Daf Ditty Eruvin 45
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Daf Ditty Eruvin 45 "Snow was falling, so much like stars filling the dark trees that one could easily imagine its reason for being was nothing more than prettiness.” ― Mary Oliver 1 2 MISHNA: With regard to a person who was sitting along the road on Shabbat eve toward nightfall, unaware that he was within the city’s Shabbat limit, and when he stood up after Shabbat had already commenced, he saw that he was near the town, i.e., within its limit, since he had not intended to acquire his place of residence in the town, he may not enter it, but rather he measures two thousand cubits from his place; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may enter the town. Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon entered a town on Shabbat without intention from the beginning of Shabbat to establish residence in the city. GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town. In the morning, cowherds who came to graze their cattle outside the town found him and said to him: Master, the town is before you; enter. He entered and sat in the study hall and taught the entire day. This indicates that one is permitted to enter. 3 MISHNA: With regard to one who was sleeping along the road on Shabbat eve and did not know that night had fallen, he has two thousand cubits in each direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who maintains that knowledge and awareness are not necessary for one to acquire residence, but rather, a person’s presence in a given location establishes residence there. But the Rabbis say: He has only four cubits, as since he did not knowingly acquire residence, he did not establish a Shabbat limit. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has only four cubits total and he is in the middle of them, i.e., he has two cubits in each direction. And according to this understanding, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri should by right have disagreed with the Rabbis even about utensils that were left in the field, i.e., that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, ownerless utensils can be moved two thousand cubits in each direction. And the reason that they disagreed about a person is to convey the far-reaching nature of the stringent ruling of the Rabbis, that although there is room to say: Since a person who is awake acquires for himself two thousand cubits, he also acquires them if he is sleeping, the mishna nonetheless teaches us that the Rabbis did not accept this argument, and this is why the dispute is taught specifically with respect to a person. 4 Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following baraita: Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk. Abaye sat and recited this tradition. Rav Safra said to Abaye: Perhaps we are dealing with rain that fell near a city, and the inhabitants of that city had it in mind, and that is why it acquires two thousand cubits in each direction. MISHNAH: The Mishnah records a dispute regarding the designation of a city as a person’s residence when at the beginning of Shabbos he did not realize he was within its techum. 4) An expanded version of R’ Yehudah’s proof. 5 A Baraisa is cited that contains a more detailed version of R’ Yehudah’s proof as well as the response of others to that proof. MISHNAH: A dispute is recorded regarding the consequences for a person who fell asleep before Shabbos began without designating his place of residence for Shabbos. Additionally, issues related to overlapping residences are discussed. The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person did not know he was within the Techum of a city when Shabbos arrived. Rebbi Meir says that he does not have the Techum of the city, since he did not intend that the city should be his residence, and therefore he has only 2,000 Amos in each direction. Rebbi Yehudah says that since he indeed was within the Techum of the city when Shabbos arrived, he has the same Techum as a resident of the city. because no מא ו ת holds that the sleeping person is granted 2000 יונר ןב ןנחוי ' ר Rava asks whether – התיבש נוק י ן רקפה יצפח and therefore, he would also hold - חת ו ם intention is necessary to acquire a .of their own, even though there is nobody to have intent for them חת ו ם ownerless objects have a because intent to be חת ו ם since a sleeping person is NOT granted a , כחמ י ם According to the acquire a יצפח רקפה יא ן נוק י ן התיבש - IS necessary, cannot certainly objects ownerless בש י הת וק הנו .of their own חת ו םוח 6 because מא ו ת s opinion that a sleeping person is granted 2000‘ יונר ןב ןנחוי ' ר OR - We could explain even חת ו ם Since he is capable of intent when awake, he can acquire a ליוהא ו רוענ הנק ןשי ימנ הנק - ,ownerless objects - התיבש ינוק ן יא ן רקפה יצפח However , 'ר ןנחוי ןב יונר while asleep. that agree would .of their own, because there is no capability of intent at all חת ו ם do not acquire a Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1 1 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446 7 If someone fell asleep while traveling on Friday afternoon and wakes up to find that Shabbat has already begun, the hakhamim rule that he is limited to just his immediate four amot, since he did not intend to establish his place for Shabbat there. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that he can walk the full 2,000 amot in any direction, since he does not believe that it is necessary to establish Shabbat residency with specific intent. The discussion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri’s position leads to questions about what the ruling is with regard to inanimate objects, as well. Does an ownerless object “establish residency” – thus limiting it for use in a specific area – or not? Rav Yosef tries to answer this question by quoting a baraita that discusses rainfall. Rain that fell on the eve of a Festival has two thousand cubits in each direction, meaning that one is permitted to carry the rainwater within a radius of two thousand cubits. But if the rain fell on the Festival itself, it is like the feet of all people, as it did not acquire residence, and consequently one is permitted to carry this water wherever he is permitted to walk. The problem raised by several rishonim is that, in the case of rainfall on Yom Tov, it is likely that the rain, which originated in another place entirely, should be limited to its immediate surroundings, since it left its original tehum. Some respond by arguing that the rules about leaving one’s established boundaries and becoming limited to four cubits of space only make sense when discussing a person who has the ability to make conscious decisions and choose his area of residence for Shabbat. Such a person, who established a place for himself and left it, or did not establish it at all, can be limited by his decision. Rain – an unintelligent object – cannot make decisions or choose where its Shabbat will take place. It is, therefore, bound only by the limits of the person who discovers it and wants to make use of it. Another explanation is that, while in the clouds, rain is in constant motion, and it is impossible to discuss “establishing a Shabbat place” with regard to something that is moving. Therefore, when it reaches the earth we cannot try to impose independent tehum limitations on it. Elliot Goldberg writes:2 The demanding pace of Daf Yomi sometimes makes it hard to notice the seams between the layers of rabbinic literature. But the juxtaposition of two teachings on today’s daf provides an opportunity to pause and take notice. The Mishnah tells us of a rabbinic dispute in a case where someone was caught out of town when Shabbat begins and only notices after nightfall that there is a town nearby. 2 Myjewishlearning.com 8 According to Rabbi Meir, such a person is forbidden from entering the town on Shabbat because they had not intended to establish a residence there on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the person is allowed to enter the town. He bases this opinion on precedent: Rabbi Tarfon, a leading sage of an earlier generation, was once in such a situation and entered the town on Shabbat even though he had no prior intention of establishing his Shabbat residence there. The Mishnah does not describe the case of Rabbi Tarfon in detail, but we learn more from a baraita that is related in the Gemara. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: It once happened that Rabbi Tarfon was walking along the way on Shabbat eve, and night fell upon him, and he spent the night outside the town.