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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 15, 2020 | 讻状讞 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 98

This week鈥檚 learning is dedicated in honor of our Ema, Savta, and Savta Rabba, Rookie Billet, aka 鈥淒af鈥-ta, on her milestone birthday, one day for each decade. Your commitment to growth and Torah learning inspires us every day. We look forward to celebrating your daf yomi siyum midway between 状seivah鈥 and 鈥済evurah,鈥 b鈥檈zrat Hashem! With love from all the Billets, Exlers, Jacobsons, and Tegers.

In what case does the mishna allow one to bring in a scroll that is still in one’s hand while one is sitting on the threshold but rolled out into the public domain? Is it a threshold that is a private domain or is it a carmelit? What is a basis of the debate regarding the case on the roof? The gemara explains the mishna differently than its simple reading. Can one carry out to a ledge outside one’s window?

诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 注爪诪讛 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜


who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, but rather is due to a rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest stands as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings. But if it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself; and Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself.


专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Is it possible that the tanna cited in the first clause of the mishna is Rabbi Shimon, as claimed above, while it is explicitly stated that the last clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and yet its middle clause reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Yehuda said: Yes, that is the correct, albeit unconventional, explanation. The first and last clauses are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause of the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讛谞讚专住转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 砖专讜 专讘谞谉


Rabba said that the mishna may be understood differently. Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden upon by the public, and due to the potential degradation of the sacred writings the Sages permitted one to violate the rabbinic decree. It would be disgraceful if people were to trample over sacred writings.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 谞讚专住转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Abaye raised an objection to his explanation: It was taught that if the scroll rolled within four cubits, he rolls it back to himself; if it rolled beyond four cubits, he turns it over onto its writing. And if you say we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden on by the public, what difference is there to me whether it remained within four cubits and what difference is there to me if it rolled beyond four cubits? Since the prohibition is a rabbinic decree, not a Torah prohibition, why isn鈥檛 one permitted to move the scroll in both cases to prevent the degradation of the sacred writings?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讻专诪诇讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 诇驻谞讬讛


Rather, Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as the threshold is four handbreadths wide but is less than ten handbreadths high. Furthermore, on one side of the karmelit there is a private domain, and a public domain passes before it.


转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


The reason for the different rulings is as follows: If the scroll rolled within four cubits, even if the entire scroll falls out of the one鈥檚 hand and he brings it back, he cannot incur liability to bring a sin-offering, as the prohibition against carrying from a public domain to a karmelit is a rabbinic decree. Consequently, the Sages permitted him to roll it back to himself, as there is no danger of transgressing a Torah prohibition.


讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


However, if it rolled beyond four cubits, so that if he brings it back he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, as carrying an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited by Torah law, the Sages did not permit him to roll it back. In this case, if he forgot and carried the scroll instead of rolling it, he would be violating a severe prohibition.


讗讬 讛讻讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞诪讬 谞讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽转 讻专诪诇讬转 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: If so, let us likewise issue a decree in the case where the scroll remained within four cubits, lest he bring the scroll in from the public domain to the private domain, i.e., to his house. And lest you say: Since a karmelit separates the public and private domains we have no problem with it, as nothing is directly carried from one domain to the other, didn鈥檛 Rava say: One who carries an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, and he carried it by way of the airspace above his head, he is liable, even though the object remained more than ten handbreadths off the ground and passed from the beginning to the end of four cubits by way of an exempt zone? Here, too, one should be liable for carrying the scroll from the public domain to a private domain by way of a karmelit.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讗专讜讻讛 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讬讚讻专


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an extended threshold. Consequently, in the meantime, while he is carrying the scroll along the length of the threshold, he will remember not to bring it into the private domain.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗住拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗专讜讻讛 讜住转诐 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 注讬讜谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛讜 讜诪谞讞 诇讛讜 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚


And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a threshold that is not extended; however, ordinarily one peruses sacred writings and then puts them in their place. Consequently, there is no concern that he might pass directly from the public to the private domain, as he will pause on the threshold to read the scroll. The Gemara asks: According to this explanation too, let us be concerned lest he pause to peruse the scroll in the public domain, and subsequently carry it directly into the private domain without pausing in the karmelit.


讛讗 诪谞讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讝专拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘讝讜专拽


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Ben Azzai, who said that walking is considered like standing. Consequently, one who passes through the karmelit is considered to have paused and stood there. Therefore, the object was not transferred directly from the public domain to the private domain, as he paused in the karmelit. The Gemara asks: But what of the concern lest he throw the scrolls inside, rather than carry them by hand, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai concedes that one who throws an object from the public domain to a private domain by way of an exempt domain is liable?


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讝专拽讬谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖:


The Gemara answers that Rav A岣 bar Ahava said: That is to say that one does not throw sacred writings, as this is demeaning to them. Consequently, there is no concern that one might throw the scrolls rather than carry them by hand.


讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讻讜壮: 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜转讘讬 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 诇讛驻讱 讬专讬注讛 注诇 驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讜专住 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛讘讙讚


It was stated in the mishna: If one was reading on top of the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the scroll rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, he may roll it back to himself. However, once the scroll reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back. In that case, he should turn it over, so that the writing of the scroll will be facedown and not be exposed and degraded. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to do so? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that with regard to writers of scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot who interrupt their work, the Sages did not permit them to turn the sheet of parchment facedown lest it become soiled? Rather, one spreads a cloth over it in a respectful manner.


讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗驻讬讱 讗讬讻讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讟驻讬:


The Gemara answers: There, with regard to scribes, it is possible to cover the parchment respectfully; here, it is not possible to do so. And if he does not turn the scroll over, it will be more degrading to the sacred writings. Consequently, although this is not an ideal solution, it is preferable to turn it over rather than leave the scroll exposed.


讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 [讗诪专 专讘讗] 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注


The mishna states: Once the scroll has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back to oneself, and one turns it over onto the writing. The Gemara asks: But why is this prohibited? Since the scroll did not come to rest in the public domain, rolling it back to oneself should not be prohibited. Rava said: This teaching is referring to an inclined wall. Although the scroll did not reach the ground, it came to rest within the confines of the public domain.


[讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬] 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讛讗 谞讞 诇讬讛


Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that the mishna is referring to the case of an inclined wall? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. But didn鈥檛 the scroll come to rest in the public domain? It shouldn鈥檛 matter whether or not the scroll is in contact with the ground.


讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讘诇


The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an inclined wall. However,


讘讻讜转诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜驻注 诇诪注诇讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘:


with regard to a wall that is not inclined, the following distinction applies: If the end of the scroll is three handbreadths above the ground, he may roll it back to himself; but if it is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is considered as though the scroll is on the ground, and he must therefore turn it facedown onto the writing.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜讻讜壮: 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜


It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, one rolls it back to himself. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in order for an object to be deemed at rest, we require that it rest atop something. Consequently, a scroll that is not actually touching the ground is not considered resting and may be rolled back.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 讛谞讞讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rava said with regard to an object located within three handbreadths of the ground. Rava said that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and claim that something in the air is not considered to be at rest, nevertheless, for one to incur liability it is necessary for the object to rest on a surface. Let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with only one of the tanna鈥檌m, but not in accordance with all of them. This is an unacceptable conclusion.


讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜驻注 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜


Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following one: The mishna is all in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that once the end of the scroll is within ten handbreadths of the ground it may not be rolled back said? It was said in the case of an inclined wall. But with regard to a wall that is not inclined, even if the end of the scroll is less than three handbreadths from the ground, one may roll it back to himself, as Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜:


What is the reason for this ruling? The reasoning is that for an object to be considered at rest, we require that it rest atop some surface. Consequently, if the scroll is not actually touching the ground, it is not considered at rest, even if it is less than three handbreadths from the ground.


诪转谞讬壮 讝讬讝 砖诇驻谞讬 讞诇讜谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转:


MISHNA: With regard to a ledge in front of a window, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may place objects upon it or remove them from it on Shabbat via the window.


讙诪壮 讛讗讬 讝讬讝 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗诇讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗


GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: This ledge, to where does it protrude? If you say that the ledge protrudes into a public domain, one should be prohibited to place an object on it, as we should be concerned lest the object fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Rather, it must be that the ledge protrudes into a private domain; but if so, it is obvious that it is permitted to place objects on it and to remove them.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讛谞砖讘专讬诐:


Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a case where it protrudes into a public domain, and what is the meaning of that which it teaches: One may place objects upon it? This refers to fragile utensils, which would break instantly if they fell. Consequently, there is no concern that one might then bring them in from the public domain to the private domain.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝讬讝 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讞诇讜谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽注专讜转 讜讻讜住讜转 拽讬转讜谞讬讜转 讜爪诇讜讞讬讜转


The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a ledge in front of a window that protrudes into a public domain, one may place on it bowls, cups, small cups [kitoniyot], and saucers. All of these utensils are made of fragile glass or earthenware, which supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion.


讜诪砖转诪砖 讘讻诇 讛讻讜转诇 注讚 注砖专讛 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 讝讬讝 讗讞讚 诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 诪砖转诪砖 讘讜 讜讘注诇讬讜谉 讗讬谉 诪砖转诪砖 讘讜 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谞讜


The baraita continues: And one may use this ledge along the entire length of the wall, if the ledge spans its length, whether in close proximity to the window or removed from it, until the lower ten handbreadths of the wall, but not if the ledge is lower than that. And if there is one other ledge below it but still ten handbreadths above the ground, one may use the lower ledge along the entire length of the wall; but with regard to the upper ledge, one may use it only opposite his window.


讛讗讬 讝讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谞讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讜讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讘讻讜诇讬 讛讻讜转诇 诇讬砖转诪砖


The Gemara asks: This upper ledge, what are its circumstances? If it is not four handbreadths deep, although it is an exempt domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which means it does not pose a problem in itself, one should nonetheless not be permitted to use it even opposite his window, as anything placed on this narrow ledge is likely to fall. Consequently, it is as though he has thrown the object directly to the ground. And if it is four handbreadths deep, let him use the ledge along the entire length of the ledge along the wall.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讞转讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注诇讬讜谉 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诇讜谉 诪砖诇讬诪转讜 诇讗专讘注讛 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 诪砖转诪砖 讚讞讜专讬 讞诇讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专:


Abaye said: We are dealing with a case where the lower ledge is four handbreadths deep and the upper ledge is not four handbreadths deep, but the windowsill on the inside completes it to form a surface four handbreadths deep. Accordingly, one may use the part of the upper ledge opposite the window, as it is considered an extension of the window, but the parts to this side or to that side of the window are prohibited, as they are less than four handbreadths deep.


诪转谞讬壮 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:


MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain, as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.


诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻谉 诇讗 讬专讜拽


However, a person may not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain, nor may one stand in a public domain and urinate into a private domain. And likewise, one may not spit in such a manner that the spittle passes from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞转诇砖 专讜拽讜 讘驻讬讜 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 砖讬专讜拽:


Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once a person鈥檚 spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he spits it out, for he would be carrying the accumulated spittle in his mouth, which is akin to carrying any other object.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专


GEMARA: Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamiya would teach this mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav as follows: A person may not stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned the majority opinion of the Rabbis and followed the solitary dissenting opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent in this regard?


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 94-100 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens if walls between courtyards fall down, or if the walls of a house...
alon shvut women

Three Mishnayot in Eruvin

Eruvin Daf 98 Looking into what is the status of the 讗住拽讜驻讛 mentioned in the mishna. We look into three...

Eruvin 98

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 98

诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讜转 讗讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专抓 注爪诪讛 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜


who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, but rather is due to a rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest stands as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings. But if it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself; and Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself.


专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪爪讬注转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Is it possible that the tanna cited in the first clause of the mishna is Rabbi Shimon, as claimed above, while it is explicitly stated that the last clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and yet its middle clause reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Yehuda said: Yes, that is the correct, albeit unconventional, explanation. The first and last clauses are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause of the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讛 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讛谞讚专住转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 砖专讜 专讘谞谉


Rabba said that the mishna may be understood differently. Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden upon by the public, and due to the potential degradation of the sacred writings the Sages permitted one to violate the rabbinic decree. It would be disgraceful if people were to trample over sacred writings.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 谞讚专住转 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪讛 诇讬 讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


Abaye raised an objection to his explanation: It was taught that if the scroll rolled within four cubits, he rolls it back to himself; if it rolled beyond four cubits, he turns it over onto its writing. And if you say we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden on by the public, what difference is there to me whether it remained within four cubits and what difference is there to me if it rolled beyond four cubits? Since the prohibition is a rabbinic decree, not a Torah prohibition, why isn鈥檛 one permitted to move the scroll in both cases to prevent the degradation of the sacred writings?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讻专诪诇讬转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜讘专转 诇驻谞讬讛


Rather, Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as the threshold is four handbreadths wide but is less than ten handbreadths high. Furthermore, on one side of the karmelit there is a private domain, and a public domain passes before it.


转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗讬 谞驻讬诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


The reason for the different rulings is as follows: If the scroll rolled within four cubits, even if the entire scroll falls out of the one鈥檚 hand and he brings it back, he cannot incur liability to bring a sin-offering, as the prohibition against carrying from a public domain to a karmelit is a rabbinic decree. Consequently, the Sages permitted him to roll it back to himself, as there is no danger of transgressing a Torah prohibition.


讞讜抓 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讬讚讬 讞讬讜讘 讞讟讗转 诇讗 砖专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉


However, if it rolled beyond four cubits, so that if he brings it back he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, as carrying an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited by Torah law, the Sages did not permit him to roll it back. In this case, if he forgot and carried the scroll instead of rolling it, he would be violating a severe prohibition.


讗讬 讛讻讬 转讜讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞诪讬 谞讙讝专 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注讬讬诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻住拽转 讻专诪诇讬转 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara asks: If so, let us likewise issue a decree in the case where the scroll remained within four cubits, lest he bring the scroll in from the public domain to the private domain, i.e., to his house. And lest you say: Since a karmelit separates the public and private domains we have no problem with it, as nothing is directly carried from one domain to the other, didn鈥檛 Rava say: One who carries an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, and he carried it by way of the airspace above his head, he is liable, even though the object remained more than ten handbreadths off the ground and passed from the beginning to the end of four cubits by way of an exempt zone? Here, too, one should be liable for carrying the scroll from the public domain to a private domain by way of a karmelit.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗讬住拽讜驻讛 讗专讜讻讛 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讬讚讻专


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an extended threshold. Consequently, in the meantime, while he is carrying the scroll along the length of the threshold, he will remember not to bring it into the private domain.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讗住拽讜驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讗专讜讻讛 讜住转诐 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 注讬讜谞讬 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛讜 讜诪谞讞 诇讛讜 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讛讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬讗 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚


And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a threshold that is not extended; however, ordinarily one peruses sacred writings and then puts them in their place. Consequently, there is no concern that he might pass directly from the public to the private domain, as he will pause on the threshold to read the scroll. The Gemara asks: According to this explanation too, let us be concerned lest he pause to peruse the scroll in the public domain, and subsequently carry it directly into the private domain without pausing in the karmelit.


讛讗 诪谞讬 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讛诇讱 讻注讜诪讚 讚诪讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讝专讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讝专拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘讝讜专拽


The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Ben Azzai, who said that walking is considered like standing. Consequently, one who passes through the karmelit is considered to have paused and stood there. Therefore, the object was not transferred directly from the public domain to the private domain, as he paused in the karmelit. The Gemara asks: But what of the concern lest he throw the scrolls inside, rather than carry them by hand, as Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ben Azzai concedes that one who throws an object from the public domain to a private domain by way of an exempt domain is liable?


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 诪讝专拽讬谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖:


The Gemara answers that Rav A岣 bar Ahava said: That is to say that one does not throw sacred writings, as this is demeaning to them. Consequently, there is no concern that one might throw the scrolls rather than carry them by hand.


讛讬讛 拽讜专讗 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讻讜壮: 讜诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜转讘讬 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讛谉 诇讛驻讱 讬专讬注讛 注诇 驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讜专住 注诇讬讛 讗转 讛讘讙讚


It was stated in the mishna: If one was reading on top of the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the scroll rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, he may roll it back to himself. However, once the scroll reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back. In that case, he should turn it over, so that the writing of the scroll will be facedown and not be exposed and degraded. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to do so? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that with regard to writers of scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot who interrupt their work, the Sages did not permit them to turn the sheet of parchment facedown lest it become soiled? Rather, one spreads a cloth over it in a respectful manner.


讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗驻讬讱 讗讬讻讗 讘讝讬讜谉 讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讟驻讬:


The Gemara answers: There, with regard to scribes, it is possible to cover the parchment respectfully; here, it is not possible to do so. And if he does not turn the scroll over, it will be more degrading to the sacred writings. Consequently, although this is not an ideal solution, it is preferable to turn it over rather than leave the scroll exposed.


讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞 [讗诪专 专讘讗] 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注


The mishna states: Once the scroll has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back to oneself, and one turns it over onto the writing. The Gemara asks: But why is this prohibited? Since the scroll did not come to rest in the public domain, rolling it back to oneself should not be prohibited. Rava said: This teaching is referring to an inclined wall. Although the scroll did not reach the ground, it came to rest within the confines of the public domain.


[讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬] 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 讜讛讗 谞讞 诇讬讛


Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that the mishna is referring to the case of an inclined wall? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. But didn鈥檛 the scroll come to rest in the public domain? It shouldn鈥檛 matter whether or not the scroll is in contact with the ground.


讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讘诇


The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an inclined wall. However,


讘讻讜转诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜驻注 诇诪注诇讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讜驻讻讜 注诇 讛讻转讘:


with regard to a wall that is not inclined, the following distinction applies: If the end of the scroll is three handbreadths above the ground, he may roll it back to himself; but if it is below three handbreadths from the ground, it is considered as though the scroll is on the ground, and he must therefore turn it facedown onto the writing.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜讻讜壮: 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜


It was stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, one rolls it back to himself. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in order for an object to be deemed at rest, we require that it rest atop something. Consequently, a scroll that is not actually touching the ground is not considered resting and may be rolled back.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 转讜讱 砖诇砖讛 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讱 讛谞讞讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛


The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rava said with regard to an object located within three handbreadths of the ground. Rava said that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and claim that something in the air is not considered to be at rest, nevertheless, for one to incur liability it is necessary for the object to rest on a surface. Let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with only one of the tanna鈥檌m, but not in accordance with all of them. This is an unacceptable conclusion.


讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪砖讜驻注 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜驻注 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪住讜诇拽 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讗诇讗 诪诇讗 讛讞讜讟 讙讜诇诇讜 讗爪诇讜


Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation in favor of the following one: The mishna is all in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement that once the end of the scroll is within ten handbreadths of the ground it may not be rolled back said? It was said in the case of an inclined wall. But with regard to a wall that is not inclined, even if the end of the scroll is less than three handbreadths from the ground, one may roll it back to himself, as Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讛讜:


What is the reason for this ruling? The reasoning is that for an object to be considered at rest, we require that it rest atop some surface. Consequently, if the scroll is not actually touching the ground, it is not considered at rest, even if it is less than three handbreadths from the ground.


诪转谞讬壮 讝讬讝 砖诇驻谞讬 讞诇讜谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜谞讜讟诇讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转:


MISHNA: With regard to a ledge in front of a window, that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may place objects upon it or remove them from it on Shabbat via the window.


讙诪壮 讛讗讬 讝讬讝 讚诪驻讬拽 诇讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 谞驻讬诇 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗诇讗 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗


GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: This ledge, to where does it protrude? If you say that the ledge protrudes into a public domain, one should be prohibited to place an object on it, as we should be concerned lest the object fall and he will forget and come to bring it in from the public domain to a private domain. Rather, it must be that the ledge protrudes into a private domain; but if so, it is obvious that it is permitted to place objects on it and to remove them.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讛谞砖讘专讬诐:


Abaye said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a case where it protrudes into a public domain, and what is the meaning of that which it teaches: One may place objects upon it? This refers to fragile utensils, which would break instantly if they fell. Consequently, there is no concern that one might then bring them in from the public domain to the private domain.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝讬讝 砖诇驻谞讬 讛讞诇讜谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽注专讜转 讜讻讜住讜转 拽讬转讜谞讬讜转 讜爪诇讜讞讬讜转


The Gemara comments: That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to a ledge in front of a window that protrudes into a public domain, one may place on it bowls, cups, small cups [kitoniyot], and saucers. All of these utensils are made of fragile glass or earthenware, which supports Abaye鈥檚 opinion.


讜诪砖转诪砖 讘讻诇 讛讻讜转诇 注讚 注砖专讛 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 讝讬讝 讗讞讚 诇诪讟讛 诪诪谞讜 诪砖转诪砖 讘讜 讜讘注诇讬讜谉 讗讬谉 诪砖转诪砖 讘讜 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谞讜


The baraita continues: And one may use this ledge along the entire length of the wall, if the ledge spans its length, whether in close proximity to the window or removed from it, until the lower ten handbreadths of the wall, but not if the ledge is lower than that. And if there is one other ledge below it but still ten handbreadths above the ground, one may use the lower ledge along the entire length of the wall; but with regard to the upper ledge, one may use it only opposite his window.


讛讗讬 讝讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 诪拽讜诐 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谞讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讜讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讘讻讜诇讬 讛讻讜转诇 诇讬砖转诪砖


The Gemara asks: This upper ledge, what are its circumstances? If it is not four handbreadths deep, although it is an exempt domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, which means it does not pose a problem in itself, one should nonetheless not be permitted to use it even opposite his window, as anything placed on this narrow ledge is likely to fall. Consequently, it is as though he has thrown the object directly to the ground. And if it is four handbreadths deep, let him use the ledge along the entire length of the ledge along the wall.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讞转讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜注诇讬讜谉 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诇讜谉 诪砖诇讬诪转讜 诇讗专讘注讛 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 诪砖转诪砖 讚讞讜专讬 讞诇讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讗住讜专:


Abaye said: We are dealing with a case where the lower ledge is four handbreadths deep and the upper ledge is not four handbreadths deep, but the windowsill on the inside completes it to form a surface four handbreadths deep. Accordingly, one may use the part of the upper ledge opposite the window, as it is considered an extension of the window, but the parts to this side or to that side of the window are prohibited, as they are less than four handbreadths deep.


诪转谞讬壮 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转:


MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain, as there is no concern that he might mistakenly bring them into the private domain. Similarly, one may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain, which is prohibited on Shabbat.


诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻谉 诇讗 讬专讜拽


However, a person may not stand in a private domain and urinate into a public domain, nor may one stand in a public domain and urinate into a private domain. And likewise, one may not spit in such a manner that the spittle passes from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞转诇砖 专讜拽讜 讘驻讬讜 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 砖讬专讜拽:


Rabbi Yehuda says: Even once a person鈥檚 spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he spits it out, for he would be carrying the accumulated spittle in his mouth, which is akin to carrying any other object.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专


GEMARA: Rav 岣nnana bar Shelamiya would teach this mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav as follows: A person may not stand in a private domain and move objects that are in a public domain. Rav said to him: Have you abandoned the majority opinion of the Rabbis and followed the solitary dissenting opinion of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent in this regard?


Scroll To Top