Rif Eruvin 16b {Eruvin 57a continues ... 58a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
16b
{Eruvin 57a continues}
Gemara:
Rav Huna said: You give a karpaf to this one and a karpaf to that one.
Rabbi Chiyya bar Rav said: We only give a single karpaf to two cities.

We learn in Nedarim {56b}: One who takes a vow from a city is permitted to enter her techum but is forbidden to enter into her outskirts {all these things which extend the town before techum is measured}. How do we know that the outskirts of the city are reckoned as the city? Rabbi Yochanan said: For the verse states {Yehoshua 5:13}:

יג וַיְהִי, בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ, וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה-אִישׁ עֹמֵד לְנֶגְדּוֹ וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ; וַיֵּלֶךְ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, הֲלָנוּ אַתָּה אִם-לְצָרֵינוּ.

13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by [literally "in"] Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him: 'Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?'

Now it could not mean that Yehoshua was actually in Yericho, for it is written (Yehoshua 6:1):

א וִירִיחוֹ סֹגֶרֶת וּמְסֻגֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: אֵין יוֹצֵא, וְאֵין בָּא.

1 Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.

Rather we deduce that he was in its outskirts.

{Eruvin 57b}
Mishna:
One may measure only with a rope of fifty cubits, not less and not more. And one may not measure except opposite his heart.
If he was measuring and he reached a valley or a fence, he absorbs it {=does not measure the incline but rather only the horizontal} and he returns to his measure.
If he reached a hill, he absorbs it and he returns to his measure,
{Eruvin 58a}
provided that he does not go out beyond the bounds.
If he is not able to absorb it {since the width of the valley or hill exceeds 50 cubits}, regarding this Rabbi Dostai the son of Rabbi Yannai cited Rabbi Meir: I heard that they cut through in the hills.

Gemara:
"not less and not more":
One taught: Not less {than a 50 cubit rope} because it increases the measure {since the rope will be stretched}, and not more because it decreases the measure {since the rope cannot be stretched out enough}.

Rav Yosef learned: There are three types of rope. Of megeg {= a type of reed}, of wicker, and of flax. The megeg was used for the ref heifer {para aduma}, for we learned in the Mishna {in Para}: They bound it with a rope of megeg and put it on its pile. Of wicker for a suspected adulteress, for we learn in a Mishna: And after that he brings a wicker rope. And of flax for measuring {techum}.

"If he was measuring and he reached a valley or a fence":
From that which it states "he returns to his measure," this implies that if he is unable to span it {since it is more than 50 cubits across}, he proceeds to a position from which he is able to span it, and spans it, making the necessary observations {such that he can locate the point on the far side," and then returns {to the opposite side of the valley}.

Thus we have learnt what the Rabbis have taught elsewhere: For the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: If he was measuring and reached a valley, if he is able to absorb it with a rope of 50 cubits, he absorbs {=spans over} it. And if not, he walks to a place where he is able to absorb it, and spans it, making the necessary observations, and returns to his measuring. And if the valley was crooked {i.e. its narrow section (which is < style="font-style: italic;">techum was being measured}, it is "pierced" in an upward direction and "pierced" in a downward direction. If he reaches a wall, we do not say that the wall must be bored through. Rather we estimate its width and continue measuring {from its opposite side}.

However, if it easy to make use of the wall {since it gently slopes upwards}, he conducts a firm measuring of it.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: They only learned this regarding a plumb line will not descend in a straight line {to the floor of the valley, because of the slope}.

Rif Eruvin 16a {Eruvin 55a continues ... 57a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
16a

{Eruvin 55a continues}
Rav Huna said: A city constructed like a bow {like the letter C}, if there is between its two heads less than 4000 cubits, we measure from the extra {empty space}, and if there is between its two heads 4000 cubits, we measure from {the actual body of} the bow.

{Eruvin 55b}
"If the gedodiot {ruins} were {ten handbreadths} high":
What are gedodiot?
Rav Yehuda said: Three walls without a roof on top.

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: These are they that are reckoned with it as its outskirts {from which we measure the techum}: A sepulchral monument which contains 4 X 4 cubits, and the bridge and cemetery which has a dwelling place in it, and a synagogue which has a dwelling place in it for the cantor, and a pagan temple which has a dwelling place for the priest, and horsestalls or storehouses in open fields to which dwelling places are attached, or watchmen's huts in a field, and a house on an island. These are reckoned with it as its outskirts. And the following are not reckoned with it as its outskirts. A sepulchral monument which is broken on two sides from one end to the other, a bridge or a cemetery that has no dwelling place in it, and a synagogue which has no dwelling place in it for the cantor, and a pagan temple which has no dwelling place for the priest, and horsestalls or storehouses in open fields to which dwelling places are not attached, a pit, a ditch, a cave, a wall, or a dove-cote in a field, and a house in a ship. These are not reckoned with it as its outskirts.

Rav Huna said: Those who dwell in huts measure {the techum} from their front door.
{Even if 100 huts are grouped together, they do not form a town.}

{Eruvin 56a}
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: One who comes to square it should square it to the compass directions such that its north face should be to the world's North and the south face should be to the world's South. And your guiding marks are Ursa Major in the North and Scorpius to the South.

{Eruvin 57a}
Mishna:
A karpef {= area of 70 and 2/4 cubits} is given to the town. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: They did not say karpef except between two towns; if this one has seventy amot and a fraction, and this one has seventy cubits and a fraction, he makes a karpef for the two of them to be as one.

And similarly three villages arranged in a triangle: if there are between the two outer ones 141 1/3, the middle one makes the three to be as one. {You imagine it moved down to occupy the middle space.}

Rif Yomi Weekly Edition {Eruvin 52b-58b}

is available here.

It contains the Rif for the Daf Yomi from Shabbat, November 26, 2005, to Friday, December 2, 2005.

Update: Made two grammatical corrections, and changed cantor to priest in reference to pagan temples.

Rif Eruvin 15b {Eruvin 52b continues ... 55a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
15b

{Eruvin 52b continues}
It was taught {tana}: Because of those who err in their measures.

And the halacha is like the first Tanna {that even one cubit, he may not reenter}.

Rabbi Chanina said: If his one leg was within the techum and his other leg was outside the techum, he may enter, for it is written {Yeshaya 58:13}:

יג אִם-תָּשִׁיב מִשַּׁבָּת רַגְלֶךָ, עֲשׂוֹת חֲפָצֶךָ בְּיוֹם קָדְשִׁי; וְקָרָאתָ לַשַּׁבָּת עֹנֶג, לִקְדוֹשׁ יְהוָה מְכֻבָּד, וְכִבַּדְתּוֹ מֵעֲשׂוֹת דְּרָכֶיךָ, מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצְךָ וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר.

13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;

which we read "your feet." {That is, it is written deficiently, in that the segol of רַגְלֶךָ would typically be accompanied by a yud, signifying the plural, and without the yud, we would expect a sheva, and it meaning foot.}

END PEREK FOUR
We have left off mi shehotziuhu.

PEREK FIVE - keitzad meabrin

Mishna:
How does one extend the bounds of the towns?
A house recedes, a house protrudes, a turret recedes, a turret protrudes; if there were there ruins ten handbreadths high,
{Eruvin 53a}
and bridges and tomb- structures which have in them dwelling quarters the measurements are taken against them, and it is made in the shape of a square board, so as to benefit from the corners.

{Eruvin 55a}
Gemara:

The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: How does one extend the bounds of the towns?
Long {=rectangular; see (א)}, as it is.
Circular, we make it corners {and measure techum from the corners; see (ב)}.
Squared {but on an angle from the compass directions, like a diamond, <>, such that one might think to add corners and square it in the compass directions}, we do not make it corners.
If it was wide on one side and narrow on the other side {see (ג)}, we view it as if both sides were equal {and thus add corners; Alternatively, we view the curvature as if it were straight, thus transforming it into a parallelogram.}.
If one house jutted out from it {the city} in the form of a turret, or two houses like two turrets {one one each side - see diagram ד}, we view it as if there were a line extending from each protrusion {thus squaring it} and we measure from there and outwards 2000 cubits {rather than from the city wall}.
If it {the city} was made in the form of a bow {see diagram ה - note that the line on the left side is not physically present. That is, it looks like a C} or like a gamma {A capital gamma, Γ. See diagram ו} we view it as if it {the empty space in the C or the Γ} were filled with houses and courtyards.

Mar {=the brayta} had said: Long {=rectangular, see diagram א}, as it is.
This is obvious! No, I need this. I would have thought that if it is long and narrow, I would imagine its width extended as much as its length {thus making it a square}. Therefore it informs us that it is not so.

"If it is squared {= <>}, we do not make it corners":
But this is obvious! No, I need this, for the case in which it is square but not square in the compass directions - that is, that the north flat face is parallel with the northern compass direction, and its southern flat face is parallel to the southern compass direction {but rather, it looks like diagram ז}. I would have thought to square it to the square formed by the compass directions {thus adding corners, as in diagram ז}. Therefore it informs us that it is not so.

Rif Eruvin 15a {Eruvin 51b continues ... 52b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
15a

{Eruvin 51b continues}
These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Meir says: Whoever could, but did not prepare an eruv, is like an donkey driver and camel driver {such that he is tugged in two directions and so cannot move}.

Gemara:
Why does he differ from them?
Rav Yehuda said: Here, what we are dealing with is a case in which he has two houses, and between them are two techum Shabbat {=4000 cubits}. He, since he went out on his journey, has the status of a poor person. The people of the city, who asked him to set up the eruv on their behalf {in the other town}, are like rich people.

A brayta also says so: One who has two houses, and between them are two techum Shabbat, since he has set out on the road, he acquires in the eruv. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. More than this said Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehuda: Even if his friend found him {along the way} and said "sleep here, it is the time of the {scorching} sun," or "it is a chilly time," the next day he can arise and go.

Rabba said: To say "my Shabbat abode is in place X," (even though he set out), all agree that it is necessary {to actually voice the declaration}. In what do they disagree? Whether it is necessary to actually set out.

And Rav Yosef said: To actually set out, all agree that he must. In what do they disagree? Whether to say {the declaration}. For Rabbi Yehuda holds that he must actually set out on the road and he must say "my Shabbat abode is in place X." And Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehuda holds that he only needs to set out on the road, but to say, he does not need -- since he has concluded in his heart to rest in place X and has set out on the road, he acquires Shabbat abode in that place.

And the halacha is like Rav Yosef, and according to Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehuda. For we say: Rav Yehuda, resident of Bartota {our gemara: son of Ishtata} brought a basket of fruit to Rav Natan bar Oshaya. When he {=Rav Yehuda} was departing, he allowed his to descend the stairs and then said to him, "spend the night here." The next day he got up and left,
{Eruvin 52b}
in accordance with Rav Yosef, according to Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehuda.
{Which is interesting because the gemara suggests this and then suggests that this could be in accordance with Rabba, according to Rabbi Yehuda.}

Mishna:
Whoever went out beyond the bounds, even one cubit, may not enter.
Rabbi Eliezer says, Two he may enter; three he may not enter.

One upon whom night fell when he was outside the techum, even one cubit, he may not enter.
Rabbi Shimon says: Even fifteen cubits, he may enter, for the surveyors do not measure exactly, because of those who err.

Rif Eruvin 14b {Eruvin 50b continues ... 51b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
14b

{Eruvin 50b continues}
And the one who does know says, "our Shabbat abode should be in place X." When are these words said: When he delineated for him the four cubits that he established for him, but if he did not delineate for him the four cubits that he established, he may not move from his spot. {J: this seems to refer to the man who knows delineating a spot for his friend}

A brayta in accordance with Shmuel: If a man erred and made two eruvs in opposite directions, believing that one may make eruvs in different directions; or, if he said to his servants, "Go and make an eruv for me" and one made an eruv to the north and the other made an eruv to the south. He may proceed to the north as far as his eruv to the south allows, and may proceed to the south as far as his eruv to the north allows. But if they each measured their techum exactly {such that each is 2000 cubits from him}, he may not move from his place.

And even though {in a matter of dispute between} Rav and Shmuel, the halacha is like Rav in prohibitions, in this the halacha is like Shmuel, for we learn a brayta like Shmuel in this, for the Sages learnt {in a brayta in Beitza 33}:

Two who borrowed a cloak - this one to travel in the morning to the study hall, and this to travel in the evening to the synagogue ... if the techum of both is exact, it may not move from its place.

And we establish {there} that this is halacha. Therefore, the halacha here is also like the brayta in accordance with Shmuel, for they both stem from the same cause.

"he may walk from the place of his feet to its root 2,000 cubits":
{Eruvin 51a}
Rava said: And that is if, were he to run, he would reach it {before Shabbat}.
Abaye said to him: But it {the Mishna} said: "darkness overtook him."
{The answer:} Darkness overtook him to get to his house, but to get to the tree, he could go.
Some say: Darkness would overtake him if he walked slowly, but if he ran, he could reach there.

{Eruvin 49b}
Mishna:
Regarding this that they said that the poor person may make the eruv with his feet:
Rabbi Meir says: For us, we have only the poor person.
Rabbi Yehuda says: A poor person or a rich person are the same; They only said that one may make the eruv with bread in order to make it easier for the rich man, so that he need not go out and make the eruv with his feet.

{Eruvin 51a}
Gemara:
Rav Nachman said: The dispute is only when he wished to establish the eruv in his place {where he stood}. For Rabbi Meir holds that a poor person yes, and a rich person, no.

{Eruvin 51b}
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that both a poor person and a rich person {may}.
But in place X {where he does not stand}, a poor person may and a rich person may not, according to everyone.

Therefore it is clear that Rabbi Meir holds that the essence of an eruv is bread.
And {this that it states in the Mishna,} "They only said that one may make the eruv with bread in order to make it easier for the rich man, so that he need not go out and make the eruv with his feet" - Rabbi Yehuda states this.

A brayta in accordance with Rav Nachman: Both a poor person and a rich person may make an eruv with bread. And a rich man may not go outside the techum and say, "my Shabbat abode is in (place X) [my place]," for they only allowed one to make an eruv with one's legs for one travelling on the road and night fell upon him. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a poor person and a rich person may make an eruv with their legs, and a rich man may go uotside of the techum {of the city} and say "My Shabbat abode should be in my place {where I stand}" and this is the essence of eruv. And the Sages permitted the head of a household to send his eruv in the hand of his son, in the hand of his servant, or in the hand of his agent, in order to be lenient upon him.

And the halacha is like Rav Nachman from the fact that Rabbi Chama taught {tani} to Chiyya bar Rav before Rav that both a poor person and a rich person (with bread). He {Rav} said to him: teach also that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.

Mishna:
If one set out to go to a town in which they {in his home town wish to} make an eruv, and his fellow turned him back {and so he did not actually establish the eruv there on behalf of himself and his fellow townspeople}, he is permitted to go, and all the people of the town are prohibited.

Rif Eruvin 14a {Eruvin 49b continues ... 50b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
14a
{Eruvin 49b continues}
What is means by "he said nothing" {in the Mishna, when he said that his Shabbat abode should be under a certain tree or fence that he knows of}?
Rav said: His statement is of no avail whatsoever, such that he may not even proceed to the space under the tree. {Since he has made no statement establishing his Shabbat abode, and so he does not have the tree and does not have the space where he stands.}
And Shmuel said that his statement is of no avail in terms of proceeding to his house {from that tree/fence}, but to the space under the tree he may proceed. And the space under the tree is a donkey driver/camel driver {such that he is pulled in two directions}, such that {if he wants to reach his house}, if he wishes to measure from the north {side of the tree/branches to achieve the <2000 cubits to his house}, he must measure from the south. If he wishes to measure from the south, he must measure from the north. {All this since he did not specify an exact place.}

{Eruvin 50a}
Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said: What is Rav's reason? He did not specify an exact spot.
Some say: Rava {our gemara: Rabba} said: What is Rav's reason? Anything that cannot be acquired in succession cannot be acquired even simultaneously.

To explain {the latter version}: Just as a man cannot acquire four cubits as a place of abode after he already acquired in another place, so too he cannot acquire simultaneously an area equal to two places.

{Eruvin 50b}
Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: They only said this about a tree which has under it 8 cubits, but an area which does not have under it 8 cubits, but rather 7 cubits, behold at least a part of his house is well marked out {=the middle square cubit must be part of any 4x4 area marked out}.
That is to say that half of it will only be 3 and 1/2 cubits, and from any location you measure, you will not find 4 consecutive cubits unless you measure 1/2 a cubit from the other section. Thus that 1/2 cubit is established and marked out, and this is a part of his "house."

A brayta in accordance with Rav: One who is travelling on the road and fears lest darkness falls, and he knows of a tree or fence and says "my Shabbat abode is under it," he has said nothing. "My Shabbat abode is place X {whose limits are properly defined}," he walks until place X. When he reached place X, he may traverse its entirety, and outside of it 2000 cubits. When are the words said? By a well defined spot, e.g., he establishes his rest in a mound which is 10 handbreadths high, and has an area ranging from 4 cubits until a bet satayim {= the amount of space required to grow 2 seah of grain}. And so too a valley which is 10 handbreadths deep, and has an area ranging from 4 cubits until a bet satayim. But a place which is not well-defined, he only has 4 cubits. If there were two people, and one knows {of a tree or place} and the other does not know, the one who does not know may give over the establishing of his Shabbat abode to the one who does know.

Rif Eruvin 13b {Eruvin 48a continues ... 49b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
13b

{Eruvin 48a continues}
and these for cubits we grant him using his own cubits {based on his arm span}. And if it troubles you why this measurement was not written {tani} together with other laws which the Rabbis stated are based upon the individual, this is because they did not regard this ruling as definite, for their is the person with stumped limbs, in which case his four arm-spans are not equal to tachtav, and we need to give him four cubits of the standard type of cubit.

{Eruvin 45a}
Mishna:
If there were two {people}, and a part of this one's cubits was within this one's cubits, they may bring and eat in the middle,
{Eruvin 45b}
provided that this one does not carry out from his into that of his fellow.
If there were three, and the middle one is enclosed between them, he is permitted with them and they are permitted with him, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other. Rabbi Shimon says: To what can this be likened? To three courtyards open to one another and open to the public domain; if the two of them made an eruv with the middle one - it is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, and the two outer ones are prohibited one with the other.

{Eruvin 48b}
Rav Yehuda cited Rav: These were the words of Rabbi Shimon. But the Sages say that the one domain may be utilized by the two domains, but the two domains may not be utilized by the one domain.
That is to say, the middle one may be utilized by the outer ones, but the outer one may not be utilized by the {residents of the} middle one.

{Eruvin 49a}
And Shmuel said: According to the Sages, all three are forbidden {to each other}.

Rav Chama bar Guria cited Rav: The halacha is like Rabbi Shimon.

{Eruvin 49b}
Mishna:
If a man was on a journey and darkness overtook him, and he knew of a tree or a fence, and he said, "My Shabbat station is under it" - he said nothing. "My Shabbat station is at its root" - he may walk from the place of his feet to its root 2,000 cubits and from its root to his house 2,000 cubits. Thus he can walk after nightfall 4,000 cubits.

If a person does not know {of a tree or a fence}, or if a person is not versed in the law, and he said, "My Shabbat station is in my place" - his place acquired for him 2,000 cubits in every direction.

"Round ones," says Rabbi Hanina ben Antignos. {That is, a circle with a radius of 2000 cubits.}
But the Sages say: Square ones, as a square board, so that he has the benefit of the corners.

Rif Eruvin 13a {Eruvin 46b continues ... 48a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
13a

{Eruvin 46b continues}
are regarding the end of an eruv {=when there was an eruv techumin for several Shabbatot, and eat was partially consumed and there is now less than 2 meals worth, and we say that we rule leniently that it is still OK}, but regarding the beginning of an eruv, I would say no. Therefore it informs us that the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, for the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri are comparable to the beginning of an eruv.

Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Zerika said that the halacha is like Rabbi Akiva over his colleagues; like Rabbi Yossi over his colleagues; like Rabbi over his colleagues.
How is the above statement evaluated in terms of practical halacha?
Rabbi Assi said: Halacha. {That is, we rule that way.}
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said: Matin. {=We lean that way. We lean like him even against many, and can instruct an individual of this, but do not teach this in public.}
Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina said: Nirin {they appear. That is, we do not even instruct an individual, but if someone conducts himself like Rabbi Yossi we do not make him do it over.}

Rabbi Yaakov bar Iddi cited Rabbi Yochanan (ben Nuri): Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi, the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi. And it need not be said that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi, the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi.

Rav Ashi said: We too say: Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Shimon, the halacha is like Rabbi Yossi. For Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba cited Rabbi Yochanan, "Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda." Now, against Rabbi Yehuda he {=Rabbi Shimon} does not prevail, against Rabbi Yossi need not be said {but rather, obviously, the halacha would be like Rabbi Yossi}.

It was a question to them: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, what? {Who prevails?} The question stands.

Even though Rav argues on Rabbi Yochanan, in these rules {of pesak}, we establish like Rabbi Yochanan, and even {where Rabbi Yossi's opinion appears} in a brayta.

{Eruvin 47b}
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The articles of a gentile do not acquire Shabbat rest.
And Rav Chiyya bar Avin cited Rabbi Yochanan: The articles of a gentile do acquire Shabbat rest, as a decree on the ownership of gentiles because of the ownership of an Israelite.

Some rams arrived at Mavrachta {= a villiage within 4000 cubits of Mechoza} on Yom Tov. Rava permitted the residents of Mechoza to travel to Mechoza via an eruv to purchase them and to travel with them to Mechoza. {Even though the gentiles had brought them from a place beyond the techum of that town. On Yom Tov, one is allowed to obtain on credit purchases of food.}
Ravina said to Rava: What is your thought process here? That Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel that the articles of a gentile do not acquire Shabbat rest? But Rav Chiyya bar Avin cited Rabbi Yochanan that the articles of a gentile do acquire Shabbat rest, as a decree on the ownership of gentiles because of the ownership of an Israelite. And {in a dispute between} Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan!
Thereupon, Rava retracted and ruled instead that the residents of Mavrachta may acquire them, because for them, all of Mavrachta is like 4 cubits.

Rabbi Chiyya taught {a brayta}: A חרס {fish pond} between two techum of Shabbat {of two towns} -

To explain חרס, it is like charitz, a furrow full of water, and it is between two techums of Shabbat

{Eruvin 48a}
- needs a iron partition to partition it, to permit half of it to this techum and its other half to this techum.
Rabbi Chayya bar Chanina laughed at him.
Why did he laugh at him? For this is a leniency that the Sages were lenient as regards water. Just as Rabbi Tavla inquired of Rav: A suspended partition, does it permit in a ruin? He said to him: A suspended partition only permits by water, for it is a leniency in which the Sages were lenient by water. Therefore, even a partition of reeds {and not of iron} permits.

"But the Sages say: He has only four cubits":
These four cubits, where {in Scripture} are they written?
As they learnt {in a brayta}: {Shemot 16:29}:

כט רְאוּ, כִּי-ה נָתַן לָכֶם הַשַּׁבָּת--עַל-כֵּן הוּא נֹתֵן לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, לֶחֶם יוֹמָיִם; שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו, אַל-יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ--בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי

29 See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place {tachtav}, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.'

Like Tachtav {=under himself}. And how much is under him? His body is 3 cubits {prone}, and one cubit in order to stretch out his hands and legs. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: His body is three cubits, and one cubit in order to take an article from under his head and to place it under his legs, and to take an article from under his legs and to place it under his head.
What is the difference between them? This is the distinction between them: 4 cubits exactly. For Rabbi Meir holds 4 cubits exactly, and Rabbi Yehuda holds loose {cubits}.

Rif Yomi Weekly Edition {Eruvin 44b-52a}

can be downloaded here.

Rif Eruvin 12b {Eruvin 45a continues ... 46b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
12b

{Eruvin 45a continues}
and pursued them. They went in to take their weapons, and they {=their enemies} entered after them, and they {the Jews} pushed one against the other, and {inadvertently} killed each other more than the enemies killed. At that time, they {=the Sages} enacted that they should return with their weapons to their place.

Rav Yehuda cited Rav: If gentiles beseige Israelite cities, they {=the Israelites} should not go out {on Shabbat} against them with weapons and do not desecrate the Shabbat because of them. A brayta also says so: If gentiles beseige Israelite cities, they {=the Israelites} should not go out {on Shabbat} against them with weapons and do not desecrate the Shabbat because of them. When are these words said? When they {=the gentiles} come over monetary matters, but if they come for the purpose of killing, they {=the Israelites} should go out {on Shabbat} against them with weapons and do desecrate the Shabbat because of them. And by a city close to the border, even if they come regarding straw and stubble, they {=the Israelites} should go out {on Shabbat} against them with weapons and do desecrate the Shabbat because of them.

Mishna:
If one sat by the road, and stood up and saw that he was close to the town, since it had not been his intention, he may not enter. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehudah says: He may enter.

Rabbi Yehudah said:It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered though it had not been his intention.

Gemara:
There is one who explains and says that since it was his intention to go to that city, then even though he mentions nothing now, Rabbi Yehuda said that he is like one for whom they are making an eruv {techumin} in it, in which case it is permissible for him to go until that city, if he was within 4000 cubits {of the city}, and he is as if he made an eruv with his legs. Therefore, Rabbi Tarfon entered, without intention {beforehand} 2 techum of Shabbat, as if he made an eruv with his legs.

And there is one who says that our Mishna deals with one who established his Shabbat rest within the techum {of the city}. Rabbi Meir holds that since he did know that the city was close to him, within his techum, and he intends to establish his Shabbat rest within his techum, he has only 2000 cubits from his position, and if the city is at the end of 2000 cubits, he may not enter it, and if a portion of it is within his 2000 cubits, he may only enter into it until the end of his 2000 cubits {but does not have the whole city}. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that since if he had known that the city was close to him he would only have established his place of Shabbat rest with the people of the city, he has acquires Shabbat rest with them, and he permitted to enter with them to the city and to traverse the entirety of the city and outside of it {the city} 2000 cubits.

And this {latter explanation} is the logical explanation, and so did Rav Acha write.
And we establish the halacha like Rabbi Yehuda, for {in a dispute between} Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. And further, we learn explicitly in perek Chalon {81b}: Rabbi Yehuda cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. And not only that, but whenever Rabbi Yehuda teaches something in Eruvin, the halacha is like him.

Mishna:
If one slept by the road and did not know that night had fallen, he has 2,000 cubits in any direction. These are the words of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri.
But the Sages say: He has only four cubits.

And Rabbi Eliezer says: And he is in their center.
Rabbi Yehuda says: He may go in whichever direction he wishes.
But Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if he chose for himself, he may not retract.

Gemara:
Rabbi Yaakov bar Iddi cited Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halacha is like the one who is lenient by eruv.

And both {statements}, why do I need?
Rabbi Zera says: Both are needed. For if we say that the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, then I would have thought that this was whether leniently or stringently. Therefore it informs us that the halacha is like the words of the one who is lenient by eruv.
To explain "lenient," that one who sleeps acquires Shabbat rest {=abode} just like one who is awake.
And to explain "stringent," that items of hefker {=ownerless}, according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, acquire their own Shabbat rest {=abode}, and this is stringent. Therefore it informs us that the halacha is like the words of he who is lenient, that is to say that articles of hefker do not aquire Shabbat rest, just as the Sages say, and they are like the legs of any man {and can go with whoever picks them up}.

And let him just say that the halacha is like the one who is lenient by eruv, and there will be no need to say that the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri. {For Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri is lenient by sleeping and the Sages are lenient by articles which are hefker.}
Rabbi [Zera] said: I need it. I would have thought to say that these words are in the case of one individual against another individual, and many against many, but an individual against many, no. Therefore it informs us.

{Eruvin 46b}
Rav Papa said: I need it. I would have thought to say that these words were by eruvei chatzeirot {of courtyards} but by eruv of techum, no. Therefore it informs us that the halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri even by eruv of techum.

Rav Ashi said: I need it. I would have thought to say that these words

Rif Eruvin 12a {Eruvin 43b continues ... 45a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
12a
{Eruvin 43b continues}
is dwelling in misery {being stuck outside the techum for the remainder of Shabbat}.
He said him: Construct a partition composed of people, for then it will be as if he were within a pen or fold, in which he can traverse the entirety, and thereby enter {the techum}.

And this is specifically if he left {the techum} unintentionally, but if he left deliberately, no.

{Eruvin 44b}
And those {people} who compose the partition must also do so without knowledge {that they are constructing a partition by gathering in this formation}, but a partition which is constructed deliberately is forbidden. And if you say that Rav Chisda constructed a partition deliberately, for Rav Nachman said to him: Construct a partition composed of people and he will enter {the techum} thereby -- Rav Chisda was not among those who were part of the partition {and those people did not know they were part of a partition}.

There were certain gardeners who brought in water via a partition composed of human beings, and Shmuel administered lashes to them. He said: They {the Sages} said this {about using a partition made of standing humans} without knowledge {of the participants}. Did they say this with knowledge?!

Some bottles made of skin were once lying about in the manor of Mechoza {which was a public domain} and when Rava came in from his discourse, he {Rashi: his assistant} carried them in. {Since there were many people with Rava, who thus formed a human partition.} The next Shabbat, they wished to do the same, and he forbade them, for it was like it {the construction of the human partition} was done deliberately and thus forbidden.

Mishna:
If a person went out with permission {to do some required deed}, and they said to him, "The deed has already been done" he has 2,000 amot in any direction; if he was within the bounds, it is as though he had not gone out, for all who go out to save may return to their place.

Gemara:
What is this ruling saying?
Rabba said: This is what it means to say: If he was {still} in his {initial} techum, it is as if he never left his house.
But this is obvious!?
I would have said that since he uprooted himself {to leave the techum} he is uprooted. Therefore it informs us {that it is as if he never left his house}.

Rav Shimi bar Chiyya said: This is what it means to say: If the {new} techum which the Rabbis established for him overlapped his original techum, it is as if he never left his original techum.

And in this do they {Rabba and Rav Shimi bar Chiyya} argue. One Master {Rabba} holds that overlapping techumin are not significant, and one Master {Rav Shimi bar Chiyya} holds that overlapping techumin are significant. And {Rav Shimi bar Chiyya holds this} even though he did not rest {shavat} in the space of partitions. {A reference to, e.g., a cave, even 4000 cubits, in which there is an idea that overlapping techumin are significant, even according to Rabba.}

{Eruvin 45a}
Abaye asked Rabba from this that we learn {tnan}, "Rabbi Eliezer says: {If he walked beyond the techum} two {cubits}, he may reenter, three, he may not reenter." Is Rabbi Eliezer not consistent with his reasoning, that he maintains that {in terms of the 4 cubits he may walk} he is in the center, and the four cubits that the Sages granted him are as if they overlap the techum. {Thus, 2 cubits in each direction, so that 2 cubits, they overlap, while three do not.} And he says {by 2 cubits} that he may enter. Thus it is clear that overlapping techumin are significant.

And the Sages only argue with Rabbi Eliezer by {a case where he left the techum for} a matter of reshut {i.e. there was no necessity that he leave the techum}, but {if he left} for a matter of mitzvah, the Sages would agree to him.

And Rabba does not give any answer. Therefore, the halacha is like Rav Shimi bar Chiyya who holds that overlapping techumin are significant.

To explain {leaving} with permission: with permission of Bet Din.

"for all who go out to save may return to their place":
We establish that this means that they return with their weapons to their place, for they learnt {tnan}: Initially, they would lay their weapons in a house close to the wall. One time the enemies recognized them {later in the day while they were outside of the town}

Rif Eruvin 11b {Eruvin 42b continues ... 43b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
11b

{Eruvin 42b continues}
What is the reason?
Rabba said: Since he established his place of Shabbat rest within the space of the partitions {of the boat} while it was yet day {Friday}.
Rabbi Zera said: Since his boat transports him from the beginning of his four cubits and places him at the end of his four cubits.
What is the difference between them? This is the difference between them: Where the walls of the boat were opened. Alternatively, where he jumps from one boat to another boat. According to Rabba, who said it is because he established his place of Shabbat rest within the space of the partitions, here it is forbidden, for he did not establish his place of Shabbat rest within the space of the partitions. According to Rabbi Zera, it is permitted, since the boat brings him from the beginning of four cubits and deposits him at the end of four cubits.

Why did Rabbi Zera not say like Rabba?
{Eruvin 43a}
The walls {of the boat} are constructed to keep the water out.
And why did Rabba not say like Rabbi Zera?
Where it travelled, all would agree that it is permitted. Where do they argue? When it is standing still. And we can derive this also from the language of our Mishna like Rabba, for it states a boat, similar to {the two other examples} a pen and a fold. Just as a pen and a fold are fixed in place, so too the boat when it is fixed in place.

And the {post-Talmudic} sages rule like Shmuel - even though in general, the halacha is like Rav as regards prohibitions, here the halacha is like Shmuel, for there is a brayta like him. For they learnt {in a brayta}: Chanania says: All that day they sat and discussed the halachic matters. The next day my father's brother was machria {=decided. The word here and in other situations really means "compromised," and it is the interpretation of "decided" that causes the Rif difficulty here} amongst them and said: The words of Rabban Gamliel appear {correct} regarding a boat, and the words of Rabbi Akiva regarding a pen and a fold.

And we {=Rif} do not hold like this, for we only learn from this Tanna that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Akiva argue, but a support to one of them we do not find, for we have established for ourselves that we do not learn halacha from Mishna nor from Talmud {here, Talmud=brayta; alternatively, emend to "but rather from talmud" by changing ולא into אלא. See Ran - of course one would pasken from gemara - Ravina and Rav Ashi generation}.
And if we say "but he was machria!" and we have established that anytime two argue and one {= a third party} is machria, we said on this is perek Kira {Shabbat 40a} that perhaps this saying {=rule for deciding halacha} is only regarding Mishna but not regarding brayta. And furthermore, the brother of the father of Chanania was Rabbi Yehoshua, and how can he simultaneously be a disputant and a machria? Therefore, we return to the {trusty} rule that the halacha is like Rav regarding prohibitions and like Shmuel in dinim. And further, this that we say later on that regarding Nechemia the son of Rav Huna bar Chanilai {Eruvin 44a}: "And if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a case in which it was lined with people {thus forming a partition}, Rav said that the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel by a pen, a fold and a boat," which makes it clear that the halacha is like Rav.

{Eruvin 41b}
Mishna:
Once they did not enter the harbor until nightfall.
They said to Rabban Gamliel: May we disembark?
He said to them: You may, for I had already looked, and we were within the bounds before nightfall.

{Eruvin 43b}
Gemara:
They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabban Gamliel had a tube {=telescope} through which he would look 2000 cubits on land and, parallel to that, on the sea. And one who wishes to know the depth of a velley should bring a telescope and look on {regular land, straightforward} and he will know the depth of the valley {by seeing how far he can see with the telescope}.

Nechemia the son of Rav Huna bar Chanilai was preoccupied with his learning and exited outside of the techum. Rav Chisda said to Rav Nachman: Nechemia your student

Rif Eruvin 11a {Eruvin 41b continues ... 42b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
11a

{Eruvin 41a continues}
and returned deliberately, he would only have four cubits.

They inquired of Rabba: If one needed to use the bathroom {when restricted to a four cubit area}?
He said to them: Great is the honor of man, which supersedes even a biblical negative commandment.
The Nehardeans said: If he is smart, he will go into the techum {in order to answer nature's call} and once he has entered, he has entered.
Rav [Papa] said: Fruits which were carried outside of the techum and then returned, even intentionally, they do not lose their {initial} location. What is the reason? They were under duress {that is, they did not go in or out of their own accord}.

{Eruvin 42a}
Rav Nachman cited Shmuel: If he was travelling on the road and does not know techum Shabbat, he should take 2000 middle-sized steps, and this is techum Shabbat.
And Rav Nachman cited Shmuel: If one took his Shabbat-rest in a valley and gentiles erected a partition on Shabbat, he may walk 2000 cubits {inside the partitions}, and may move things throughout {even outside 2000 cubits} via throwing.
And Rav Huna said: He may walk 2000 cubits and may move things within 4 cubits, but throughout via throwing, no, lest he is drawn after his article {if he throws it past 2000 cubits}.
But let him at least carry normally within the 2000 cubits?!
It is like a partition which is breached in its entirety to a place forbidden to it.

{Eruvin 42b}
There is a brayta in accordance with Shmuel: If he was walking and measuring {the techum} and his measure ended in the midst of the city, it is permitted to carry in the entire city, so long as he does not pass the techum with his feet {from the place he set as his Shabbat center outside the city}.
And with what does he carry? Is this not via throwing?

To explain: Since he may not step with his legs over the techum, which is half the city, how does he carry through the entire city if not via throwing?

"If they brought him to another city...":
Rav said: The halacha is like Rabban Gamliel regarding a pen, a fold, and a boat.
And Shmuel said: The halacha is like Rabban Gamliel regarding a boat, but not a pen and a fold.

Regardless, all agree that the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel regarding a boat.

Rif Eruvin 10b {Eruvin 39b continues ... 41b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
10b
{Eruvin 39b continues}
He {Rav Sheshet} said to him {Rabba bar Shmuel}: If you see them {Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda} don't tell them anything.

{Eruvin 40a}
A certain {crop of} turnip came to Mechoza. Rava saw that it was withered. He said: This was certainly uprooted yesterday. What would you say {is problematic}? That it came from outside the techum? That which was brought for one Israelite {would be forbidden for him but} would be permitted for another Israelite, and certainly this, which was brought with a gentile in mind. Rava permitted them to purchase of those {turnips}. Once he saw that they were bringing them in large quantities, he prohibited them.

There were gardeners for whom gentiles {gentiles omitted in our gemara} cut myrtles on {Chavot Yair: the second, Exilic, day of} Yom Tov. When night fell, Ravina permitted them to smell of it immediately. They went and asked Rava. He said to them: we need to wait enough time for them to be made {=cut.}
And so is the halacha.

{Eruvin 39a}
Mishna:
Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkenos says: He who stands before the pulpit to pray on the {first day of} Yom Tov of Rosh Hashana first day of the new year says: Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of the new moon, whether today or tomorrow {be the true day}. And the next day he says: whether today or yesterday.
And the Sages did not agree to him.

{Eruvin 40a}
Gemara:
Rava said: When we were in the academy of Rav Kahana {our gemara: Huna}, it was a question to them: should one mentioned Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hanasha {since Rosh Hashana is also a Rosh Chodesh}? Since they are separate in their musaf offerings, do we say {Rosh Chodesh}, or perhaps one mention counts here and there {covering Rosh Hashana and Rosh Chodesh}?
{Eruvin 40b}
And we conclude: What did they say about it? Rav Chisda said: One mention counts both here and there. And so did Rava say: One mention counts both here and there.

And Rava said: When we were in the academy of Rav Kahana, it was a question to us: should one say zeman {=Shehechiyanu} on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur? Since it comes from time to time, we say it, or perhaps it is not called a regel we do not say it? He did not have it {the answer} in his hand. When they came to Rav Yehuda, he said: We say a Shehechiyanu even on a new gourd. They said to him: We have no question whether it is a reshut {= permitted as a voluntary matter}. We have a question whether it is obligatory.
And we conclude that it is the halacha that one says Shehechiyanu on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.
And the halacha is that one says Shehechiyanu even in the marketplace, and he requires no cup {over which to say it}.

END PEREK THREE
BEGIN PEREK FOUR
{Eruvin 41b}
Mishna:
One whom gentiles or an evil spirit {=in a fit of insanity} took out {of the techum}, he has only his four cubits. If they returned him, it is as if he never left.
If they brought him to another city, or into a pen or fold -- Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya say: He may walk through its entirety (and outside it) {text in parentheses in parethesis in Rif and missing in our gemara}.
Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva say: He only has his four cubits.
And there was an incident in which they {=these four} came from Parendisim and their vessel was still at sea {on Shabbat}. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarya walked throughout its entirety, and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Akiva did not move from their four cubits, because they wished to be strict upon themselves.

Gemara:
Rav Nachman cited Shmuel: If he left {the techum} deliberately, then even if gentiles brought him back {against his will} he only has his four cubits {as he would have outside the techum}. And certainly if he left deliberately

Rif Yomi Weekly Edition {Eruvin 38a-44b}

This coming week's Rif Yomi can be found here.

Update: I erred and omitted daf 10a in the Rif from the Word Document. This was unfortunate since besides cutting off a daf, it also cut of the end of a joke. It has now been updated, and is available through the link above.

Rif Eruvin 10a {Eruvin 38b continues ... 39b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
10a
{Eruvin 38b continues}
he makes two eruvin¹... - but we need a meal which is fit while it is yet day, and it is not²!
Do you think that he placed it at the end of 2000 cubits this way and at the end of 2000 cubits that way? No! Rather, that he placed it at the end of 1000 cubits this way and at the end of 1000 cubits that way.

But what of this that Rav Yehuda said that if one makes an eruv with his legs on the first day, he may make an eruv with his legs on the second day, and if he made an eruv with bread on the first day, he may make an eruv with bread on the second day - He is thus preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbat³?!
{The answer:} Do you think he goes somewhere and says anything?! It is where he goes and is silent and gets up. And even though he says nothing, since if he desired to he could have said, he is considered one who said.

And this that we learnt {in the brayta}: A man should not go to his field to see what it needs;
{Eruvin 39a}
Similarly a man should not travel to the end of the country in order to enter the bathhouse immediately {after Shabbat} -- this is no question at all, for there the purpose it obvious, but here, the purpose is not obvious. For if he is a member of the rabbinate, they will say that he is thinking of his learning {and his mind is not on anything else}, and if he is unschooled, they will say his donkey wandered off {and he is going is search of it, permitted on Shabbat within the techum}.

Gufa: {To return to discuss a previously mentioned point}
Rav Yehuda said that if one makes an eruv with his legs on the first day, he may make an eruv with his legs on the second day, and if he made an eruv with bread on the first day, he may make an eruv with bread on the second day. If he made an eruv with bread on the first day, he may make an eruv with his legs on the second day. If he makes an eruv with his legs on the first day, he may not make an eruv with bread on the second day, for we may not make an eruv in the first place {in the midst of Yom Tov/Shabbat} with bread.

If he made an eruv with bread on the first day, he may make an eruv with bread on the second day -- Shmuel said: And with the same bread {but not with another bread}.

Mishna:
Rabbi Yehudah says: "If a person suspected that Rosh Hashanah might be intercalated⁴, a man may make two eruvs and he says: My eruv for the first to the east and for the second to the west; For the first to the west and for the second to the east; My eruv on the first, and on the second as the people of my city; My eruv on the second, and on the first as the people of my city.
And the Sages did not agree to him.

Gemara:
Who are "the Sages?" Rabbi Yossi, who holds that the two days of Rosh HaShana have a single sanctity {kedusha}. For if witnesses come from Mincha and on, they treat both that day and the next as holy {and thus it is not as a result of doubt}. And so is the halacha.

However, as regards the two days of Yom Tov in the Exile, Rabbi Yossi admits to the Sages that they have two separate sanctities, as we will need to say later.

Mishna:
And Rabbi Yehudah said further: A man may stipulate regarding a basket on the first day of Yom Tov and he may eat it on the second. And so, too, an egg laid on the first, may be eaten on the second.
But the Sages did not agree with him.

Gemara:
The Sages learnt {in a brayta}: How does one stipulate on a basket of fruit on the first day of Yom Tov and eat it on the second? If there were before him two baskets of tevel {=untithed}, he says, "If today is a weekday and tomorrow is holy, this should be teruma taken off for this {since on a weekday one may take off teruma}, and if today is holy, there is nothing to my words," and he calls upon it a name {of teruma} and sets it aside. And the next day, he says, "If today is a weekday, this should be teruma on that, and if today is holy, there is nothing to my words," and he calls upon it a name {of teruma} and eats it.
And the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda in terms of the two days of Yom Tov of the Exile, but in terms of the two days of Rosh HaShana, no.

{Eruvin 39b}
A gazelle which came to the house of the Exilarch and which was captured {by gentiles} on the first day of Yom Tov of the Exile and was slaughtered on the second day of Yom Tov, Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda ate of it, for they held that they {=the days} have two separate sanctities, and Rav Sheshet did not eat of it, for he held that they have a single sanctity.

Rav Sheshet chanced upon Rabba bar Shmuel. He said to him: Let Master teach something regarding sanctities. He said to him {in reply}: We learnt {tanina}: Rabbi Yossi admits to the Sages regarding the two days of Yom Tov of the Exile

---

Footnotes:
1: The assumption here is that he stands at location X and puts one eruv 2000 cubits to the east and another 2000 cubits to the west, such that the eruv for the second day is 4000 cubits away from his Shabbat center of the first day.
2: For on the first day, he cannot reach the eruv of the second day to eat it!
3: In terms of the eruv with his legs, for he walks someplace and says, "Here will be my place of Shabbat rest."
4: He fears Bet Din might make Elul meubar {adding a day} and thus Yom Tov will be two days

Rif Eruvin 9b {Eruvin 38a continues ... 38b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
9b
{Eruvin 38a continues}
and on the first I am like the inhabitants of my city.
And the Sages say: Either he makes an eruv for one direction, or he does not make an eruv at all; either he makes an eruv for two days, or he does not make an eruv at all.

How does he make {an eruv for the two days}? He takes it for the first and he waits for nightfall, and he takes it and he comes {to a second location}. On the second he waits until nightfall and he eats it. And thus he benefits by his walking and he benefits from his eruv.
If it was eaten on the first, his eruv is for the first but it is not an eruv for the second.
Rabbi Eliezer said to them: You agree with me that they are two sanctities.

Gemara:
{In the Sages statement in the Mishna:} "To one direction" - what is it? It means {to one direction} for the two days. "For two days" - what is it? It means in one direction! Thus they are one statement! {Why separate it into two?}
This is what the Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: Do you not admit that we may not make an eruv one one day, half to the north and half to the south?
He said to them: Truth {you are right}.
{They said to him:} Just as we may not make an eruv one one day, half to the north and half to the south, so too we may not make an eruv for two days, one to the east and one to west.
And Rabbi Eliezer: There {on a single day} is is one kedusha; here {on two days}, there are two kedushot.

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Do you not admit to me that if he made an eruv with his legs¹ on the first day that he must make an eruv with his legs on the second day {and not rely on the first one}? And that if his eruv is consumed on the first day, it is not effective on the second day?
They said to him: Truth!
{He then said:} Thus there are two kedushot.
And the Sages {are actually in doubt whether there is one or two kedushot}: here stringently and here stringently.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Do you not admit that we cannot make an eruv in the first place from Yom Tov to Shabbat {if we made no eruv before the onset of Yom Tov}?
He said to them: Truth!
{They said:} Thus, there is a single kedusha!
And Rabbi Eliezer: There, it is because of hachana².

{Eruvin 38b}
Rav said: The halacha is like the four elders, and according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that there are two kedushot.
And does Rav indeed say this? But it was stated {by Amoraim}: Shabbat and Yom Tov - [Rav said:] if it was born on this day, it is forbidden on that day.
Abaye said: There, it is because of hachana².
What is meant by hachana? As we learnt {in the brayta}: {Shemot 16:5}:

ה וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי, וְהֵכִינוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יָבִיאוּ; וְהָיָה מִשְׁנֶה, עַל אֲשֶׁר-יִלְקְטוּ יוֹם יוֹם.

5 And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.'

A weekday may prepare for Shabbat and a weekday may prepare for Yom Tov, but Shabbat may not prepare for Yom Tov and Yom Tov may not prepare for Shabbat.

But this that we learn in the Mishna - "How does he make {an eruv for the two days}? He takes it for the first and he waits for nightfall, and he takes it and he comes {to a second location}. On the second he waits until nightfall and he eats it" - he is preparing from Yom Tov to Shabbat?!
He said to him: Do you think that the end of the day the eruv takes effect? At the beginning of the day the eruv takes effect! And {thus} Shabbat prepares for herself.
But now, he should be able to make an eruv with lagin³?
We need a meal which is fit while it is yet day, and this is absent.

But what of this that we learnt in the Mishna - Rabbi Eliezer says: a Yom Tov juxtaposed to Shabbat, whether before or after

---

Footnotes:
1: Rashi: Where he did not have bread to send as an eruv and so he walked to the end of 200 0 cubits and established his Shabbat rest in that place.
2: that one may not prepare from one to the next
3: In which wine is taken from a cask and it is tevel, and he says it is teruma once night falls - if he would say that his eruv should be from it, his eruv is no eruv.

Rif Eruvin 9a {Eruvin 35a continues ... 38a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
9a
{Eruvin 35a continues}
Mishna:
If it rolled outside the techum, a mound fell on it, or it was burned; if it was teruma and it became impure -- if {any of the above happened} while it was yet day {on Friday}, it is not an eruv; if once it became dark, it is an eruv. And if it is a doubt - Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This is a donkey driver and a camel driver.¹
Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Shimon say: doubt of an eruv is valid.

Rabbi Yossi said:Rabbi Zecharia ben Avtulos testified in the name of five elders that in case of doubt an eruv is valid.

Gemara:
Rava said: They only said this where the eruv rolled outside 4 cubits, but if within 4 cubits, one who places down his eruv has 4 cubits.

Mishna:
A person may stipulate regarding his eruv and say: "If Gentiles came from the east, my eruv is to the west; from the west my eruv is to the east; if they came from here and from here, to the place that I want I will go; if they came neither from here nor from here, then I am like the inhabitants of my city."
"If a Sage came from the east, my eruv is to the east; from the west my eruv is to the west; if he came here and here, to the place that I want I will go; neither here nor here, then I am like the inhabitants of my city."
Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of them was his teacher, he walks to his teacher; If both are his teachers, he walks to whichever of them he wants.

Gemara:
And the Sages hold that there are time that a man would prefer to be in the company of his colleague rather than that of his teacher.

{Eruvin 38a}
Mishna:
Rabbi Eliezer says: If a Yom Tov is next to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a man may make two eruvs {of techum} and say: My first eruv is to the east and my second is to the west; my first is to the west and my second is to the east; I make the eruv only for the first day and the second I am like the inhabitants of my city; I make the eruv only for the second day, and on the first day

---

Footnotes:
1: With the donkey in front and the camel behind, such that either way he tries to go he will be tugged back.

Rif Eruvin 8b {Eruvin 34b continues; 32b; 35a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
8b

{Eruvin 34b continues - Mishna}
it is a valid eruv.
If he placed it in a turret {=tower shaped closet}, closed it, and lost the key, it is an eruv.
Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not an eruv.

{Eruvin 32b}
Gemara:
This tree, where does it stand?
If you say that it stands in the private domain, what does it matter higher or lower {than ten handbreadths}? A private domain extends until the heavens!
But rather, that it stands in the public domain, and he intends to establish Shabbat rest {shevut} there? How so? If he intends to rest {=shevut} above, only then are he and his eruv in a single place. But if he intends to rest below, then he will end up having to make use of the tree {which is impermissible Rabbinically}!
In truth, the case is one in the public domain, and he intends to rest below, and who is this? Rabbi, who states that any Rabbinic matter they did not decree at twilight {when he must establish his place of Shabbat rest}.

"Ih he placed it in a pit":
This pit, howso?
If you say that it is in the private domain, this is obvious {and the depth would not matter}, for just as a private domain extends and reaches up to the heavens, so too it reaches down below.
Rather, it is in the public domain, where does he intend to establish his Shabbat rest? If above {and not in the depths of the pit}, he is in one location and his eruv is in another location. If below, it is obvious, for he and his eruv are in one location! Rather, here we are dealing with a pit situated in a karmelit {which is Rabbinic}, and he intends to rest above, and it is Rabbi, who states that any Rabbinic matter they did not decree at twilight.

"If he placed it on the head of a reed or on the head of a pole":
If it is detached and stuck in {the ground}, yes, but that which is not stuck in and detached {but rather grew as such}, no, as a decree lest he break off the top.

{Eruvin 35a}
"If he placed it in a turret {=tower shaped closet}, closed it...":
Why {should it be a valid}? He is in one location and his eruv is in another location!
Abaye and Rava both say that we are dealing here with a key hanging from the lock by a cord and we need a knife to cut it. And Rabbi Eliezer holds like Rabbi Nechemia that even a spoon and even a talit may only be handled for their intended purpose - therefore it is forbidden; and the Sages maintain that all vessels may be handled, whether for their intended purpose or not for their intended purpose.

Rif Yomi Weekly Edition {Eruvin 31a - 38a}

This coming week's Rif Yomi, from Eruvin 31a to 38a, fits on a single side of a page. It contains the Rif Yomi from tomorrow, Shabbat, Nov 5, 2005, to next Shabbat, Nov 12, 2005. It may be download here.

Update: Changed to fix 3 typos (closet was spelled closed, grain -> produce)

Rif Eruvin 8a {Eruvin 31a ... 34b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
8a

{Eruvin 31a}
Mishna:
We may make an eruv with demai¹, and with maaser rishon from which teruma² had been taken off, and from maaser sheni and hekdesh which had been redeemed; and the Kohanim with challah and teruma
but not with tevel³, nor with maaser rishon from which teruma had not been taken off, nor with maaser rishon or hekdesh that had not been redeemed.

{Eruvin 31b}
If ones sends his eruv {techumin - at a distance up to 2000 cubits from him, to establish his 2000 cubit Shabbat boundary} in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or in the hands of one who does admit the lawfulness of an eruv, it is not an eruv. And if he tells someone to accept it from that person {at the destination}, it is an eruv.

Gemara:
"If ones sends his eruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor":
We establish this as referring to an eruv techumin, but in the case of an eruv chatzerot {of courtyards}, one who sends it in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, it is an eruv, for we establish like Rav Huna that a minor may collect an eruv.

"And if he tells someone to accept it from that person, it is an eruv":
But let us be concerned that he does not reach him!
We are speaking of case in which he stands and watches him.
But let us be concerned that the other fellow does not take it from him!
There is an assumption {chazaka} that an agent does his assigned task.

{Eruvin 32b}
Mishna:
If he placed it {=the eruv} in a tree, higher than ten handbreadths, it is not an eruv; lower than ten handbreadths, it is an eruv.
If he placed it in a pit, even at a depth of 100 cubits, it is a valid eruv.

{Eruvin 34b}
If he placed it at the top of a reed or at the top of a pole, if it was detached and then inserted {into the ground}, even if 100 cubits high.

---

Footnotes:
1: =produce where we are unsure that maaser has been taken off
2: = terumat maaser
3: = food from which teruma and maaser had not been taken