HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
29a
{Eruvin 87a continues}
Rabbi Yehudah says: A wall over it may be regarded as a partition.
Rabbi Yehudah said: It happened with the water channel of Abel that they would fill from it on the Shabbat on the authority of the elders.
They said to him: Because it was not of the prescribed size.
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If they made a partition at its entrance but did not make it a partition at its exit; or at its exit but not at its entrance; they may not fill from it unless they made for it a partition of ten handbreadths at its entrance and its exit. Rabbi Yehudah says: A wall over it may be regarded as a partition. Rabbi Yehudah said: It happened with the water channel of Abel which brought water from Abel to Tzippori that they would fill from it on the Shabbat. They said to him: Is this a proof? Perhaps it was not 10 handbreadths deep and 4 handbreadths wide.
To explain: The partition of a water channel needs to descend into the water channel such that it divides between the water in the public domain and the water in the private domain, just as the partition of the cistern which needs to descend into it in order to divide between his domain and his fellow's domain.
{Eruvin 87b}
Mishna:
If a balcony is above the water, they may not draw from it on the Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, whether below.
So also, two balconies, this one above this one, if they made {a partition} for the upper and did not make for the lower – both are prohibited until they make an eruv.
{Eruvin 88a}
Gemara:
Rabbi Abba cited Rav Huna {our gemara: Rabba bar Rav Huna said}: Do not say that specifically filling up is permitted {with a suspended partition present} but to pour out {into the water channel} is forbidden; rather, even to pour is also permitted.
Rav Shizvi said: This is obvious! For this is identical to the case of a trough!
I might have said that there {by the trough} the water is absorbed {into the ground} whereas here the water is not absorbed {but flows with the rest of the water out of the domain, and so it should be forbidden}. Therefore it informs us {that it is permitted}.
"So also, two balconies...":
Rav Huna said {our gemara: citing Rav}: They only taught this in the case where it {the lower balcony} was near it {the upper one}, but if it was distant from it {four handbreadths}, {with a partition} 10 handbreadths high, the upper one is permitted.
Mishna:
If a courtyard is less that four cubits, one may not pour out water into it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a pit holding two se'ehs from the hole downwards, whether on the outside or on the inside.
However, on the outside he must cover it; on the inside he need not cover it.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
28b
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Bet Shammai says – Below and Bet Hillel says – Above.
Rabbi Yehudah says: The partition shall not be larger than the wall between them.
{=If there is a wall between the two courtyards which passes over the cistern, there is no need for an additional partition within the cistern.}
Gemara:
Rav Huna said: Below means actually below {below the mouth of the cistern, though it may be above water level}, and above means actually above {near the rim, and there is no need to extend it to the water}, and both of them within the cistern.
And Rav Yehuda said: Below means below the water - that is to say, the poles {of the partition} should dip beneath the water 9 handbreadths and the heads of the poles should be seen above the water 1 handbreadth; and above means above the water - 9 handbreadths and the poles need to dip in the water 1 handbreadth so that this one should not draw water from the domain of that one, and that one should not draw water from the domain of this one.
And our sugya is like Rav Yehuda.
{Eruvin 87a}
Mishna:
If a water channel passes through a courtyard, they may not draw from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high at its entrance and at its exit.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
28a
{Eruvin 84a}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}:
If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of the upper story forgot to prepare a joint eruv, the tenants of the courtyard may use the bottom 10 handbreadths and the tenants of the upper story may use the top 10 handbreadths. How so? If a bracket projected from the wall at a lower altitude than 10 handbreadths, the tenants of the courtyard may use us. Higher than 10, the tenants of the upper story may use it.
{Eruvin 85b}
Mishna:
If a person puts his eruv in a gate house, portico, or gallery, it is not an eruv, and the person who dwells there does not restrict him. In a straw shed, in a cattle shed, in a woodshed, or in a storehouse, then this is an eruv, and the person who dwells there restricts him.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the householder has the rights of possession there, he {=the tenant} does not restrict him. {=the householder. Rather the tenant is considered one of the member of the household.}
Rav Yehuda cited Rav {our gemara: Shmuel}: If the members of a group were dining and the sactity of the {Shabbat} day overtook them {=night fell}, they may rely upon the bread on the table for an eruv.
And some say {=another version}: for a shittuf.
Rava said: There is really no difference between them {=these two versions}. Here, they were dining in a house, and here they were dining in the courtyard.
For they learnt {in a brayta}: Eruvs of courtyards should be deposited in a house in the courtyard and shitufs of alleyways should be deposited in a courtyard in the alleyway.
"Rabbi Yehuda says: If the householder has the rights of possession there...":
Rights of possession, how so? Such as the courtyard of Ben Ninam.
To explain: Ben Ninam was a wealthy man and in each house in his courtyard he had {stored} goods and items.
{Eruvin 86a}
And Rabba bar Chiyya {our gemara: bar bar Chana} said: Even the pin of a plow {which he stores there}.
Rav Nachman said: Those of the house of Shmuel taught: That {which the owner stores} which may be handled on Shabbat, the tenant imposes restrictions, but that which may not be handled on Shabbat, the tenant does not impose restrictions.
Mishna:
If a person left his house and went to spend the Shabbat in another town, whether he is a non-Jew or an Israelite, he restricts. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: he does not restrict.
Rabbi Yossi says: A non-Jew restricts, an Israeli does not restrict for it is not the custom of an Israelite to come on the Shabbat.
Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Shabbat with his daughter in the same town, he does not restrict, because he had already dismissed it from his mind.
Gemara:
Rav said: The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon.
And specifically to his daughter, but to his son, no, for as people say: If a male dog barks at you, go in, but if a female dog barks at you, go out. {The worry is that the daughter-in-law will fight with her father-in-law and he will have to leave.}
Mishna:
If there is a cistern between two courtyards, one may not draw from it on Shabbat unless they made for it a partition of ten handbreadths high, whether above, whether below {the water}, whether within its basin {but its top does not hit the surface}.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
27b
{Eruvin 82b continues}
while Rabbi Shimon holds that there are nine meals to a kav.
Rav Chisda said: Deduct a half for the profit of the shopkeeper. {The shopkeeper charges more to ensure a profit of 1/2, and so it is really eight meals to a kav.}
There is still according to one {=Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka} eight meals to a kav and according to one {=Rabbi Shimon} nine meals to a kav.
This is what it {the brayta} said that their views are almost identical.
Therefore, when we have eight meals to a kav, and each kav is 400 zuz {=a weight measure} in the weight-measure of Kiruan {, Africa}, we have two meals being 100 zuz, for each meal is 50 zuz, which are 57 in the weight of Sefarad.
{Jewish Encyclopedia defines a zuz as 3.585 grams. If this is the same zuz, each meal is 179.25 grams.}
{Eruvin 83b}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: {Bemidbar 15:20}:
| לו וְהָעֹמֶר, עֲשִׂרִית הָאֵיפָה הוּא. | 36 Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah. |
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
27a
{Eruvin 82a continues}
BEGIN PEREK EIGHT - keitzad mishtatfin
Mishna:
How do we make a shittuf for {an eruv of} tehum {such that many people can extend their Shabbat boundary}?
He sets down the cask and he says, "This is for all the people on my town, for anyone who will go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting." And anyone who accepted during the day – permitted. After nightfall – prohibited, for one may not make an eruv after nightfall.
Gemara:
Rav Yosef said: We only make an eruv {of techum} to enable performance of a mitzvah {precept}.
What is this {statement of Rav Yosef} informing us?! It is a Mishna: "for anyone who will go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting." I would have thought that mention was made of that which was usual {and these are just given as common examples of why one would make a eruv of techum}. Therefore it {=Rav Yosef's statement} informs that specifically to
enable performance of a mitzvah.
Rav Ashi said: A child of age six may go out by the eruv {of techum} of his mother.
This implies that greater than six, he needs to make his own eruv.
{Eruvin 82b}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A man may make an eruv via minor his son or daughter, or via his Canaanite manservant or maidservant, with or without their consent. But he may not make an eruv via his adult son of daughter, nor via his Israelite manservant or maidservant, nor via his wife, unless by their consent.
Mishna:
And what is the quantity? Food of two meals for each one.
His food on weekdays and not on the Shabbat. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: On the Shabbat and not on the weekdays.
And this one and this one intended to be lenient.
Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: From a loaf {purchased for a pundion - a monetary value worth 1/48 of a sela'} when four se'ahs {of wheat sell} for a sela' {another monetary unit}.
{Since there are 6 kav in a se`ah, four se`ah = 24 kav; Thus this loaf of bread weighs half a kav.}
Rabbi Shimon says: Two thirds of a loaf when three {loaves are made} from a kav. {Thus, 2/9 of a kav}
Half of it {the loaf of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Shimon} for a leprous house {if one stays in there long enough to consume it} and half of its half to render the body unfit {if it is ritually unclean}.
{Note: Only half a loaf for these two laws because the loaf under discussion was food for two meals.}
Gemara:
One {brayta} taught {tana}: Their views are almost identical.
Whose views? If you say the views of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka [and Rabbi Shimon, are they really comparable? For according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, there are four meals to a kav.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
26b
{Eruvin 81b}
And they agree in the case of {the man giving his money to} any other man {among his neighbors}, that his money acquired for him. For one may make an eruv for a man only with his consent.
Rabbi Yehuda said: To what does this apply? To eruv of techum but eruv of courtyards may be made with his consent or without his consent, because one may act to benefit a person in his absence, but one may not act to a man's detriment in his absence {and here by eruv of courtyards it is straightforward benefit}.
Gemara:
"A man may give a ma'ah...And they agree in the case of {the man giving his money to} any other man that his money acquired for him":
What is meant by "any other man?"
Rav said: A householder. And so did Shmuel say: A householder.
For Shmuel said: They only said thay his money did not acquire for him from the baker, but for a{nother} householder {who does not regularly sell bread and thus understands he is being made an agent} he acquired. And by a baker, this is only when he said "acquire for me," but if he told him "Prepare an eruv for me," he acquired. And they only said that {when he said} "acquire for me" he does not acquire {through a baker} when he gave him a ma'ah. But if he gave him a vessel, he acquired.
"Rabbi Yehuda said: To what does this apply? To eruv of techum...":
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. And what is more, in all places Rabbi Yehuda taught a law concerning eruv the halacha is like him.
Rav Chana of Baghdad said to Rav Yehuda: Did Shmuel say this even by an alleyway whose lechi or korah was removed {on Shabbat, where Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the alleyway remains permitted throughout Shabbat}?
He said to him: By eruv I said to you - and not be mechitzot {partitions}.
{Eruvin 82a}
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whenever Rabbi Yehuda taught {the words} אימתי {="when"} or במה {="in what," such as this case}, he is only explaining the words of the Sages.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: אימתי, he comes to explain, and במה, he comes to dispute.
END PEREK SEVEN - chalon
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
26a
{Eruvin 80b continues}
and we may benefit a person without his knowledge {=zachin leAdam shelo` befanav}.
Mishna:
What is the quantity? When they {=the people} are many – food for two meals for all of them. When they are few, as a dried fig – {the measure one is liable} for carrying on the Shabbat – for each one.
Rabbi Yossi said, To what does this apply? To the beginning of an eruv {=when they first make an eruv}, but for the remnants of an eruv, any quantity. And they only said to make an eruv in the courtyards {even though a shittuf in alleyways already covers it} so that the children should not forget.
Gemara:
And how many is "many" {mentioned in the Mishna}?
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: From 18 and upwards.
And why was the number 18 selected?
Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Yehuda said: It was explained to me in the name of {our gemara: by} my father: Whenever we would divide it {our gemara expands "it" to be the food for two meals} and it does not allow a portion of a dried fig to each one, that is the definition of "many." And if not, they are "few." And thus we are indirectly informed that two meals is equal to the size of eighteen dried figs.
Mishna:
With anything we may make an eruv and a shituf except with water and salt - these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.
Rabbi Yehoshua says, "A {whole} loaf {of bread} is an eruv. Even something baked of a se'ah {which is a large quantity}, if it is broken, one may not make an eruv with it; a loaf of an issar {=a small quantity}if it is whole, on may make an eruv with it."
{Eruvin 81a}
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: With anything we may make an eruv - of techum {=Shabbat boundary} - and with anything we may make a shituf - of alleyways. And they only said to make an eruv with bread in the case of an eruv of courtyards.
And our gemara {and brayta} is like Rabbi Yehoshua who said that we may only make eruv of courtyards with bread, and we may only make an eruv with a whole loaf of bread, even if it only is an issar {in measure}, and we may not make an eruv of a broken loaf of bread, even if it was baked from a se`ah. What is the reason? We do not make an eruv with a broken one because of the possibility of causing hatred.
Yerushalmi:
Why do they make an eruv in courtyards {when the shituf will suffice}? Because of the ways of peace. And there was a case in which there was enmity between one woman and her {female} neighbor, and she sent her eruv in the hand of her son, and she {=the neighbor} embraced him and kissed him. He came and related this to his mother. She said, "how much does she love you." From this, peace was made. This is what is written {Mishlei 3:17}
| יז דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי-נֹעַם; וְכָל-נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם. | 17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. |
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
25b
{Eruvin 49a continues}
For we learnt {in a brayta}: If five residents collected their eruv and they placed it in two vessels, Bet Shammai maintain that their eruv is no eruv. And Bet Hillel say that their eruv is an eruv. When is this? When both {vessels} are in a single house, but in two different houses, it is no eruv.
You may even say that this {statement of Shmuel} is in accordance with Bet Hillel. For perhaps Bet Hillel argue only when this {first vessel} was filled to capacity and they left something out {which was placed in a second vessel}. But if he divided it, no.
Shmuel said: The house in which the eruv is deposited need not contribute bread {towards the eruv}.
We learn in Succah {Succah 3a}:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: A house which does not have the area of 4 X 4 cubits is exempt from mezuza and from contructing a fence {on the roof} and does not become ritually impure via negaim {leprous afflictions} and is not nichlat {=stay forever in the buyer's possession if not redeemed within one year} in a walled city, and those who go to war do not return because of it {having recently built it}, and we make no eruv with it and make no shittuf with it, and we do not place the eruv in it, {Succah 3b} and we do not make it the extension between two cities, and the brothers and partners do not divide in it.
What is the reason {of the first few, which are Biblical}? These all have bayit {="house"} written by them, and this is not a bayit.
"and we make no eruv with it and make no shittuf with it, and we do not place the eruv in it":
for it is not fit for dwelling.
And it is specifically an eruv, that we may not place in it eruv of courtyards, but a shittuf of an alleyway we may place in it, for it is no worse than a courtyard in an alleyway.
"and we do not make it the extension between two cities":
and thus we do not even assign it the status of burgenin {=temporary huts for watchmen}. What is the reason? The burgenin is fit for its purpose, whereas this is not fit for its purpose.
{Eruvin 80a}
Rav Nachman said: We have a tradition that both eruv of techum and shittuf of alleyways, possession must be transferred.
Rav Ashi {our gemara: Nachman} inquired: By eruv tavshilin {of dishes, to allow preparation for Shabbat when Shabbat follows Yom Tov} is it necessary to confer possession?
Rav Yosef asked him: Why is this a question to you? For Shmuel said that possession must be conferred.
A certain {gentile} superintendent of the town armory lived in the neighborhood of Rabbi Zera.
They {the Israelites in the town} said to him {the gentile}: rent to us your share.
He would not rent to them.
They came [before Rabbi Zera] and asked him whether it would be permitted to rent from his {=the gentile's} wife.
He {=Rabbi Zera} said to them: So said Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of a great man - and who is he? - Rabbi Chiyya {our gemara: Chanina} - a man's wife can prepare an eruv without her husband's knowledge. So too here, the wife of the gentile can rent without his knowledge.
Shmuel said: If a certain resident of the alleyway usually made a shittuf with the other residents of the alleyway did not make a shittuf {=he refused}, the residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to the shittuf against his will.
{Eruvin 80b}
Mishna:
If the food diminished – he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform. If they {=the number of inhabitants} increased – he adds and confers possession, and he must inform.
Gemara:
Our sugya of gemara states that if the food was of one type, even if it diminished such that it is now entirely absent, he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform.
And if they are two types, and they diminished but not entirely, he adds and confers possession, and there is no need to inform. But if entirely, he needs to inform.
And we establish this {case in the Mishna} later on as a case when the courtyard belongs to two alleyways {and so we do not which alleyway he wishes to join unless he is informed}, for since you permit him in this alleyway you are forbidding him in the other alleyway. However, in a courtyard belonging to a single alleyway, you do not need to inform him. What is the reason? For it is a benefit {zechut} to him.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
25a
{Eruvin 79a continues}
only if he laid the length of the board across the width of the ditch. But if he laid the length of the board across the length of the ditch, and even if the width of the board is any minute amount, they make one eruv, for he has reduced the {width of} the ditch from four handbreadths.
"And similarly, two balconies...":
Rava said: They only learned this where one was opposite the other, but if this one is not opposite the other, or one is higher than the other, no.
And they only said this {that vertical distance matters} for the case where there was between them three handbreadths {vertically}, but if there is not between them three, it is reckoned as a single crooked balcony and is permitted.
Mishna:
If a heap of straw between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high – they make two eruvs and they may not make one eruv. These feed from here and these feed from here.
If the straw was reduced to less than ten tefahs – they make one eruv and they may not make two eruvs.
Gemara:
"If a heap of straw between two courtyards...":
Rav Huna said: Provided no one puts staw into his basket and feeds {but rather the cattle must eat directly from the heap}. {Implying that} to place cattle there {such that they will eat} is permitted. But Rav Yehuda cited Rabbi Chanina: A man may place his animal by grass on Shabbat, but not by muktzeh on Shabbat. He only stands next to it {such that it does not stray} and it itself goes and eats.
{Eruvin 79b}
Mishna:
How do they participate {=make a shittuf} in the alleyway? He places there a cask and he says: "This belongs to all the people of the alleyway."
And he confers possession upon them through his adult son or daughter, through his Hebrew manservant and maidservant, and through his wife; but he does not {confer possession} through his son or his daughter that are minors, or by his Canaanite bondman or bondwoman, because their hand is as his hand.
Gemara:
Rav Yehuda said: The cask of the shittuf of the alleyway, he must lift it up {when making the acquisition} from the ground a handbreadth.
Rava said: These two things, the elders of Pumpedita said. One of them was this {=the aforementioned} and the other was: he who recites kiddush, if he tasted a cheekful, he has fulfilled {his obligation} and if not, he has not fulfilled.
{Eruvin 49a}
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: If someone divides his eruv, his eruv is no eruv. Like whom? Like Bet Shammai
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
24b
{Eruvin 76b continues}
Gemara:
If it {the wall} was not four handbreadths wide, what is the rule?
Rav said: The air of the two domains prevails upon it and {so} no object may be moved even a hairsbreadth.
{Eruvin 77a}
And Rabbi Yochanan ruled: These may bring up {their food} and eat and these may bring up {their food} and eat.
But we learnt {in the Mishna}: "If there was produce at its top – and these may go up from here and eat and these may go up from here and eat..." - going up, yes, but bringing {food} up, no.
This is what it means to say: If it {the wall} has a width of four {handbreadths}, going up, yes, but bringing {food} up, no. But if it does have four {handbreadths} we may even bring up.
And Rabbi Yochanan is consistent with his opinion. For when Rav Dimi came {from Eretz Yisrael}, he cited Rabbi Yochanan: A place which does not have in it 4 x 4 handbreadth is permitted to those in the private domain and to those in the public domain to rearrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them {with each other from different domains, one placing it down and the other picking it up}.
And this that we learnt {in the Mishna}, "provided that they do not bring down," we establish this, in perek keitzad mishtatfin {Eruvin 87b} for Biblical domains, such as a private domain and a public domain, but Rabbinic domains, such as a wall between two courtyards which is 10 handbreadths high but not 4 handbreadths wide, it is permitted to rearrange one's burden and even to exchange.
And so is the halacha.
{Eruvin 77a resumes}
Rabba bar Rav Huna cited Rav Nachman: A wall between two courtyards [whose one side is] ten handbreadths high and its other side is level with the floor.
courtyard
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX courtyard
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
it {the wall} is assigned to the courtyard whose floor is level with it, for this {level one} utilizes it {=the wall} easily, while this one utilizes it with difficulty. And in any case when this one utilizes it easily and this one utilizes it with difficulty, we grant it to the one that utilizes it easily.
Rav Shizvi cited Rav Nachman: A trench between two courtyards which was ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, and one side was level with the ground, we grant it to the one to which it is level with the ground, for this one uses it easily and that one uses it with difficulty, and so we grant it to the one which uses it it easily.
{Eruvin 78b}
Mishna:
If a trench between two courtyards is ten deep and four wide – they make two eruvs and they may not make one eruv, even if it is full of stubble or straw;
{But if} full of earth or gravel – they make one eruv, and they do not make two eruvs.
{The remainder of the Mishna in the gemara is quite different.}
If he put on it a board that is four handbreadths wide, if they want they may make one eruv.
Less than four handbreadths, they make two eruvs and may not make one eruv.
And similarly two balconies, this opposite this {and they placed a board four handbreadths wide} – they make one eruv and may not make two eruvs. {In Mishna in the gemara, the law was the same as for a trench - that they may make either one or two.}
Less than this { < style="font-style: italic;">eruvs and may not make one eruv.
{Eruvin 79a}
Gemara:
Rava said: This {about the board} was taught
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
24a
{Eruvin 75b continues}
For anyone who sees that he is carrying, if he {the one who sees} knows that he is an individual {=that the Israelite is the only occupant} then he knows that any individual is permitted to carry. And if he does not know {that the one he sees is an individual} would say that he is carrying because they jointly made an eruv. If so, for the gentile {as the only occupant} as well, if he {who sees an Israelite carrying} knows that he {the gentile} is an individual {resident of the inner courtyard}, he knows that with a single occupant {of the inner courtyard} it is permitted to carry, and if he does not know, he says that this one is carrying because he {=the Israelite} rented from him {from the gentile the rights}! The average gentile, if he rents, makes a noise about it, and since he {the gentile} did not make a noise about it, we {who see} say that he is carrying while there is a gentile {occupant}. And therefore it is forbidden.
END PEREK SIX - hadar im hagoy
BEGIN PEREK SEVEN - chalon
{Eruvin 76a}
Mishna:
A window between two courtyards, four by four, within ten – they make two eruvs, and if they wish, they make one eruv;
less than four by four, or above ten – they make two eruvs and they do not make one eruv.
Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If {almost} all of it was above ten {handbreadths} and a portion of it was within ten, or {almost} all of it was within ten, and a portion of it was above ten, they make two eruvs, and if they wish, they make one eruv.
And if the window is circular, it must have a circumference of 17 minus 1/5 handbreadths, for it is established for us {that Pi is approximately 3, and so} anything that has in its circumference 3 handbreadths has a width {=diameter} of 1 handbreadth.
{Eruvin 76b}
Therefore we need the circumference of this window to be 17 minus 1/5 handbreadths, such that the width will be 5 and 4/5 handbreadths.
{And now the calculation of how this is so, which is straightforward:
First, 17 - 1/5 = 16 and 4/5.
(5 + 3/5) * 3 = 15 + (3/5 * 3) = 15 + 9/5.
Now, 9/5 = 1 and 4/5.
15 + 1 + 4/5 = 16 and 4/5.
}
For when we subtract 8/5 from it, which is 2/5 of 4 handbreadths, for it is established for us that any square which is 1 cubit {in length and width} is 1 cubit and 2/5 cubits in its diagonal (that is, sqrt(2)). Therefore, the width of the sqaure inscribed in the circle will be 4 X 4 handbreadths, no more and no less.
{To explain, why do we need the diameter of the circle to be 5 and 4/5 handbreadths? We do not care about the circle, but rather we care about square measurements for the window, and this window needs to be 4 X 4 handbreadths. We need to inscribe such a square inside our circle. Now, the inscribed square hits the circle at each of the square's four corners, and so the diagonal of the square must be = to the diameter of the circle. If the square needed to be only one handbreadth, the diagonal of the square (and thus the diameter of the circle) need be sqrt(2). Since the square needs to be 4 X 4 handbreadths, the diagonal needs to be 4 * sqrt(2). Since they did not work in quare roots, they knew that the diameter of a 1 handbreadth wide square was 1 and 2/5 cubits.
For a four handbreadth square:
4 * (1 + 2/5) = 4 + 8/5. Now, 8/5 = 1 + 4/5, for a total of 5 and 4/5.
}
"less than 4 X 4 {handbreadths}...":
Rav Nachman said: They only learnt this regarding a window between two courtyards, but for a window between two houses, even if it is higher than ten {handbreadths} also, if they want they may make separate eruvs.
What is the reason?
A house is reckoned as if it is filled.
And so is the halacha.
Rava inquired of Rav Chisda {our gemara: R' Abba inquired of Rav Nachman}: If an aperture {=trapdoor} led from {a room in} the house to an attic {,the two rooms being occupied by different tenants}, does it require a {permanent} ladder to permit it or no? When we say that a house is reckoned as if filled, are these words intended only to the side {and thus rooms on the side}, but in the center {of the room}, no? Or perhaps it does not matter.
He said to him: It {=the ladder} is not necessary.
He thought from his words that a permanent ladder was not necessary, but a temporary ladder was necessary.
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi cited Rav Nachman: Neither a permanent nor a temporary ladder is required.
Mishna:
If a wall between two courtyards is ten {handbreadths} high and four {handbreadths} thick – they make two eruvs and they may not make one eruv.
If there was produce at its top – and these may go up from here and eat and these may go up from here and eat, provided that they do not bring down.
If the wall is broken through up to ten cubits, they make two eruvs, and if they wish, they make one eruv, because it is a doorway; more than this, they make one eruv, and they do not make two eruvs.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
23b
{Eruvin 75a, Mishna, continues}
the inner one made an eruv and the outer one did not make an eruv – the inner one is permitted and the outer one is prohibited; the outer one and not the inner one – both of them are prohibited.
This one made an eruv for itself and this one for itself – this one is permitted by itself and this one is permitted by itself.
Rabbi Akiva prohibits the outer one, for the treading of the foot {between the alleyway and the inner courtyard} restricts it.
And the Sages say: The treading of the foot does not restrict it.
If one from the outer {courtyard} forgot and did not make an eruv – the inner is permitted and the outer is prohibited;
from the inner and he did not make an eruv – both of them are prohibited.
If they put their eruv in one place, and one forgot, whether from the inner or from the outer, and he did not make an eruv – both of them are prohibited;
and if they {each courtyard} belonged to individuals – they do not need to make an eruv.
Gemara:
Rabbi Avin {our gemara: when Rabin came, he} cited Rabbi Yannai: There is a three way dispute in the matter:
Rabbi Akiva holds that even the foot which is permitted in its place {=its own courtyard} prohibits when not in its own place {=the other courtyard}.
And the latter Sages {=Chachamim} hold that even the foot which is prohibited in its own place does not prohibit not in its place.
And the {anonymous} Tanna of our Mishna who said that "if they made an eruv in the outer one and not the inner one – both of them are prohibited" holds that the foot which is permitted in its
place does not prohibit when not in its place, while the foot which is prohibited in its place prohibits when not in its place.
"If they put their eruv in one place...":
What is meant by "one place?"
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The outer {courtyard}.
And why is it called "one place?"
The place which is "designated" {=meyachud} to both of them.
{Eruvin 75b}
"and if they {each courtyard} belonged to individuals":
Rav Bibi cited Rav Ada bar Ahava: If they are three, they are prohibited.
To explain: They are only called "individuals" when there are two courtyards and in each courtyard dwells a single person, such that in total there are two. But if there are three courtyards, and in each courtyards dwells a single person, such that in total there are three, they are forbidden.
What is the reason? Since I might describe them as rabbim {=many residents} in the outer {courtyard}, for any three are rabbim, and since three move about in the outermost courtyard, they are rabbim and forbidden.
And Shmuel said: They are always permitted, until there are two in the inner {courtyard} and they did not make an eruv {and one person in the outer courtyard}, in which case they would be forbidden in the outer {courtyard}.
Rabbi Eliezer said: A gentile {who occupied the inner courtyard} is reckoned like rabbim and forbids.
And why does a single Israelite not forbid?
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
23a
{Eruvin 73a continues}
and did not participate in the shittuf in the alleyway, they are permitted in the courtyards and they are forbidden in the alleyway.
{Eruvin 73b}
If they participated in the shittuf in the alleyway, they are permitted here and here.
If they made an eruv in the courtyards and they participated in the shittuf in the alleyway, and one of the people of the courtyard forgot and did not make and eruv, they are permitted here and here.
If he is of the people of the mavoy, and he forgot and did not participate in the shittuf, they are permitted in the courtyards and they are prohibited in the alleyway, for the alleyway is to the courtyards as the courtyards as the courtyard is to the houses.
Gemara:
Our Mishna is entirely Rabbi Meir, who said that we need an eruv and need a shittuf. And for what reason did Rabbi Meir say that we need an eruv and need a shittuf? In order that the law of eruv is not forgotten among the children.
And here, since most do make an eruv, the concept of eruv will not be lost from them.
Rav Yehuda said: Rav did not read in the Mishna "open one to the other."
What is the reason?
For Rav holds that an alleyway may not be permitted via a lechi or korah until it has houses and courtyards {=plural courtyards} opening into it, and these {courtyards}, since they are open one to the other, are reckoned to be one courtyard.
Gufa: {to return to the main text}
Rav said: alleyway may not be permitted via a lechi or korah until it has houses and courtyardsopening into it.
{Eruvin 74a}
And Shmuel said: Even one house and one courtyard.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even a ruin.
And we establish like Rav, firstly because Shmuel retracted to Rav in the matter of a certain alleyway in which Avin bar Ihi resided, and so Rabbi Yochanan is one against two. And our Mishna also support him {=Rav}, for it states that the alleyway is to courtyards as courtyards are to houses. And furthermore, Rav Nachman said in the first perek {5a}: The alleyway is not permitted via a lechi or korah unless its length is greater than its width, and until there are houses and courtyards opened into it.
{Eruvin 74b}
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: An alleyway in which {=a courtyard and house on} one side was occupied by a gentile and the other side was occupied by an Israelite, we may not make an eruv there by way of windows {on only one side of the alleyway} {Eruvin 75a} for it is forbidden to live alone with an idolator.
{This is one possible interpretation of the configuration. The Israelites's houses are connected via windows, and the gentile lives on the other side of the alleyway.}
Mishna:
Two courtyards, one farther in than the other,
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
22b
{Eruvin 72b continues}
"The brothers who eat...":
We thus derive that the place of sleep causes {as opposed to the place of eating}.
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: The case under discussion was where they took the food {from their father, but didn't actually eat it there}. {And thus there is no proof.}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One who has in his friend's courtyard a gate-house, an exedra {from Latin ex-, ex- + hedra, seat; = An often semicircular portico with seats that was used in ancient Greece and Rome as a place for discussions}, or a balcony, imposes no restrictions upon him {=the neighbor}. A straw-magazine, a cattle pen, a room for wood, or a storehouse does impose restrictions upon him {=the neighbor}. Rabbi Yehuda says: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that ben Napcha had five courtyards at Usha, and when the matter was submitted to the Sages, they ruled that only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions.
A dwelling-house, do you really think? Rather, say: a dwelling place {mekom bet dira - our gemara: bet dira}.
{Eruvin 73a}
{A mekom dira:} Rav said: One's dining place.
And Shmuel said: One's sleeping place.
And the halacha is like Rav.
And we deduce {from the fact that they need to discuss the definition of mekom dira} that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.
Abaye inquired of Rabba: If five residents {of the same courtyard} collected their contributions to the eruv, when they carry it to another place {=they want to join with the residents of a different courtyard}, does one eruv contribution suffice for them all, or does each need to contribute his own contribution to the eruv?
He {Rabba} said to him: One eruv contribution {suffices} for all of them.
But the brothers are as if they previously collected {an eruv among themselves} yet the Mishna states that they need an eruv contribution from each and every one! Here {in the Mishna}, we are dealing with a case where there are others {=other tenants} witrh them - since these {tenants in the same courtyard} impose restrictions on them, those {in the other courtyard they desire to join} also impose restrictions upon them.
This {reading} is also logical - for at the end of the Mishna, it states "When? When they carry their eruv to another place; but if the eruv came to them, or there are no dwellers with them in the courtyard {to impose restrictions upon them}, they do not need to make an eruv."
We so derive.
Rav Chiyya bar Avin inquired of Rav Sheshet: These students who eat bread {=have their meals} in the country and then come and spend their nights in the schoolhouse {in town, and the distance between their place of eating and of sleeping is less than 2000 cubits}, when we measure for them {their techum}, do we measure from where they ate, or perhaps from the schoolhouse?
He {=Rav Sheshet} said to him: We measure from the schoolhouse, for we are witnesses that if someone would bring him food here {to the schoolhouse} he would have preferred it.
Rami bar Chama inquired of Rav Chisda: The father and his son, or the teacher and his student, are they regarded as many or as one individual? Need they make an eruv or not? Their alleyway, can it be premitted via a lechi or korah {like alleyways with two courtyards in it} or not?
He {Rav Chisda} said to him: You have learnt it {in a brayta}: The father and his son, or the teacher and his student, when there are not {other} residents with them, are considered as one individual, and they need not construct an eruv, and {yet} their alleyway is permitted via a or a lechikorah.
Mishna:
Five courtyards opening into one another and opening into the alleyway, if they made an eruv in the courtyards,
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
22a
{Eruvin 72a continues}
Mishna:
If five parties spent the Shabbat in one teraklin. {=a large hall divided by partitions that do not reach the ceiling; each party lodges in its own partitioned-off area, each one having an opening to the courtyard}
Bet Shammai say: An eruv for each and every party.
and Bet Hillel say: One {encompassing} eruv for all of them.
And they {=Bet Hillel} agree that when some of them are dwelling in rooms or in the upper chambers, that they require an eruv for each and every party.
Gemara:
Rav Nachman said: The dispute is only when the partition is made of stakes, but in a good partition of ten handbreadths, all would say "An eruv for each and every party."
Some say, Rav Nachman said: Even when the partition is made of stakes is the dispute.
{Eruvin 72b}
An Objection was raised {from a brayta}: Rabbi Yehuda HaSabbach - to explain, the net weaver - Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not argue about partitions that reach the ceiling, that we need an eruv for each and every party. On what do they argue? On partitions that do not reach the ceiling. For Bet Shammai say that an eruv is required for each and every party. And Bet Hillel say: One {encompassing} eruv for them all.
According to the version in which Rav Nachman said that the dispute is only when the partition is made of stakes, this {brayta} is a valid disproof.
According to the version in which Rav Nachman said that the dispute is even when the partition is made of stakes, shall we say that this is a valid disproof?
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said {our gemara: Rav Nachman can answer you}: When do they argue? By partitions {that do not reach the ceiling}, and the same is true by stakes. And the reason that {in the Mishna} the dispute was stated in terms of partitions of ten handbreadths is to teach you the force of Bet Hillel's opinion.
Rav Nachman cited Rav: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda HaSabbach.
Mishna:
Brothers who are partners, who eat at their father's table and sleep in their {own} houses, require an eruv for each and everyone. Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv, he renounces his right. When? When they carry their eruv to another place; but if the eruv came to them, or there are no dwellers with them in the courtyard, they do not need to make an eruv.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
21b
{Eruvin 70a continues}
They learnt {in a brayta}: (1) One who did not join in an eruv may give his rights to one who did make an eruv. (2) And two who joined in an eruv {in a courtyard in which there was a third tenant} may give their rights to one {=the third} who did not join in the eruv. (3) And two who did not join in the eruv may give their rights to two who did join in the eruv, (4) or to one who did not. However, (5) one who did join in an eruv may not give his rights to one who did not join in an eruv, and (6) two who did join in an eruv may not give their rights to two who did not join in an eruv. [And (7) two who did not join in an eruv may not give their rights to two who {also} did not join in an eruv.]
{Across is the recipient, and down is the donor of the rights.}
| 1E | 2E | 1NE | 2NE | |
| 1E | (5) N | |||
| 2E | (2) Y | (6) N | ||
| 1NE | (1) Y | |||
| 2NE | (3) Y | (4) Y | (7) N |
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
21a
{Eruvin 61b, Mishna, continues}
Rabbi Yehuda said {that Rabban Gamliel's father said it} with another wording: Hurry and perform your requirements in the alleyway before it {=the day} goes out {and thus night falls} and he will restrict you.
To explain, this Tzeduki gave over his domain {in the alleyway} to the {other} members of the alleyway, and those members of the alleyway need to bring out their vessels in order to take possession of the alleyway before the Tzeduki brings his vessels into the alleyway, which would {if he did it first} nullify his gift, as we learn {in the Mishna, Eruvin 69b:} If the person who gave his right carried, whether unintentionally or intentionally, then this one restricts - these are the words of Rabbi Meir, etc...
Therefore, Rabban Gamliel's father said to hurry and bring out all your vessels to the alleyway before he brings out {his vessels} and restricts you.
{Eruvin 69b}
Gemara:
They learnt {in a brayta}: An Israelite mumar {apostate} who nonetheless keeps Shabbat in the marketplace {publicly}, may renounce his right {to the courtyard, unlike a gentile who may not}.
To explain: Even though he desecrates the Shabbat in secret.
And one who does not keep Shabbat in the marketplace may not renounce his right, for he is like a gentile. For we say that an Israelite may give over his right or nullify his right, and as for a gentile, until he rents {to you}.
How is this {presentation or renunciation} done? He says "my share is acquired to you" or "my share is renounced in your favor" and he does not need to perform a formal act of acquisition.
Mishna:
People of a courtyard one of whom forgot and did not make an eruv - his house is forbidden to him and to them to carry in and to carry out, and theirs are permitted to him and to them. If they gave him their right - he is permitted and they are prohibited. If there were two, they restrict one another; for one may give the right and may take the right, two may give the right but they may not take the right.
Gemara:
{Since the Mishna said "his house is forbidden to him and to them to carry in and to carry out":} His house is forbidden, but his courtyard is permitted {to the other tenants}.
How can this be?
If he did not renounce, why is his courtyard permitted? And if he did renounce, why is his house forbidden?
No, this is necessary for the case that he renounced his rights in the courtyard {but not explicitly his house}. And the Sages hold that one who renounces his rights in his courtyard does not {automatically} renounce his rights in his house.
"and theirs are permitted to him and to them":
What is the reason? He is reckoned as their guest.
"If they gave him their right - he is permitted and they are prohibited":
And why? Let them be considered his guests!
One to five {people} is considered a guest. Five to one are not considered guests.
"If there were two, they restrict one another...":
To explain: There were two who forgot and did not make an eruv together with the other members of the courtyard. Even though the members of the courtyard grant them their rights, they {=the two} are not permitted to carry in and to carry out, for since both of them did not make an eruv, each one restricts the other.
This is obvious!
No. It is necessary for the case in which one {of the two} turns around and renounced to his friend. I would have said that he {=the latter} would be permitted. Therefore it informs us that, since at the time he renounced, he {=the former} did not have unrestricted use of the courtyard, he {the latter} is not permitted.
{Eruvin 70a}
["two may give the right but they may not take the right":
For what is this {statement}? It is needed for the case in which they said to him: acquire {our shares} on condition that you transfer them to the other tenant.
]
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
20b
{Eruvin 68a continues}
two great men like the Rabbis {=Abaye and Rabba}, that there was no eruv and no shittuf established?
He {Abaye} said to him: How can I help it? Master, it is not his way {=he does usually pay attention to such trifles}, I am preoccupied with my studies, and they do not trouble themselves with it. If I were to {rather than collecting bread from each of them} acquire for them bread in a basket, there will be times that they will want to take it {and use it}, and I will not be able to give it to them {because I cannot really spare it}, and it would thus not be a valid shittuf, for they learnt {in a brayta}: One of the members of the alleyway who wishes to take the wine and the oil {upon which the partnership was formed} and they do not give to him, the shittuf is nullified. {Rabba bar Rav Chanan responded:} But Master could have acquired for them {for the shittuf} a reviit of vinegar that you have in the cask?! {Abaye answered}: But we learnt {in a brayta}: we do not make a shittuf from the storehouse {where the vinegar is kept in bulk}.
And we conclude that this brayta that states that "we do not make a shittuf from the storehouse" is according to Bet Shammai, who does not hold breira {that one can specify later to what part the designation applies}, but according to Bet Hillel, who does hold breira, we may make a shittuf from material in the storehouse.
There was an infant whose warm water spilled. Rava said: Let us ask his mother {if she is in need of warm water} - if it is needed, let a gentile heat up water for him by way of {doing so for} his {=the child's} mother. "But she is eating dates {and is not sick and in need of warm water}!" {Rava:} Delusions have seized her {and she is not aware of what she is eating}.
There was a certain infant whose warm water had spilled.
Rava said: Move my items from the men's quarters {which was connected directly to his courtyard} to the women's courtyard {which, for sake of privacy, was behind the men's quarters and only accessible through the men's quarters, not directly from the courtyard}, so that I will go and sit there {in the women's quarters} and renounce my domain in my courtyard {to the people in the child's courtyard, in order to facilitate carrying}.
Ravina said to Rava: But Shmuel said that there is no renunciation of domain from one courtyard to another.
He {Rava} said to him: I hold like Rabbi Yochanan, who says that there is renunciation of domain from one courtyard to another.
{Ravina said:} If Master does not hold like Shmuel,
{Eruvin 68b}
let Master sit in his place {rather than moving to the women's quarters}, and let him renounce his rights in his courtyard to them {the people in the child's courtyard} and then {after the water had been taken} let them renounce their right back to Master {in the courtyard, so that Rava could once again use it}. For Rav said that we may renounce and return and renounce {back to the initial person}.
{Rava:} In this, I hold like Shmuel, who says that we may not renounce and return and renounce.
And this is the reason that we may not renounce and return and renounce: In order that the words of the Sages do not assume the character of mockery and jest.
And even though Rava said that "In this, I hold like Shmuel, who says that we may not renounce and return and renounce," we establish like Rav, for Rav Ashi, who is later, concludes that Rav and Shmuel differ on the same point upon which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages argue, and Rav is like the Sages and Shmuel is like Rabbi Eliezer. And we deduce from this that the halacha is like Rav, who says that we may renounce and return and renounce. And so is the halacha.
{Eruvin 61b}
Mishna:
Rabban Gamliel said: It once happened that a Tzeduki {who thus does not accept the institution of eruv} was dwelling with us in an alleyway in Yerushalayim, and Father said to us: Hurry and carry out all the vessels to the alleyway before he {=the Tzeduki} carries out and restricts you.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
20a
{Eruvin 65b continues}
is like nullifying one's domain {/rights}, and just as nullifying one's rights {to the courtyard} may be done even on Shabbat, so too he may rent even on Shabbat.
Rav Chama {our gemara: Chanina} bar Yosef said: We may rent.
Rav Assi said: We may not rent.
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said to them: We should rely on the words of this elder {= Rabbi Chama/Chanina bar Yosef} and rent.
They rented, and when they came to Rabbi Yochanan, he told them: You have done well that you rented.
{Eruvin 66a}
But Rabbi Yochanan said that renting is like establishing the eruv.
When does Rabbi Yochanan say that renting is like establishing the eruv? Leniently. But stringently, no.
When is meant by leniently? Just as establishing the eruv may be done with less than the value of a pruta, so too renting may be done with less than the value of a pruta. And just as establishing the eruv may be done even via his hired laborer or retainer, so too renting may be done even via his hired laborer or retainer. And just as establishing the eruv, if five dwell in a single courtyard, one may make an eruv for all of them, so too renting, if five dwell in a single courtyard, one may rent for all of them.
And so is the halacha.
{Eruvin 66b}
Shmuel said: There is no nullification {=renunciation} of domain from one courtyard to another courtyard, and there is no nullification of domain in the case of a ruin.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: There is nullification {=renunciation} of domain from one courtyard to another courtyard, and there is nullification of domain in the case of a ruin.
And both {cases of two courtyards and ruin} are necessary. For if you had informed us of the case from one courtyard to another courtyard, {I would say that only} in this Shmuel speaks, for this is the independent domain of this one and this is the independent domain of that one. But by a ruin, which is the joint domain of both of them, I would say that he admits to Rabbi Yochanan. Therefore it is needed. And if it had said this one {=the ruin}, in this Rabbi Yochanan speaks, but in the other {=two courtyards}, he would admit to Shmuel. Therefore it is needed.
And it is established for us that {in case of dispute between} Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan. And furthermore, Rabba holds like Rabbi Yochanan, as we will wish to say later on, in the following case:
{Eruvin 67b} {also cited in Rif Shabbat 56a}
There was a certain infant {to be circumcised on Shabbat} whose warm water was spilled out. To explain: This was hot water that was prepared from erev Shabbat for circumcision purposes on Shabbat. Rabba said: Let them bring warm water from my house. Abaye said: But they have not made an eruv. {Rabba:} Let us rely on shittuf {of alleyways}. {Abaye:} They did not make a shittuf. {Rabba:} Let them tell a gentile to bring from inside my house. Abaye said: I had in mind to retort {even} this to Master, but Rav Yosef would not let me. For Rav Yosef said:When we were in the house of Rav Yehuda, he told us, "when the matter concerned is Biblical, we retort {and discuss} before taking action, whereas in Rabbinic matters, we acts first and then we retort {and discuss}. Afterwards, he {Rav Yosef} said to him {Abaye}: What did you desire to retort to Master? He {Abaye} said to him: This that we they learnt {in the brayta}:
{Eruvin 68a}
The sprinkling {of an unclean man with the ashes of the red heifer by a clean man} is a rabbinic ordinance. Likewise telling a gentile {to perform a forbidden labor on Shabbat} is a rabbinic ordinance. Just as sprinkling is rabbinic ordinance and does not push off Shabbat, so too telling a gentile is a rabbinic ordinance and does not push off Shabbat.
He said to him {Abaye}: And did you not learn the distinction between a rabbinic ordinance that has to it an action and a rabbinic ordinance that lacks an action?
That is to say, this that the Sages said that {the prohibition of} telling a gentile is a Rabbinic ordinance, is there no distinction for you between telling him to do an action which involves a Biblical prohibition {if you were to do it yourself} and telling him to do an action which does not involve a Biblical prohibition?
For Master did not say to the gentile 'go heat for me' which is an action which is prohibited Biblically, but rather 'go bring me' {which is Rabbinic}.
And he {Abaye} was silent and could find no answer.
Rabba bar Rav Chanin said to Abaye: In an alleyway in which there dwell
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
19b
{Eruvin 63b continues}
Haman {our gemara: Lachman} bar Ristak {who was a gentile}. They said to him: Will you rent us your domain {for Shabbat so that they could make an eruv}? He would not rent it to them. "Will you nullify your domain} to us?" He would not nullify to them.
{Eruvin 64a}
Rava said to them: One of you should go and ask him to borrow a place {within the house} on which you will put something, so that you {by becoming a tenant in the gentile's courtyard} become like his hired laborer or retainer, for Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: even his hired laborer or retainer may contribute on his {=the gentile's} behalf to the eruv, and it is sufficient.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What if there were five hired laborers or retainers {in the gentile's house, each of whom occupied a room in it, and one had forgotten to contribute his share in the eruv of the alley}?
He said to him: Even if they said the law of hired laborers and retainers to be lenient, do you think they spoke of hired laborers or retainers to be stringent?! {But rather, there is no problem.}
Gufa: {to return to the main text}
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: even his hired laborer or retainer may contribute on his {=the gentile's} behalf to the eruv, and it is sufficient.
Rav Nachman said: How excellent a ruling is this!
And Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: One who has drunk a reviit of wine should not pray {our gemara: should not render a legal ruling}.
Rav Nachman said: This ruling is not excellent, for until I drink a reviit of wine, my mind is not clear.
Rava said to him {=Rav Nachman}: Why does Master speak in such a manner? Did not Rav Acha bar Chanina state: What is meant by what is written {Mishlei 29:3}:
| ג אִישׁ-אֹהֵב חָכְמָה, יְשַׂמַּח אָבִיו; וְרֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת, יְאַבֶּד-הוֹן. | 3 Whoso loveth wisdom rejoiceth his father; but he that keepeth company with harlots wasteth his substance. |
יט וַתְּחַלֶּלְנָה אֹתִי אֶל-עַמִּי, בְּשַׁעֲלֵי שְׂעֹרִים
וּבִפְתוֹתֵי לֶחֶם, לְהָמִית נְפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תְמוּתֶנָה, וּלְחַיּוֹת
נְפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִחְיֶינָה: בְּכַזֶּבְכֶם--לְעַמִּי, שֹׁמְעֵי
כָזָב.19 And ye have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of
barley and for crumbs of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to
save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to My people that
hearken unto lies.
HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
19a
{Eruvin 61b continues}
Gemara:
And no one worries about Rabbi Akiva's opinion, but rather he may walk through all of it {the other city} and outside of it 2000 cubits, like the Tanna Kamma.
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If he established his Shabbat abode in a large city, even as {large as} Antioch, or in a cave, even as {large as} the cave of Tzikiyahu {the king of Yehuda, who tried to escape [see Yirmiyahu 52:7] through a cave said to extend from Yerushalayim to the plains of Yericho}, he may walk through the entirety of it and outside of it 2000 cubits.
END PEREK FIVE
BEGIN PEREK SIX - hadar im hagoy
Mishna:
If a person dwells with a gentile in a courtyard, or with a person who does not acknowledge the eruv, then this one restricts him. [These are the words of Rabbi Meir.]
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: He never restricts, unless there are two Israelites restricting one another.
{Eruvin 62a}
All agree - both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintain that the dwelling place of a gentile is not considered a dwelling {in terms of laws of Shabbat to restrict the other resident from making an eruv}. And they are arguing on whether there is a decree made to prevent the Israelite from learning from the actions of the gentile. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov maintains that since a gentile is suspect on bloodshed {a single Israelite will fear to live with him in a courtyard, and so} two {Israelites with a gentile}, which is common, the Sages decreed upon, but one {Israelite}, which is uncommon, the Sages did not decree. And Rabbi Meir maintains that there are times that it will occur and he will dwell with him.
And the Sages {who make this decree, in order to make this decree effective} say that an eruv does not work when there is a gentile present {in the courtyard}, nor does nullification of rights {in the courtyard} work where a gentile is concerned, unless he {the gentile} rents his right, and a gentile would not rent out his right, because he would fear witchcraft {not understanding the religious motive for the Israelites' actions}.
We may {effectively} rent from a gentile {his rights in the courtyard so that we are able to make an eruv} even for less than the value of a peruta. For Rabbi Tzadok bar Giyuri {our gemara: Rabbi Yitzchak son of Rabbi Yaakov bar Giyuri} sent {the following message} in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Let it be known that we may {effectively} rent from a gentile {the aforementioned rights to the courtyard} even for less than the value of a peruta.
{Eruvin 62b}
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
And Rav Huna said: The minhag {custom} is like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: The public conduct {nahagu} themselves like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
{Taanit 26b}
We learn in Taanit, in perek Shlosha Perakim:
One who says halacha, we teach it in lectures. And one who says minhag, we do not teach it in lectures but we teach it as halacha {if one asks}. And one who says nahagu, we do not even teach it, but if someone acts in this way we do not correct him.
{Eruvin 62b resumes}
And in this, the halacha is like the one who says halacha {=Shmuel}. For Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel that the halacha is like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and furthermore, the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is small in quantity but clear {=well sifted}. Is it then permitted to a disciple to give a ruling accordingly in a district that is under the jurisdiction of his Master? - for this is a clear matter (that it is permitted). Rav Yosef said: Even {the permissibility of eating} an egg {found in a slaughtered fowl} with kuchta {=a preserve containing milk} I inquired of Rav Chisda in the days of Rav Huna and he did not render any decision, even though it was a clear matter, for since the eggs were complete they are not a type of meat.
{Eruvin 63a}
Rava said: And to prevent one from committing a transgression it is proper even before him {his teacher}.
Ravina was sitting before Rav Ashi, and saw a certain man tying his donkey to a palm tree on Shabbat. He {=Ravina} called out to him but the man paid no heed. He {=Ravina} said: This man should be placed under ban. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In such a case, do I appear as impertinent? He {Rav Ashi} said to him: {Mishlei 21:30}:
| ל אֵין חָכְמָה, וְאֵין תְּבוּנָה-- וְאֵין עֵצָה, לְנֶגֶד ה. | 30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. {P} |
| ז וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים, עַל-הָאֵשׁ. | 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire. |
| כו וְגַם, עִירָא הַיָּאִרִי, הָיָה כֹהֵן, לְדָוִד. | 26 and Ira also the Jairite was chief minister {Kohen} unto David. |
| א וַיְהִי רָעָב בִּימֵי דָוִדשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, שָׁנָה אַחֲרֵי שָׁנָה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ דָּוִד, אֶת-פְּנֵי ה; {ס} וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶל-שָׁאוּל וְאֶל-בֵּית הַדָּמִים, עַל-אֲשֶׁר-הֵמִית, אֶת-הַגִּבְעֹנִים. | 1 And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the LORD. {S} And the LORD said: 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.' |
Posts
All Comments
