HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
5a
{Eruvin 16b continues}
which is two seah to each one, and they fenced in 7 {rather than 6}, they are permitted, for they only left empty a bet seah {and not 2}. If they only needed 5 and they fenced in 7, even in the 5 {which they need} they are forbidden, for there is a vacant bet satayim which they do not need.
And we ask: But what of this that they learn: But the Sages say: both an individual and a caravan are given all that they need, so long as there is not a bet satayim vacant.
Does this not mean vacant of a man - and {here} since they are three, and each one of them gets a bet satayim, behold they have 6 seah, and there is only vacant of a man {to claim it} a single seah! And if so, why do you say that they are forbidden even in the 5?
And we answer, the "vacant" that we learn does not mean vacant of man, but rather vacant of vessels, and since they {=the three} only require for their vessels 5 seah and they fenced in 7, there are 2 {seah} vacant of vessels, and therefore even the 5 are forbidden, for their fence has been nullified.
If they were three and they fenced in an area to grow 6 seah, and acquired shevita {= a resting place for Shabbat, that they would dwell there - this when Shabbat came in}, and afterwards, one of them died, they are permitted {to use the area} just as initially, and we are not concerned that this one has died {leaving 2 seah "vacant"}.
And if 2 acquired shevita {when Shabbat came in, in an area to grow 6 seah} and afterwards one was added to them, they are forbidden just as initially, and even though there was added to them.
What is the reason? {The onset of} Shabbat causes, and not the {present number of} dwellers.
{The Mishna had said:} "And the Sages say: One of the two {=warp or woof}":
The opinion of the Sages is identical with that of the Tanna Kamma!
This is the difference between them - an individual in a settled area {rather than the wilderness}. For the latter Sages {as opposed to the Tanna Kamma at the beginning of the Mishna} hold that an individual in a settled area is permitted to carry within partitions of warp or woof, just as is the law in the wilderness - and the halacha is like them.
{Erubin 17b}
{The Mishna said:} "And they are exempt from washing their hands":
Abaye said: They only learnt this regarding the mayim rishonim {=first waters = washing before the meal}, but mayim acharonim {=washing after the meal} is an obligation.
For Rav Yehuda said: Why did they say that mayim acharonim is an obligation? Because of Sodomite salt which blinds the eye.
Abaye said: A kortov {grain} of such salt is found in a kor {of salt}.
Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: What if he was measuring out salt {rather than eating}.
He said to him: You don't need {to ask}.
That is to say, you need to wash your hands {afterwards}. {Note that this is an interpretation. One could have understood that you don't need to wash.}
{The Mishna said:} "and {exempt} from having to make an eruv":
They said in the academy of Rabbi Yannai: They only said this regarding the eruv of courtyards {to allow carrying}, but the eruv of techum {to establish a Shabbat center} they are obligated, for Rabbi Chiyya taught {in his brayta}: we administer lashes for eruv of techum as a Biblical matter.
This was problematic to Rabbi Yochanan: And do they truly administer lashes for a prohibition which was given over to warning of death penalty by bet din? {Rather, death!}
Rav Ashi said {answered}: Does it state אל יוציא איש - let no man carry out? It is written {Shemot 15:29} אל יצא איש - let no man go out!
That is to say, this verse is speaking about going out only with legs, and there is no death penalty from the bet din, but just a warning, and therefore, we administer lashes for it.
And it is problematic for us how we say that we administer lashes for eruv of techum as a Biblical matter, for we establish that we do not rule like Rabbi Akiva who said that techum was a Biblical matter.
And we find in the Yerushalmi, that we learn there:
{... As Rav Hoshaya said:} The extent of techum Shabbat is not straightforward to you as a Biblical matter {and thus, we are understanding this gemara to say, it is of Rabbinic origin}.
Rabbi Mana asked: This is fine to say regarding the 2000 cubits, that it is not straightforward. But 4000 cubits is straightforward!
Rabbi Shmuel bar Bisna {our gemara: bar Sisreta} cited Rabbi Acha: None is more straightforward than the techum of 12 mil, which is the size of the encampment of Israel.
We thus find now that techum Shabbat, some of them are Rabbinic and some Biblical. From 2000 cubits and higher until 12 mil, we administer lashes for them Rabbinically, and according to Rabbi Akiva, we administer lashes for them Biblically, for it is written {Bemidbar 35:4-5}:
And the Sages hold that the 1000 cubits are migrash and the 2000 cubits are fields and vinyards.
From 12 mil and higher, we administer lashes for them Biblically, according to all, for it is written {Shemot 15:29} אל יצא איש - let no man go out - and this is 12 mil corresponding to the encampment of Israel.
But from 2000 cubits and less, it is permitted according to everyone.
And the question still stands in its place, for we only make eruvei techumin until 2000 cubits, and if he places his eruv outside of 2000 cubits, his eruv is no eruv, and it forbidden for him to go further than 2000 cubits {in that direction} even a single cubit, and if this prohibition is Rabbinic, he should not get lashes for it as a Biblical matter, except according to Rabbi Akiva. And this answer does not come out according to our own {Bavli} gemara, and the question stayed in in place until now, and it stands as it stood.
END PEREK ONE
sliku lehu mavuy
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment