诪讬专


And as for an element in partitions that causes stringency, how so? If the vineyard was distanced eleven cubits from a wall, one may not bring the seeds of other crops there, between the vineyard and the wall, and sow that area. This is a stringency, as were there no partition, it would suffice to distance himself four cubits from the last vine, and sow there. This is an element of partitions in a vineyard that causes stringency, a clear situation of a partition that causes prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讜转讘谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛


Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning that this presents a difficulty, raise an objection against our opinion from a mishna, rather than a less authoritative baraita, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clearing in a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Its measure is twenty-four cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Sixteen cubits. With regard to the perimeter of a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Sixteen cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Twelve cubits.


讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讻专诐 砖讞专讘 讗诪爪注讬转讜 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna explains: And what is a clearing in a vineyard? It is referring to a vineyard whose middle section was laid bare of vines. If there are not sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there, due to the Torah prohibition against sowing other crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9). If there were sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, i.e., four cubits along either side of the vines are left unsown to facilitate cultivation of the vines, and he sows the rest of the cleared area with foreign crops.


讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬谉 讛讻专诐 诇讙讚专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna continues: What is the perimeter of a vineyard? It is the vacant area between the vineyard and the fence surrounding it. If there are not twelve cubits in that area, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there. If there are twelve cubits in that area, he provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, four cubits, and he sows the rest. However, were the vineyard not surrounded by a fence, all he would need to do is distance himself four cubits from the last vine. It is clear from this halakha that the partition causes prohibition.


讗诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讙讘讬 讻专诐 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 诇讙讘讬 讙讚专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讝讚专注谉 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讞砖讬讘谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘谉


Rather, the objection was not raised from there because there, isn鈥檛 this the reason that the partition is not considered to cause prohibition? It is because the entire area of four cubits alongside a vineyard is considered the vineyard鈥檚 work area, and is therefore an actual part of it. Likewise, with regard to the four cubits alongside the fence surrounding the vineyard, since they cannot easily be sown due to the wall, he renounces ownership over the area. With regard to the space in between, if it is four cubits, it is deemed significant in its own right, and if not, it is not significant and is nullified relative to the rest, and it is prohibited to sow there. A similar reasoning applies to the baraita. The stringency is not due to the fact that the partition causes prohibition, but because the partition impedes cultivation of the vineyard.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 诪讙讜驻驻讬诐 讜讛讗诪爪注讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讙讜驻祝 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 谞注砖讛 讻砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜讚讗讬


Rav Yehuda said: If there are three enclosures alongside one another, and the two outer ones protrude, i.e., they are wider than the middle one, so that there are partitions on both sides of the breach between them and the middle enclosure, and the middle one does not protrude, and there are no partitions between it and the outer enclosures, as it is totally breached, and there is one person in this one and one person in that one and yet another person in the third enclosure, the people in the enclosures are considered as though they are all living in one large enclosure. Consequently, the legal status of the group becomes like that of a caravan, and one provides them with all the space that they require. In other words, they may use the entire enclosure even if it is very large, just as there are no limits to the size of the enclosed area in which members of a caravan may carry.


讗诪爪注讬 诪讙讜驻祝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讙讜驻驻讬谉 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讝讛 [讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛] 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖砖


However, if the middle enclosure protruded, and the two outer ones did not protrude, i.e., they were narrower than the middle enclosure, so that their entire width was breached into it, and there is one person in this one and one person in that one and yet another in the third, one provides them only an area of six beit se鈥檃, in accordance with the halakha of individuals in a field, who may enclose an area of only two beit se鈥檃 per person. As the middle enclosure is larger than the two outer ones, it determines their status, in accordance with the principle stated above, not the other way around. Consequently, the person in the middle enclosure is regarded as though he established residence in only one of the outer enclosures, constituting a group of no more than two, which does not have the legal status of a caravan.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讞讚 讘讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讗诪爪注讬 诪讛讜 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜


Based on these assumptions, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is one person in this outer enclosure, and one person in the other outer enclosure, and two people in the middle enclosure, what is the halakha? Is the ruling that if the pair exit to here, one of the outer enclosures, they are three people in one place, and if they exit to there, the other outer enclosure, they are three people in one place, and three people are considered a caravan and provided with all the space they require, as stated above?


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽


Or perhaps, as one may exit to here and the other may exit to there, in which case there would be no more than two people in each enclosure, they are provided with only two beit se鈥檃 per person.


讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 砖谞讬诐 讘讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讗诪爪注讬 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诪专 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬诪专 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽


And if you say that one may exit to here and one may exit to there, if there were two people in this outer enclosure, and two people in that outer enclosure, and one person in the middle enclosure, what is the halakha? Is the ruling that here, certainly, if he exits to here they are three, and if he exits to there they are likewise three, and consequently they should be provided with all the space they require in any case? Or perhaps, in this case too there is uncertainty, as say that he might exit to here, and say that he might exit to there. As the direction in which he will leave his enclosure is undetermined, they should be provided with only two beit se鈥檃 each.


讜讛诇讻转讗 讘注讬讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗


These dilemmas were essentially left unresolved, but the halakha is that these dilemmas are decided leniently, and they are provided with all the space they require in these cases.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav 岣sda said:


讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讙讬讚讜讚 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘诪讞讬爪讛


An embankment, a height disparity between two surfaces of five handbreadths, and an additional partition of five handbreadths do not join together to form a partition of ten handbreadths, the minimum height for a partition to enclose a private domain. It is regarded as a partition of ten handbreadths only if the barrier is composed entirely of the embankment or if it is composed entirely of a partition.


诪讬转讬讘讬 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If there were two courtyards, one above the other, and the upper one was ten handbreadths higher than the lower one, or if it had an embankment of five handbreadths and a partition of five handbreadths, the two courtyards are considered separate domains and they establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, and they do not establish one eiruv. If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, the two areas are considered a single domain, and they establish one eiruv and they do not establish two eiruvin.


讗诪专 (专讘) 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 注砖专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讞转讜谞讛 转注专讘 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 转注专讘 讗讞讚 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇讗 转注专讘 诇讗 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐


Rav said: Rav 岣sda concedes that an embankment and a partition combine with regard to the lower courtyard, since it faces a wall of ten, i.e., there is a full partition of ten handbreadths before its residents. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to this reasoning, the residents of the lower courtyard, from whose perspective there is a valid partition, should establish two eiruvin, i.e., an independent eiruv, and do not establish one eiruv together with the upper courtyard, while the residents of the upper courtyard establish neither one eiruv nor two. The residents of the upper courtyard neither establish an eiruv on their own, as it is breached into the lower one, nor can they establish an eiruv together with the lower courtyard, because the latter is separated from it.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讙讜驻驻转 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: The baraita is referring to a case where the upper courtyard had full-fledged ten-handbreadth-high walls that protruded on both sides of the section of the partition that was merely five handbreadths high, a protrusion that extended up to ten cubits. In this case, the upper courtyard is properly enclosed by a partition ten handbreadths high, while the section that is only five handbreadths high is deemed an entrance. Consequently, even the residents of the upper courtyard can establish an eiruv on their own. But the two courtyards cannot be merged by a single eiruv, because the lower courtyard is enclosed by a partition from which there is no entrance to the upper courtyard.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讞讚 转注专讘 讗讬 讘注讬讗 转专讬 转注专讘


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, they are considered a single domain, and the residents therefore establish one eiruv, but they do not establish two eiruvin. According to the explanation suggested above, that there is a partition ten handbreadths high between the courtyards with an entrance of sorts between them, if they wish, they establish one eiruv, and if they wish, they establish two eiruvin. That is the halakha in a case of two courtyards with an entrance between them.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇注诇讬讜谞讛


Rabba, son of Rava, said: The baraita refers to a case where the lower courtyard was fully breached into the upper one, i.e., the gap in the wall spanned the entire width of the lower courtyard. In that case, the residents of the lower courtyard establish a joint eiruv with the upper courtyard; however, they may not establish an eiruv of their own, in accordance with the mishna in which we learned that if a large courtyard is breached into a smaller one, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so.


讗讬 讛讻讬 转讞转讜谞讛 讞讚 转注专讘 转专讬 诇讗 转注专讘 注诇讬讜谞讛 讗讬 讘注讬讗 转专讬 转注专讘 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讞讚 转注专讘


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the halakha should be that the residents of the lower courtyard establish one eiruv together with the upper one, but they do not establish two eiruvin, i.e., the residents cannot establish an independent eiruv for their courtyard. However, with regard to the upper one, if its residents wish, they establish one eiruv together with the lower courtyard, and if they wish, they establish two eiruvin. The residents of the upper courtyard can establish an independent eiruv for their courtyard, as the larger courtyard renders it prohibited for the residents of the smaller courtyard to carry, but not vice versa.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗转讞转讜谞讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that is the halakha. And when the baraita teaches: If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, the residents establish one eiruv, but they do not establish two eiruvin, this statement is not referring to both courtyards, but only to the lower one.


讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


Mareimar taught: An embankment of five handbreadths and an additional partition of five handbreadths above it combine to form a partition of ten handbreadths. Ravina met Rav A岣, son of Rava, and said to him: Has the Master taught anything with regard to this partition, whether it is effective or not? He said to him: No. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that an embankment of five handbreadths and a partition of five handbreadths combine to form an effective partition of ten handbreadths.


讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬讗住专讜


Rav Hoshaya raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to residents who arrive on Shabbat, i.e., who join the residents of a courtyard on Shabbat, e.g., if the wall between two courtyards collapsed on Shabbat so that new residents arrive in one courtyard from the other. Had these people arrived before Shabbat they would have rendered it prohibited for the residents to carry in the courtyard unless they participated with the original residents in their eiruv. Do these residents render it prohibited for the original residents to carry in the courtyard, even if they arrive on Shabbat itself?


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜讛拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讬诪专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞驻专爪讛


Rav 岣sda said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna: With regard to a large courtyard that was breached into a small courtyard, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. It is permitted to carry in the large courtyard because the breach is regarded like the entrance of the large courtyard. Apparently, even if the breach occurred on Shabbat, it is prohibited for the residents of the small courtyard to carry. Rabba said: Say that the mishna is dealing with a case where it was breached while it was still day, i.e., on Friday. However, there is no prohibition if the breach occurred on Shabbat itself.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪专 讗讬诪专 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞驻专爪讛 讚讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讛驻转讞 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讞 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讞诇讜谉 讜谞住转诐 讛讞诇讜谉 诪讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜转专讛


Abaye said to him: The Master should not state: Say, indicating that it is possible to explain the mishna in this manner. Rather, the mishna is certainly referring to a case where the courtyard was breached while it was still day. As Master, you are the one who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: If one established an eiruv to join one courtyard to another via a certain opening, and that opening was sealed on Shabbat, or if one established an eiruv via a certain window, and that window was sealed on Shabbat, what is the halakha? May one continue to rely on this eiruv and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? And he said to me: Once it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until the conclusion of Shabbat. According to this principle, if a breach that adds residents occurs on Shabbat, the breach does not render prohibited activities that were permitted when Shabbat began.


讗转诪专 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, whose residents did not establish a joint eiruv, that collapsed on Shabbat, Rav said: One may carry in the joint courtyard only within four cubits, as carrying in each courtyard is prohibited due to the other, because they did not establish an eiruv together. Rav does not accept the principle that an activity that was permitted at the start of Shabbat remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专


And Shmuel said:


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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 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...

Eruvin 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 93

住讬讻讱 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讻住讚专讛 砖讬砖 诇讛 驻爪讬诪讬谉 讻砖讬专讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 驻爪讬诪讬讛 驻住讜诇讛


If one placed roofing on top of a portico that has doorposts, i.e., a portico with two parallel walls that are valid for a sukka, as well as posts in the corners supporting the portico and protruding like doorposts, which are considered as sealing the other two sides of the portico, it is a valid sukka. However, if he evened the doorposts by constructing walls adjacent to the existing walls, obscuring the posts so that they do not protrude, the sukka is invalid. This teaching indicates that the creation of a partition can cause prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讻砖讬专讛 诇讚讬讚讱 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讬讗


Abaye said to him: In my opinion, with regard to that case of a portico, the sukka is valid. However, even according to your opinion, this is another instance of the removal of partitions. Evening the doorposts does not render the sukka invalid through the establishment of new partitions, but because it negates the original partitions of the sukka.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬转 砖讞爪讬讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讙驻谞讬诐 讻讗谉 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜注 讻讗谉


Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find that a partition causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a house, half of which is roofed and half unroofed, if there are vines here, under the roofed section of the house, it is permitted to sow crops there, in the open section. The reason is that it is as though the edge of the roof descends to the ground and forms a partition between the two sections of the house.


讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 讗转 拽专讜讬讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讜讗


And if he evened its roofing, by extending the roof to cover the entire house, it would be prohibited to sow other crops there. It is evident that the very placement of a partition, in this case a roof, causes prohibition. Abaye said to him: There too it is an instance of the removal of partitions. It is prohibited to sow not due to the added roofing; rather, it is prohibited due to the negation of the imaginary partition.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讘讬讚 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝注讬专讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬砖 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 讻专诐 讛谞讟讜注 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讝讜专注 诪注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讗讬诇讜 讗讬谉 砖诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讝讛 讛讜讗 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛拽诇


Rava sent a different proof to Abaye by means of Rav Shemaya bar Ze鈥檈ira, with regard to the same issue. And didn鈥檛 we find a partition causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: There is an element in the partitions of a vineyard that causes leniency with regard to diverse kinds of seeds and an element that causes stringency. How so? With regard to a vineyard that is planted until the very base of a partition, one sows crops from the base of the other side of the partition onward. This is a leniency, as were there no partition there, he would be required to distance himself four cubits from the last vine and only then sow there. And this is an element in partitions of a vineyard that causes leniency.


讜诇讛讞诪讬专 讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 诪砖讜讱 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讞转 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 砖讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讝讜讛讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讻专诐 诇讛讞诪讬专


And as for an element in partitions that causes stringency, how so? If the vineyard was distanced eleven cubits from a wall, one may not bring the seeds of other crops there, between the vineyard and the wall, and sow that area. This is a stringency, as were there no partition, it would suffice to distance himself four cubits from the last vine, and sow there. This is an element of partitions in a vineyard that causes stringency, a clear situation of a partition that causes prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讜转讘谉 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛


Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning that this presents a difficulty, raise an objection against our opinion from a mishna, rather than a less authoritative baraita, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clearing in a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Its measure is twenty-four cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Sixteen cubits. With regard to the perimeter of a vineyard, Beit Shammai say: Sixteen cubits, and Beit Hillel say: Twelve cubits.


讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 拽专讞转 讛讻专诐 讻专诐 砖讞专讘 讗诪爪注讬转讜 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna explains: And what is a clearing in a vineyard? It is referring to a vineyard whose middle section was laid bare of vines. If there are not sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there, due to the Torah prohibition against sowing other crops in a vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9). If there were sixteen cubits across in the clearing, one provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, i.e., four cubits along either side of the vines are left unsown to facilitate cultivation of the vines, and he sows the rest of the cleared area with foreign crops.


讗讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讞讜诇 讛讻专诐 讘讬谉 讛讻专诐 诇讙讚专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讝专注 诇砖诐 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讻讚讬 注讘讜讚转讜 讜讝讜专注 讗转 讛诪讜转专


The mishna continues: What is the perimeter of a vineyard? It is the vacant area between the vineyard and the fence surrounding it. If there are not twelve cubits in that area, one may not bring foreign seeds and sow them there. If there are twelve cubits in that area, he provides the vineyard with its requisite work area, four cubits, and he sows the rest. However, were the vineyard not surrounded by a fence, all he would need to do is distance himself four cubits from the last vine. It is clear from this halakha that the partition causes prohibition.


讗诇讗 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讙讘讬 讻专诐 注讘讜讚转 讛讻专诐 诇讙讘讬 讙讚专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讝讚专注谉 讗驻拽讜专讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讞砖讬讘谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘谉


Rather, the objection was not raised from there because there, isn鈥檛 this the reason that the partition is not considered to cause prohibition? It is because the entire area of four cubits alongside a vineyard is considered the vineyard鈥檚 work area, and is therefore an actual part of it. Likewise, with regard to the four cubits alongside the fence surrounding the vineyard, since they cannot easily be sown due to the wall, he renounces ownership over the area. With regard to the space in between, if it is four cubits, it is deemed significant in its own right, and if not, it is not significant and is nullified relative to the rest, and it is prohibited to sow there. A similar reasoning applies to the baraita. The stringency is not due to the fact that the partition causes prohibition, but because the partition impedes cultivation of the vineyard.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 拽专驻讬驻讜转 讝讛 讘爪讚 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 诪讙讜驻驻讬诐 讜讛讗诪爪注讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讙讜驻祝 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 谞注砖讛 讻砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻谉 讜讚讗讬


Rav Yehuda said: If there are three enclosures alongside one another, and the two outer ones protrude, i.e., they are wider than the middle one, so that there are partitions on both sides of the breach between them and the middle enclosure, and the middle one does not protrude, and there are no partitions between it and the outer enclosures, as it is totally breached, and there is one person in this one and one person in that one and yet another person in the third enclosure, the people in the enclosures are considered as though they are all living in one large enclosure. Consequently, the legal status of the group becomes like that of a caravan, and one provides them with all the space that they require. In other words, they may use the entire enclosure even if it is very large, just as there are no limits to the size of the enclosed area in which members of a caravan may carry.


讗诪爪注讬 诪讙讜驻祝 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讙讜驻驻讬谉 讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讝讛 [讜讬讞讬讚 讘讝讛] 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 讘讬转 砖砖


However, if the middle enclosure protruded, and the two outer ones did not protrude, i.e., they were narrower than the middle enclosure, so that their entire width was breached into it, and there is one person in this one and one person in that one and yet another in the third, one provides them only an area of six beit se鈥檃, in accordance with the halakha of individuals in a field, who may enclose an area of only two beit se鈥檃 per person. As the middle enclosure is larger than the two outer ones, it determines their status, in accordance with the principle stated above, not the other way around. Consequently, the person in the middle enclosure is regarded as though he established residence in only one of the outer enclosures, constituting a group of no more than two, which does not have the legal status of a caravan.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讞讚 讘讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讗诪爪注讬 诪讛讜 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜


Based on these assumptions, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is one person in this outer enclosure, and one person in the other outer enclosure, and two people in the middle enclosure, what is the halakha? Is the ruling that if the pair exit to here, one of the outer enclosures, they are three people in one place, and if they exit to there, the other outer enclosure, they are three people in one place, and three people are considered a caravan and provided with all the space they require, as stated above?


讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽


Or perhaps, as one may exit to here and the other may exit to there, in which case there would be no more than two people in each enclosure, they are provided with only two beit se鈥檃 per person.


讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讞讚 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 砖谞讬诐 讘讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讗诪爪注讬 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讜讗讬 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诪专 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬诪专 诇讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽


And if you say that one may exit to here and one may exit to there, if there were two people in this outer enclosure, and two people in that outer enclosure, and one person in the middle enclosure, what is the halakha? Is the ruling that here, certainly, if he exits to here they are three, and if he exits to there they are likewise three, and consequently they should be provided with all the space they require in any case? Or perhaps, in this case too there is uncertainty, as say that he might exit to here, and say that he might exit to there. As the direction in which he will leave his enclosure is undetermined, they should be provided with only two beit se鈥檃 each.


讜讛诇讻转讗 讘注讬讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗


These dilemmas were essentially left unresolved, but the halakha is that these dilemmas are decided leniently, and they are provided with all the space they require in these cases.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗


Rav 岣sda said:


讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘讙讬讚讜讚 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘诪讞讬爪讛


An embankment, a height disparity between two surfaces of five handbreadths, and an additional partition of five handbreadths do not join together to form a partition of ten handbreadths, the minimum height for a partition to enclose a private domain. It is regarded as a partition of ten handbreadths only if the barrier is composed entirely of the embankment or if it is composed entirely of a partition.


诪讬转讬讘讬 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜注诇讬讜谞讛 讙讘讜讛讛 诪谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 砖讬砖 讘讛 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If there were two courtyards, one above the other, and the upper one was ten handbreadths higher than the lower one, or if it had an embankment of five handbreadths and a partition of five handbreadths, the two courtyards are considered separate domains and they establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, and they do not establish one eiruv. If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, the two areas are considered a single domain, and they establish one eiruv and they do not establish two eiruvin.


讗诪专 (专讘) 诪讜讚讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 讘转讞转讜谞讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讜讗讛 驻谞讬 注砖专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讞转讜谞讛 转注专讘 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 转注专讘 讗讞讚 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇讗 转注专讘 诇讗 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐


Rav said: Rav 岣sda concedes that an embankment and a partition combine with regard to the lower courtyard, since it faces a wall of ten, i.e., there is a full partition of ten handbreadths before its residents. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, according to this reasoning, the residents of the lower courtyard, from whose perspective there is a valid partition, should establish two eiruvin, i.e., an independent eiruv, and do not establish one eiruv together with the upper courtyard, while the residents of the upper courtyard establish neither one eiruv nor two. The residents of the upper courtyard neither establish an eiruv on their own, as it is breached into the lower one, nor can they establish an eiruv together with the lower courtyard, because the latter is separated from it.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讙讜驻驻转 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转


Rabba bar Ulla said: The baraita is referring to a case where the upper courtyard had full-fledged ten-handbreadth-high walls that protruded on both sides of the section of the partition that was merely five handbreadths high, a protrusion that extended up to ten cubits. In this case, the upper courtyard is properly enclosed by a partition ten handbreadths high, while the section that is only five handbreadths high is deemed an entrance. Consequently, even the residents of the upper courtyard can establish an eiruv on their own. But the two courtyards cannot be merged by a single eiruv, because the lower courtyard is enclosed by a partition from which there is no entrance to the upper courtyard.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讞讚 转注专讘 讗讬 讘注讬讗 转专讬 转注专讘


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, they are considered a single domain, and the residents therefore establish one eiruv, but they do not establish two eiruvin. According to the explanation suggested above, that there is a partition ten handbreadths high between the courtyards with an entrance of sorts between them, if they wish, they establish one eiruv, and if they wish, they establish two eiruvin. That is the halakha in a case of two courtyards with an entrance between them.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专爪讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇注诇讬讜谞讛


Rabba, son of Rava, said: The baraita refers to a case where the lower courtyard was fully breached into the upper one, i.e., the gap in the wall spanned the entire width of the lower courtyard. In that case, the residents of the lower courtyard establish a joint eiruv with the upper courtyard; however, they may not establish an eiruv of their own, in accordance with the mishna in which we learned that if a large courtyard is breached into a smaller one, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so.


讗讬 讛讻讬 转讞转讜谞讛 讞讚 转注专讘 转专讬 诇讗 转注专讘 注诇讬讜谞讛 讗讬 讘注讬讗 转专讬 转注专讘 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讞讚 转注专讘


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the halakha should be that the residents of the lower courtyard establish one eiruv together with the upper one, but they do not establish two eiruvin, i.e., the residents cannot establish an independent eiruv for their courtyard. However, with regard to the upper one, if its residents wish, they establish one eiruv together with the lower courtyard, and if they wish, they establish two eiruvin. The residents of the upper courtyard can establish an independent eiruv for their courtyard, as the larger courtyard renders it prohibited for the residents of the smaller courtyard to carry, but not vice versa.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗转讞转讜谞讛


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; that is the halakha. And when the baraita teaches: If the height disparity was less than ten handbreadths, the residents establish one eiruv, but they do not establish two eiruvin, this statement is not referring to both courtyards, but only to the lower one.


讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘诪讞讬爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讙讬讚讜讚 讞诪砖讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 讞诪砖讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


Mareimar taught: An embankment of five handbreadths and an additional partition of five handbreadths above it combine to form a partition of ten handbreadths. Ravina met Rav A岣, son of Rava, and said to him: Has the Master taught anything with regard to this partition, whether it is effective or not? He said to him: No. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that an embankment of five handbreadths and a partition of five handbreadths combine to form an effective partition of ten handbreadths.


讘注讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬讗住专讜


Rav Hoshaya raised a dilemma: What is the ruling with regard to residents who arrive on Shabbat, i.e., who join the residents of a courtyard on Shabbat, e.g., if the wall between two courtyards collapsed on Shabbat so that new residents arrive in one courtyard from the other. Had these people arrived before Shabbat they would have rendered it prohibited for the residents to carry in the courtyard unless they participated with the original residents in their eiruv. Do these residents render it prohibited for the original residents to carry in the courtyard, even if they arrive on Shabbat itself?


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讛讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜讛拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗讬诪专 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞驻专爪讛


Rav 岣sda said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna: With regard to a large courtyard that was breached into a small courtyard, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. It is permitted to carry in the large courtyard because the breach is regarded like the entrance of the large courtyard. Apparently, even if the breach occurred on Shabbat, it is prohibited for the residents of the small courtyard to carry. Rabba said: Say that the mishna is dealing with a case where it was breached while it was still day, i.e., on Friday. However, there is no prohibition if the breach occurred on Shabbat itself.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪专 讗讬诪专 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞驻专爪讛 讚讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讛驻转讞 讜谞住转诐 讛驻转讞 注讬专讘 讚专讱 讞诇讜谉 讜谞住转诐 讛讞诇讜谉 诪讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讛 讛讜转专讛


Abaye said to him: The Master should not state: Say, indicating that it is possible to explain the mishna in this manner. Rather, the mishna is certainly referring to a case where the courtyard was breached while it was still day. As Master, you are the one who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: If one established an eiruv to join one courtyard to another via a certain opening, and that opening was sealed on Shabbat, or if one established an eiruv via a certain window, and that window was sealed on Shabbat, what is the halakha? May one continue to rely on this eiruv and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? And he said to me: Once it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until the conclusion of Shabbat. According to this principle, if a breach that adds residents occurs on Shabbat, the breach does not render prohibited activities that were permitted when Shabbat began.


讗转诪专 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 砖谞驻诇 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, whose residents did not establish a joint eiruv, that collapsed on Shabbat, Rav said: One may carry in the joint courtyard only within four cubits, as carrying in each courtyard is prohibited due to the other, because they did not establish an eiruv together. Rav does not accept the principle that an activity that was permitted at the start of Shabbat remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.


讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专


And Shmuel said:


Scroll To Top