Eruvin - Simanim דף ב – Daf 2

קורה Lowering a .1 The opening Mishnah states that if a mavoi has a korah (crossbeam) placed at the entrance higher than twenty amos, the korah must be lowered. Rebbe Yehudah says it does not need to be lowered.

The Chochomim derive – חכמים לא למדוה אלא מפתחו של היכל ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav Rebbe - רבי יהודה לא למדה אלא מפתחו של אולם their ruling from the entrance of the Heichal, and Yehudah, derived his ruling from the entranceway of the Antechamber, and it is stated in a Mishnah in The entranceway to the Heichal was twenty –פתחו של היכל גבהו עשרים אמה ורחבו עשר אמות ,Middos and the entranceway to the –ושל אולם גבהו ארבעים אמה ורחבו עשרים ,amos high and ten amos wide antechamber was forty amos high and twenty amos wide.

2. The Mishkan is called Mikdash and vice versa The Gemara went on to elaborate how both the Chochomim and Rebbe Yehudah derive their rulings And he shall slaughter [the offering] at the entranceway – ושחטו פתח אהל מועד ,from the same passuk of the Ohel Moed.

The Gemara questions how the Chochomim and Rebbe Yehudah can base their dispute on a passuk אשכחן משכן ,referring to the Ohel Moed whose entranceway was only ten amos high, and answers We find in the Torah that the Mishkan is sometimes called, “the – דאיקרי מקדש ומקדש דאיקרי משכן ועשו לי מקדש ,Mikdash”, and sometimes the Mikdash is called “the Mishkan”, as it says in the passuk And they shall make for Me a ‘mikdash’ and I will dwell in their midst. Here we see that – ושכנתי בתוכם the Mishkan is sometimes called a “Mikdash”. Therefore, the passuk which the Chochomim and Rebbe Yehudah base their ruling on can be referring to the entranceway of the Beis HaMikdash which is higher than ten amos.

3. Why an entrance to a mavoi does not require doors The Gemara asks that if the Chochomim derive their ruling from the entranceway to the Heichal then the ,הכשר מבוי they should require doors like the Heichal had, yet we know in a later Mishnah that adjustment of a mavoi according to Beis Shammai requires a lechi and a korah, and according to Beis Hillel a lechi or a korah. Neither one requires a door?

The doors of the Heichal were made – דלתות היכל לצניעות בעלמא הוא דעבידן ,The Gemara answers merely for privacy, which means to lend a sense of dignity to the avodah.

Siman – House The house of prayer, with crossbeams lowered to twenty amos high, was called Beis Mishkan HaMikdash, and featured elegant ornamental doors made merely to provide a sense of privacy.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ג – Daf 3

1. The korah serves as a heker Rav stated on Daf 2a that the Chachomim who hold that the beam of a mavoi may not be higher than twenty amos, derive their ruling from the height of the entrance into the Heichal, which was twenty amos. In today's daf, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak disagrees and says that the reason the Chochomim limit a korah’s height to .to serve as reminder to differentiate between a mavoi and a reshus harabim - משום היכרא twenty amos is

Rashi explains that people will see it and know that the Rabbanon required it, and they will not come to a - אמלתרא confuse the mavoi with a reshus harabim. It also explains why the Rabbanon held that an prominence , above twenty amos is permitted, since people will notice the beam because of it.

2. When part of korah or s’chach is above twenty amos The Gemara asks what the halacha is if part of the korah is within twenty amos of the ground and the top part of the korah is above twenty amos? Similarly, what is the halacha if part of the s’chach is within twenty the korah of – במבוי כשר בסוכה פסול ,amos and part of the s’chach is above twenty amos. Rabbah answered the mavoi is valid and the sukkah is passul.

• Rava from the town of Parzakya explained the difference between the korah and sukkah. Technically the sukkah should be valid if the lower part of the s’chach is within twenty amos, except that since a sukkah is meant for an individual, the person sitting in the sukkah will not be mindful and notice if some of the lower s’chach is removed and thereby make the sukkah passul. In the case of a mavoi, however, since it is meant for the public, they will remind each other to fix it if the lower part of the korah disintegrates.

• Ravina said that Rabbah was machmir by the sukkah since it is a d’Oraysa, and lenient with the mavoi since it is a d’Rabbanon. the korah– במבוי פסול בסוכה כשירה ,The Gemara brings an alternative version of Rabbah in which he rules of the mavoi is passul and the sukkah is valid, with explanations for Rabbah’s rationale.

3. The size of an amah the amah-unit mentioned in – אמת סוכה ואמת מבוי באמה בת חמשה ,Abaye said in the name of Rav Nachman the amah-unit – אמת כלאים באמה בת ששה the laws of sukkah and a mavoi is a five tefachim amah unit, and mentioned in the laws of kilayim is six tefachim. Rashi explains that Rav Nachman is stating that the amah- unit that will result in a chumrah is always used. This must be Rav Nachman’s intent, otherwise how would he apply different measures when the Mishnah does not indicate which measure should be used.

– אלא הללו שוחקות והללו עצבות ,Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman that all amah-units are six tefachim the amos for kilayim are loose amos, meaning measured with a loose fist, and the amos for a sukkah and a mavoi are measured with tight amos, meaning measured with a tight fist . Tight fists are called “sad” resembling the compressed lips of someone who is sad. Loose fists are called “happy” resembling the slightly parted lips of one who smiles.

Siman – Camel The distracted camel looking at the prominent hecker at the mavoi entrance, smashed into a sukkah with some s’chach above twenty amos, that was full of unhappy tight fisted guests debating the size of an amah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ד – Daf 4

1. Parts of the mizbayach measured with five tefachim amos כל אמות שאמרו חכמים בכלאים באמה בת ששה ובלבד ,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated in a Baraisa All the amah-units the Chochomim mentioned in regard to kilayim are measured – שלא יהו מצומצות using an amah of six tefachim provided that they should not be precise, meaning that they should be loose tefach-amos. The Gemara suggests that stipulating that kilayim require six tefachim amos, implies that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that with regards to a sukkah and a mavoi, five tefachim amos are used, which would support Abaye’s position.

The Gemara answers that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel may have come to exclude the amah-units the base, ledge and horns of the – יסוד המזבח, הסובב, הקרנות, ומזבח הזהב mentioned in context of the mizbayach, as well as width and depth of the golden mizbayach ,which were all measured using five tefachim amah-units.

חציצין הלכה למשה מסיני .2 standard – שיעורין חציצין ומחיצין הלכה למשה מסיני ,Rebbe Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav measurements, interpositions and partitions are all laws which were given orally to Moshe at Har Sinai. interpositions are in fact d’Oraysa, and that hair is also chotzeitz -חציצין After proving that the laws of דבר ,d’Oraysa, the Gemara clarifies that Rav was referring to a halacha which Rebbe Yitzchok taught According to Torah law, (meaning Halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai), something on – תורה רובו ומקפיד עליו חוצץ one’s hair is only a chatzitza if it covers the majority of the hair, and if one objects to it being there.

Rashi gives the examples of dried blood, ink, clay or tar. Rashi also explains that if one does not object to the object being on his hair, it is considered as part of the body.

The Rabbanon decreed that even if only one factor exists, meaning it covers most of one’s hair, or if he objects to it being on his hair, the tevillah is invalid.

מחיצין הלכה למשה מסיני .3 The Gemara challenges Rav’s assertion that the halacha of mechitzos is a halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai from one of Rav’s own teachings in which he states that we derive the law that a mechitzah is ten tefachim from the fact that the aron was nine tefachim and the kapores was one tefach, for a total of ten tefachim.

The Gemara answers that Rav was referring to the view of Rebbe Yehudah who holds that the height of the aron was only seven and a half tefachim, and therefore it cannot serve as the source for mechitzos. - ,גוד According to Rebbe Meir, the halacha l’Moshe m’Sinai is coming to teach the halachos of the law of a–דופן עקומה viewing small gaps in a wall as closed, and ,לבוד ,extending a wall up or down bent wall of a sukkah.

Siman – Door The five tefach door used to measure the base, ledge and horns of the mizbayach, was owned by the craftsmen with sticky tar all over his hair, who also used it to teach the laws of gud, lavud and dofen akumah. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ה – Daf 5

1. The size of a mound under a korah On Daf 4b, a machlokes was brought in a case where one wanted to lower a mavoi entrance that was above twenty amos, by building up the ground beneath the korah. Rav Yosef said that the mound must be at least one tefach wide extending into the mavoi, and Abaye said it must be at least four tefachim wide.

it – מותר להשתמש תחת הקורה ,One explanation for the basis of the machlokes is as follows. Rav Yosef holds is permissible to carry directly under the korah, and therefore the person will notice the korah and be it is – אסור להשתמש תחת הקורה ,reminded not to carry in reshus harabim. Abaye disagrees and holds forbidden to carry directly under the korah, and therefore the korah must be recognizable when one is not standing directly underneath it. Rashi explains that once the mound must extend past the korah, it is required to have a choshuv width, which is the width of four tefachim.

it is permissible - מותר להשתמש תחת הקורה ,A second explanation of the machlokes is that everybody holds to carry under the korah. However, they dispute the purpose of the korah. Rav Yosef holds that it is there to serve as a heker, and therefore one tefach is sufficient. Abaye holds that it is there to serve as a mechitzah, and a mechitzah is only halachically considered a partition when it sets off an area that is at least four by four tefachim. The Gemara brings two additional explanations.

2. What kind of mavoi is it permissible to carry in? Carrying in a mavoi is – אין מבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה עד שיהו בתים וחצרות פתוחין לתוכו ,It was taught in a Baraisa not permissible with a lechi or a korah unless there are courtyards and houses opening into it, meaning at least two courtyards with at least two homes in each courtyard.

Which kind of – איזהו מבוי שניתר בלחי וקורה ,We have the following tradition – נקיטינן ,Rav Nachman said – כל שארכו יתר על רחבו ובתים וחצרות פתוחין לתוכו ?mavoi is permissible to carry in with a lechi or a korah Any mavoi whose length is greater than its width and that courtyards and houses open into it. Rashi explains that a square mavoi has the status of a chatzeir which has more extensive requirements to permit carrying within it.

3. A lechi that is four amos wide נידון משום ,Rami bar Chama said in the name of Rav that if a lechi protrudes four amos into the entranceway and it therefore requires another lechi to –וצריך לחי אחר להתירו ,it is judged as a wall of the mavoi – מבוי permit carrying into it.

• Rav Pappa says one should place the lechi on the other side of the entrance way where it will stand alone and will not be mistaken as part of the original wide lechi. • Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua says that one may even place it next to the wide lechi, if he makes it taller or shorter, or thicker or thinner, so that it is distinct.

Siman – Hay The mound of hay piled up under the korah that was too high, belonged to the four homeowners in the two courtyards who didn’t realize their four amah wide lechi was also too wide.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ו – Daf 6

1. Gaps in mavoi walls There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding gaps in mavoi walls: A mavoi can– מבוי שנפרץ מצידו בעשר אמות מראשו בארבעה ,Rav Chanan bar Rava said in the name of Rav have a maximum gap of until ten amos on its side wall, (as long as there were four tefachim of wall before the gap), but in the front wall, (in a case, for example, where the mavoi had a twenty amos opening and was then closed off by a ten amos wall), then four tefachim in that wall is the maximum breach.

The Gemara asked why a breach in the front wall cannot be up to ten amos like a gap in the side wall, and be considered an entrance? Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua answered that when Rav Chanan stated "a breach in the front," he was referring to a breach in the corner. Since people do not usually construct entrances in corners, it cannot be considered an entrance. Instead it is viewed as a gap that makes the mavoi passul.

in either case, whether the breach is in the side wall or in the – אחד זה ואחד זה בארבעה ,Rav Huna says corner, a breach that is four tefachim wide passuls the mavoi.

מבוי עקום .2 a bent mavoi, which is an L-shaped mavoi that opens – מבוי עקום There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding a to the street on both ends. its law is that of an open mavoi, meaning each leg is viewed as an open mavoi –תורתו כמפולש ,Rav says • which requires a tzuras hapesach at one end and a lechi or korah at the other. Its law is that of a closed mavoi, and therefore all that is required is a lechi or – תורתו כסתום ,Shmuel says • a korah at each end.

הלכה כבית הלל .3 the halacha – לעולם הלכה כבית הלל ,The Gemara points out a contradiction in a Baraisa which initially states והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה ,always follows Beis Hillel, and then states immediately afterwards and one who wishes to act in accordance with Beis Shammai may do so, and one who – כדברי בית הלל עושה wants to act in accordance with Beis Hillel may do so. Three answers are given.

the second part that states one can choose whom to follow was said –כאן קודם בת קול כאן לאחר בת קול.1 before the bas kol stated that Beis Hillel’s opinion should be followed, and the first statement was made after the bas kol. 2. The first and second part were both stated after the bas kol. The second part however, reflects the view of Rebbe Yehoshua who pays no heed to bas kols. 3. The second part of the Baraisa means to say that anywhere that there is a machlokes, just like the arguments that we find between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, whenever there is no authoritative ruling regarding who should be followed, one should not adopt the leniencies of both, nor the stringencies of both, but rather one should adopt the leniencies and stringencies of one Rebbe. (In the case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, however, this rule does not apply since there was an authoritative ruling that Beis Hillel should be followed.)

Siman – Sword The matador with the sword, who escaped the raging bull by entering a gap in the corner of the front wall and running through a bent mavoi, was disqualified by the judge whose opinion was always followed. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ז – Daf 7

1. Following chumros if they do not contradict a bent mavoi in Nehardea, with three intersecting mavois –מבוי עקום On Daf 6b we learned that there was a The residents followed the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara .”ח“ in the shape of the letter One who follows the – מחומרי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל ,asked how they could do so, for a Baraisa taught regarding him it is – עליו הכתוב אומר "הכסיל בחשך הולך" ,stringencies of both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel said, “The fool goes in darkness”?

On our Daf, Rav Sheizvee explains that the Baraisa’s rule not to follow the stringencies of two authorities where they contradict each other. As an example, the Gemara brings a – היכא דסתרי אהדדי ,only applies machlokes between Beis Shammai and Bais Hillel regarding how much of a spine or skull must be missing for them not to impart tumah in an ohel. Beis Shammai’s shiur is larger than Beis Hillel’s making him the more stringent opinion. When the same shiurim are applied to determining when an animal is considered a treifah, Beis Hillel’s smaller shiur makes him more stringent. So the chumrah and kulah regarding tumah results in the opposite position in the case of a treifah. This is what the Baraisa was referring to.

In the case of the mavoi akum in Nehardea, the stringencies did not contradict each other.

2. When Rabbanon and Chananya disagreed Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that when the Tanna Kamma and Chananyah argued regarding the adjustments of a mavoi mephulash, it was only when the mavoi opened on both ends into a reshus harabim a public square , that Chananyah requiredפלטיא – a public thoroughfare,or a – סרטיא Med’Oraysa, such as a a door at one end. But if the mavoi opened into a public thoroughfare at one end and a field (which is not עושה ,Med’Oraysa) at the other end, or it opened into fields at both ends, then even Chananyah agrees that one constructs a tzuras hapesach at one opening and a lechi or korah at – צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן the other opening.

3. Mavois that open into a backlot or a chatzeir אם היה כלה ,Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehudah, if a mavoi opened into a reshus harabim at one end אין ,but at the other end it terminated into a back lot, which in turn opened into a reshus harabim- לרחבה it does not require any adjustment at all on the back lot side, but only a lechi or korah at the end –צריך כלום where it opens directly into the reshus harabim, like any closed mavoi.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef that this ruling of Rav Yehudah reflects the ruling of Shmuel and not Rav, as it a – מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר contradicts Rav in two ways. One seeming contradiction is that Rav rules that a and – ונפרצה חצר כנגדו ,mavoi that was breached along its entirety, leaving it completely open to a chatzeir חצר ,the far wall of the chatzeir was breached opposite the mavoi, opening the chatzeir to a reshus harabim carrying in the chatzeir is permitted but carrying in the mavoi is prohibited, unless – מותרת ומבוי אסור adjustments are made. The Gemara resolves this contradiction as well as the second one.

(כלי זיין) Siman – Gun The discarded gun, found at the crime scene on top of the spine and treifah, in a mavoi that opened to two reshus harabims, had the fingerprints of the bandit who was caught in the backlot.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ח – Daf 8

1. A mavoi between the sea and a trash heap Ravin bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rebbe Yitzchok that there was an incident concerning a mavoi , and one side terminated at a – וצידו אחד כלה לאשפה ,one side terminated to the sea – שצידו אחד כלה לים trash heap, and when the matter was brought before Rebbe, he would not rule. He did not want to forbid it because the sea and trash heap do indeed serve as mechitzos. However, he did not want to permit carrying in it either because he was concerned that the trash heap could be removed, or that the sea might bring up sediment, in which case the slope will not be sufficiently steep to serve as a wall.

The Gemara questioned whether there is concern that the trash heap will be removed, citing a Mishnah that states if there is a trash heap in reshus harabim which is ten tefachim high, and therefore is a reshus hayachid, one may throw into it from a window above. Rashi explains that there is no concern that people will remove the trash, resulting in someone throwing his trash down into the reshus harabim. The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah is referring to a public trash heap where there is no concern that it will be removed, whereas the incident with Rebbe involved a private trash heap, which one might come to remove.

2. Placing a korah diagonally a mavoi whose one side is long and its – מבוי שצידו אחד ארוך וצדו אחד קצר ,There is a machlokes regarding other side is short: According to one opinion , if the difference between the two sides is less than four amos, then one may place the korah diagonally. However, if the difference in length is four amos or more, then he may place the korah only opposite the short side, at a right angle.

Rava said, regardless of the difference in length between the two sides, he may place the korah only opposite the short side. Rava went on to explain the machlokes by saying that he holds the function of the korah is a heker, and when placed diagonally it does not serve as a reminder. (Rashi explains that the longer side does not appear as part of the mavoi.) According to the other opinion, however, the purpose of the korah is to serve as a mechitzah, and a korah on a diagonal is a functional mechitzah.

3. A korah resting on pegs Rami bar Chama asked Rav Chisda the following question: What is the din if one thrust two pegs into the two outside walls of a mavoi, and places a korah on top of the pegs, so that the inner edge of the korah was rested against the outside walls?

• Rav Chisda answered that according to the one who permits carrying under a korah because the outer edge serves as a mechitzah, it would be forbidden to carry within such a mavoil since in this case the mechitzah is considered removed from the mavoi. According to the one who holds that one cannot carry under a korah because the inner edge functions as a mechitzah, it would be permitted to carry within such a mavoi because in this case the mechitzah is at the wall of the mavoi. • Rava holds that it is forbidden according to everyone since a requirement of a korah is that it rest on top of the mavoi.

Siman – Challah The challah baking contest, held in a mavoi between a trash heap and the sea, was jammed with families rooting their mothers on, sitting on diagonal korahs, and korahs placed on pegs.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ט – Daf 9

קורה משוכה ותלויה .1 Rav Adda bar Masnah challenged Rava’s position that a korah needs to be on top of the walls of a mavoi, ,a beam is drawn away from the mavoi (meaning -משוכה או תלויה from a Baraisa that states when a korah is that the beam is drawn towards the reshus harabim, and not on top of the walls of the mavoi), or suspended above the mavoi (meaning, that its two ends don’t reach the walls), if it is within three tefachim the mavoi is permitted.

The Gemara answers that the case of meshuchah is referring to a korah that is above the walls of the mavoi, but does not reach across to the other side of the mavoi, and the case of a teluyah is where the korah does not reach the walls on both sides. (The Baraisa stated both cases to teach that the principle of lavud not only applies on one side, but it can be applied to both sides simultaneously).

a single case, where the korah does - משוכה והיא תלויה Rav Ashi says that the Baraisa is referring to a case of not reach either side of the mavoi and is also suspended above them, supported by two L-shaped pegs. (The Baraisa is coming to teach that we can apply the leniences of lavud and chavot, simultaneously. (Chavot allows us to view the korah as if it is positioned between the two walls instead of suspended above them).

2. Carrying in front of a lechi Rebbe Yochanan rejected Rebbe Zakkai’s teaching that the area opposite a lechi or under a korah is judged to be a karmelis in which carrying is forbidden. Abaye said that Rebbe Yochanan only disagreed regarding the area under the korah but he does agree that the area opposite the lechi is forbidden. Rava said that Rebbe Yochanan also disagreed regarding the lechi and holds that is permissible to carry opposite it.

Rava says that his position is derived from a statement made in the name of Rebbe Yochanan that it is permissible for people in reshus harabim or in a reshus hayachid to carry into a makom petur, an insignificant area that is less than four by four tefachim that is between them, (provided they do not afterwards transfer that object into the other reshus). Similarly, the area opposite the lechi is insignificant and people should be able to carry opposite it. Abaye responds that that case was where the makom petur was raised three tefachim above the level of the reshus harabim, which makes it distinct from the reshus harabim. The Gemara continues with Abaye bringing the source for his position.

3. A lechi that cannot be seen from the inside of the mavoi ,if it is visible from the inside and flush on the outside – נראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ ,It was said regarding a lechi a lechi that is – נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים it is judged to be a valid lechi. However, regarding – נידון משום לחי visible from the outside and flush on the inside, it is a machlokes between Rebbe Chiya and Rebbe Shimon the son of Rebbe whether it is a valid lechi.

The one who says that it is invalid holds the lechi is not fulfilling its primary function which is to remind those in the mavoi not to carry into the reshus harabim. The one who says that it is valid, holds that people in reshus harabim can see it, and even those in the mavoi can see it when they step out of the mavoi.

Siman – Teapot The eccentric sitting on top of a korah suspended above the mavoi, poured tea from his teapot in front of the lechi, to remind people it was forbidden to carry there, especially when the lechi couldn’t be seen from the inside. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף י – Daf 10

1. How wide can a mavoi be according to Rebbe Yehuda? Abaye brings a Baraisa that taught that if a mavoi entranceway is wider than ten amos, he must decrease the width, and Rebbe Yehudah says that he does not need to decrease its width. The Gemara inquires how wide does Rebbe Yehudah permit a mavoi entrance to be.

Rav Achai proposed in the presence of Rav Yosef that Rebbe Yehudah allows a mavoi entrance to be thirteen and a third amos wide, from a kal vachomer based on Rebbe Yehudah’s view regarding the פרוץ If in the case of pasei birayos, in which it is allowed to have .(פסי ביראות) boards enclosing wells the gaps larger than the walled portion, yet it is not allowed to have a gap more than – מרובה על העומד פרוץ thirteen and a third amos, then in the case of the mavoi, in which it is not permitted to have all the more so it should not be permitted to have a gap more than thirteen and a third ,מרובה על העומד amos.

The Gemara challenges this reasoning, saying that perhaps it was specifically in the case of pasei that we don’t not allow another leniency of ,פרוץ מרובה על העומד birayos, where we are lenient with wide gaps, but in the case of the mavoi, Rebbe Yehudah would permit even wider gaps.

A second challenge is brought and the question of how wide Rebbe Yehudah permits the gap to be is left unresolved.

2. How to narrow a mavoi entrance that is too wide The Gemara asks how to narrow a mavoi entrance that is too wide. Levi initially brings a Baraisa , but rejects it. He then says to construct a board that is ten tefachim high and four amos long and stand it along the length of the mavoi so that it extends from the midpoint of the entrance towards the back of the mavoi. This divides the front of the mavoi into two distinct mavois, each which has an entrance of no more than ten amos.

3. Chazaka that people do not abandon large entranceways for smaller ones מרחיק שתי אמות ועושה פס שלש ,Rav Yehudah says that if the mavoi entranceway is fifteen amos wide one leaves a space of two amos near the side wall and constructs a board that is three amos – אמות wide. This effectively closes off the entranceway, leaving an opening of ten. Similarly, says Rashi, one could apply the same method to both sides of a twenty amos wide mavoi.

The Gemara asks why there is no concern that people might enter through the small entranceway that is formed in the two amah gap, which would invalidate the lechi or korah used in the main entrance. It can be assumed that a person – חזקה אין אדם מניח פתח גדול ונכנס בפתח קטן ,The Gemara answers will not abandon a large entranceway and enter instead through a small entranceway. Therefore, the main entranceway retains its status as the mavoi entrance.

Siman – Minyan of Yidden The machlokes in the minyan of yidden davening at the mavoi entrance that was wider than 13 1/3 amos, led to their dividing the mavoi into two, and insisting each group use their own large entranceway. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יא – Daf 11

1. A chatzeir with many entrance ways and windows Rav emended our Mishnah to read that a mavoi entrance that is wider than ten amos and has a tzuras hapesach must be decreased.

חצר שרובה פתחים וחלונות אינה ניתרת בצורת ,Rav Yosef deduced from this that Rav would hold that in a chatzeir enclosed by walls consisting mostly of entranceways and windows, carrying is not – הפתח – פרוץ מרובה על העומד permitted by means of a tzuras hapesach that frames each of the openings, since the total gaps are more than the total walls.

The Gemara rejects this because an opening of ten amos is considered a greater breach than openings that collectively exceed the wall segments, from the fact that in the case of pasei birayos - boards but we do not permit them when the ,פרוץ מרובה על העומד enclosing wells, we permit them when space between the boards exceeds ten amos, according to Rebbe Meir. Therefore, according to Rav, a tzuras hapesach may help with a chatzeir with many openings even though it does not help with a mavoi entrance wider than ten amos.

2. Laws of a tzuras hapesach The Gemara cites several rules regarding a tzuras hapesach: a tzuras hapesach that was made– לא עשה ולא כלום צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד,Rav Chisda said extending from the middle of the poles, accomplishes nothing. He also said that a tzuras hapesach must be strong enough to support a door, even if the door is only made from straw.

a tzuras hapesach requires– צורת הפתח צריכה היכר ציר ,Reish Lakish said in the name of Rebbe Yannai an indication of a hinge, which Rav Avya defines as a pivot hole. An actual door though is not required.

a pole on either – קנה מכאן וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן ,A Baraisa taught that a tzuras hapesach consists of side of the opening and a pole on top. It is a machlokes Amoraim whether the crossbar needs to touch the sideposts. Rav Nachman said it does not and Rav Sheishess says that it does.

מבוי סתום Machlokes regarding a .3 The next Mishnah in the perek introduces a machlokes regarding a mavoi sasum: Beis Shammai holds that it requires a lechi and a korah, Beis Hillel holds that it requires either a lechi or a korah and Rebbe Eliezer holds that it requires two lechis. The Gemara suggests that Beis Shammai holds that four mechitzos are required mid’Oraysa to enclose a reshus hayachid, but concludes that Beis Shammai may only require three mechitzos to be chayav for transferring to a reshus harabim, but d’Rabbonon a fourth mechitzah was required to permit carrying within the reshus, which can only be fulfilled through both a lechi and a korah.

Siman – Stars (related to the eleven stars in Yosef’s dream) Gold stars were awarded to the children who lived in the chatzeir with lots of entranceways and windows, for their model of a tzuras hapesach with a straw door, which they proudly displayed in the mavoi sasum that had a lechi and a korah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יב – Daf 12

1. How to adjust an entrance into a chatzeir to carry within An entrance of a chatzeir that opens into an area that items from the chatzeir cannot be carried into, such as another chatzeir that it did not make an eruv chatzeiros with, or a reshus harabim, needs some type of adjustment in order to permit carrying within the chatzeir. There is a machlokes in a Baraisa a chatzeir is permitted by – חצר ניתרת בפס אחד ,regarding what is required. The Tanna Kamma holds by placing – בשני פסין ,placing one board at the side of the entrance to serve as a sidepost. Rebbe holds two boards.

There is a machlokes regarding the width of each board.

• Rebbe Yose holds that each board has to be at least three tefachim wide. • Rebbe Yochanan, as explained by Rebbe Zeira, holds that one has the option of using one post that is four tefachim wide or two posts of any size on each side.

2. Sea water entering a breach in a chatzeir If part of the sea flowed through an opening of a – לשון ים הנכנס לחצר ,It was taught in a Baraisa chatzeir wall, if the breach is more than ten amos, one may not take from the water in the chatzeir, .רשות היחיד to a כרמלית because it is considered part of the ocean and it would be taking from a

If the breach was ten amos or less, he can take from the water in the chatzeir, because the opening in the wall is considered a pesach and not a breach, and therefore the water within the chatzeir is considered to be within a reshus hayachid.

if the breached part – אי אית ליה גדודי ,The Gemara infers that even if the breach is larger than ten amos of the wall, is not breached under the water, and it is ten tefachim high, the chatzeir retains its status of a reshus hayachid, and he may carry within it, although drawing water from it would still be forbidden.

3. The difference between adjusting a mavoi mephulash with a korah or a lechi Rav Yehudah said that a mavoi which is not fit for shituf , (i.e. a mavoi mephulash ), which one adjusted with a lechi, then one who throws an object into it is chayav for transferring from a reshus harabim into a reshus hayachid. If one adjusted it with a korah, however, then one who throws an object into it is patur. The Gemara says that Rav Yehudah holds that a lechi serves as a mechitzah and the korah serves as a heker. Rashi explains that Rav Yehuda holds three mechitzos are a d’Oraysa, therefore, placement of a lechi, which he holds is a mechitzah, makes it a reshus hayachid. Rabbah held the same position.

.Both of these, (the lechi and the korah) serve as a heker – אחד זה ואחד זה משום היכר ,Rava said Therefore, one who threw into the mavoi would not be chayav.

Siman – Twelve Brothers The twelve brothers, busy banging two posts into the entrance of their chatzeir, didn’t notice water from the ocean flowing through a breach in their wall and flooding a mavoi mephalesh with a lechi serving as a mechitzah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יג – Daf 13

1. Putting kankantom into ink in the Parsha of Sotah There is a machlokes in a Baraisa regarding putting kankantom into ink, which makes it impossible to completely erase the ink, in order to write the parsha of Sotah in a sefer Torah. Rebbe Yehuda said that Rebbe Meir used to say, that one may put kankantom into ink for writing a sefer Torah, except for the parsha of Sotah. Rebbe Yaakov said in Rebbe Meir’s name that it may be used to write the parsha of Sotah as well, but not for writing the parsha of Sotah that was used in the Beis Hamikdash for the Sotah waters.

Rebbe Yirmiyah said that the practical difference between them is whether it is valid to erase the pesukim from a regular Sefer Torah in the bitter waters of the Sotah. In order for pesukim to be valid to be used for the bitter water that a Sotah must drink, it must be words that are able to be erased. Therefore, according to Rebbe Yehudah, who holds that the pesukim from a regular sefer Torah are valid to be used to be put inside the Sotah waters, one cannot put kankantom in the ink. According to Rebbe Yaakov, however, they are not valid, and therefore the pesukim of a regular sefer Torah may be written with ink that has kankantom in it. Only the parsha of Sotah that was used within the Beis Hamikdash, may be used. Therefore, it is only these pesukim that may not be written with kankantom.

2. Rebbe Meir Rebbe Meir was a talmid of both Rebbe Yishmael and Rebbe Akiva. The Gemara explains that he was originally a talmid of Rebbe Akiva but he was not able to discern his final psak, given Rebbe Akiva’s ability to to learn the various - וגמר גמרא defend both sides of a position. He went to learn by Rebbe Yishmael . and he studied them with great analysis - וסבר סברא traditions and then went to Rebbe Akiva

Rebbe Acha bar Chanina said that there was none in the generation like Rebbe Meir but they did not fix the halachah like him because his chaveirim could not fathom the depths of his reasoning, for he could assert effectively that something tamei was tahor and vice versa.

Rebbe said that the reason that he was sharper than his chaveirim is that he saw Rebbe Meir from behind, and if he had seen the front of him he would be even sharper.

3. Why halacha goes according to Beis Hillel The Gemara asks why Beis Hillel merited to have the halachah fixed according to their view, and answers: because they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when challenged – מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו .1 and they would study their opinion and the opinion of Beis Shammai. Rashi - ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי .2 explains that they would make great effort to show how the psukim that Beis Shammai brought as proofs could be understood differently. and not only that, but they would even quote the words of – ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן .3 Beis Shammai before their own.

Siman – Bar Mitzvah Boy The bar mitzvah boy who was leining the parsha of Sotah beautifully until he noticed some letters were erased, was blessed by the Rav who said Meir should be zocheh to have great teachers, and always exemplify the middos of Beis Hillel.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יד – Daf 14

1. Two twin korahs half-brick. An - אריח The Mishnah on Daf 13b stated that a korah must be wide enough to hold an is one and a half tefachim, which means that it is sufficient for the korah to be one tefach in אריח width.

if one placed two twin korahs over an - שתי קורות המתאימות ,In a Baraisa on this Daf it was taught entrance, and each one alone was not wide enough to hold the ariyach, but together they could, since combined they are a tefach wide, no other korah is necessary. If their combined width was not a tefach, they are invalid and another korah must be used. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if the two korahs can be positioned to hold an ariyach lengthwise, so that the distance between their outer edges measures three tefachim, it is not necessary to bring another korah, even though their combined width does not equal a tefach .

2. Determining the width of a round korah The Mishnah on Daf 13b also stated that if the korah was round, and therefore incapable of holding an ariyach, we view it as if it was square, meaning as if it was planed down to a flat surface. The way to כל שיש בהיקפו שלשה טפחים יש know if the circular korah is a tefach wide, is by following the rule that .Whatever round object has a circumference of three tefachim has a width of a tefach – בו רוחב טפח

which Shlomo ,ים של שלמה The Gemara teaches that the source for this principle is learned from the Hamelech made in the Beis Hamikdash for the Kohanim to use for tevillah. It was ten amos in diameter and thirty amos in circumference. Rebbe Chiyah taught that it could hold enough water for one hundred and fifty mikvaos.

3. A lechi placed in the middle of the sidewall of a mavoi if one made a lechi for half a mavoi (so that – עשה לחי לחצי מבוי אין לו אלא חצי מבוי ,A Baraisa taught the lechi stands in the middle of the side wall instead of the front), he can only carry in the mavoi half that was adjusted.

After questioning why the Baraisa needed to teach this seemingly obvious point, the Gemara answers that one might have thought that it should be prohibited to carry even in the adjusted half, out of concern that someone will think that it is permitted to carry in the entire mavoi.

Siman – Hands (Juggler) The juggler was doing great juggling torches over two twin korahs, until he missed and they fell into a ten amos in diameter tub of water, next to the lechi in the middle of the mavoi.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף טו – Daf 15

לחי העומד מאליו .1 a lechi that happens to be positioned – לחי העומד מאליו ,There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding properly at the side of the mavoi but was not originally placed there to adjust the mavoi, such as a tree. Abaye said it is valid and Rava says it is not.

The Gemara clarifies that everybody agrees that it is not a valid lechi when they did not intend to use it as a lechi erev Shabbos, as they were planning on using another lechi that subsequently fell. The machlokes is in the case where they intended erev Shabbos to use it as a lechi.

After determining through a number of proofs that Abaye and Rava agree that a mechitzah that was not originally erected as a mechitzah is valid, the Gemara concludes that Abaye says the lechi is valid because he holds a lechi serves as a mechitzah, and Rava says it is invalid because he holds a lechi serves as a heker, and it will only serve as a reminder if it was originally erected as a lechi.

2. Writing a Get on an animal The next Mishnah introduces a number of machlokism regarding using living things for lechis, tomb one may write a get – כותבין עליו גיטי נשים ,covers and gitten. Regarding gitten, the Tanna Kamma holds .and Rebbe Yose HaGlili invalidates such a get – ורבי יוסי הגלילי פוסל ,on living things The Gemara explains that both the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Yose HaGlili derive the halacha from the .and he shall write for her a bill of divorce – וכתב לה ספר כריתות ,same passuk

that one may write it on any type of writing surface, not just ,וכתב לה Rebbe Yose HaGlili learns from • not food or ,ספר teaches that it must be written on something similar to a ספר parchment, whereas living things. ,teaches ספר means that she cannot be divorced with money, and וכתב לה The Rabbanon learn that • that it should be a narration of words that convey that he is ,לספירות דברים בעלמא הוא דאתא divorcing her.

3. A caravan camped in open fields ,a caravan encamped in an area of open fields - שיירא שחנתה בבקעה The next Mishnah teaches that if a which is considered a karmelis, that surrounded itself with animal trappings such as saddles and saddle bags to serve as partitions, may carry within it, provided that: .The partition must be ten tefachim high - שיהא גדר גבוה עשרה טפחים .1 .The total gaps should not be more than the total walls – לא יהא פירצות יתירות על הבנין .2 An opening of ten amos is considered a – כל פירצה שהיא כעשר אמות מותרות מפני שהיא כפתח .3 doorway and they can carry there. More than ten amos is considered a breach and carrying would be forbidden.

(is connected to Tu be’Shevat which makes us think of fruitטו ) Siman – Fruit bowl The strange scene of a fruit bowl under a tree that served as a lechi, next to a cow with a get written on it that was also being used as a lechi, caught the attention of a caravan passing by on their way to their encampment.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף טז – Daf 16

שלש מדות במחיצות .1 if the gaps in a partition equal the walled - פרוץ כעומד On Daf 15b a machlokes is introduced regarding portion. Rav Pappa says it is mutar to carry in an area enclosed by such partitions, whereas Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua says it is forbidden.

As part of the Gemara’s analysis to determine who the halachah goes according to, in our Daf a Baraisa three categories of partitions that permit - שלש מדות במחיצות from Kilayim is brought that presents planting something next to another planting, which would be kilayim when planted next to each other without a partition: - Whenever the solid sections are less than three tefachim, it is necessary that the gap in between the so that a kid goat cannot – כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת ראש sections should not be three tefachim wide from working). The gap, though, can be לבוד leap headlong through the partition, (which would cancel wider than the solid portions. - When the solid portions are between three and four tefachim, the gaps cannot be as wide as the sections themselves. And if the gaps are even wider than the solid portions, then it is prohibited to plant even opposite the walled portions. - When the solid portions are between four tefachim and ten amos, the gap cannot be as wide as the solid portions. If it is, then it is permitted to plant opposite the solid portions but prohibited to plant opposite the gaps. Rashi explains that a walled section that is four tefachim wide is considered to be independently significant.

2. Using ropes and poles to create a mechitzah The next Mishnah states that a caravan may surround its encampment with three horizontal ropes one above the other, provided that there is not a gap between ropes of three tefachim for the purpose of lavud to take effect, and that the total thickness of the ropes is more than one tefach, so that the height of the mechitzah is at least ten tefachim. It is also permitted to surround the caravan with vertical poles provided that the gaps between poles do not exceed three tefachim, in order for lavud to take effect.

3. Rebbe Yehuda’s position regarding an individual using ropes and poles The Gemara notes a contradiction between Rebbe Yehuda In the Mishnah, who said that the inferior partitions of ropes and poles are only permitted for caravans but not for individuals, and a Baraisa the Chachomim did – רבי יהודה אומר כל מחיצות שבת לא התירו ליחיד יותר מבית סאתים ,where he says not permit these inferior Shabbos partitions for individuals in an area that encloses more than two beis se’ah. This implies that these partitions are permitted to individuals if it is two beis se’ah.

The Gemara concludes that Rebbe Yehuda in the Mishnah was forbidding these partitions for individuals only if the enclosed area was greater than two beis se’ah.

Siman – Toes The lone camper, after measuring three different sized mechitzos with his toes, decided to use ropes and poles instead to enclose his encampment that was not greater than two beis se’ah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יז – Daf 17

1. When the number of occupants in an inferior enclosure changes There is a machlokes between Rav Huna and Rebbe Yitzchok regarding the status of an inferior שלשה ומת אחד enclosure when the number of occupants changes during Shabbos, such as in a case of two people – שנים ונתוספו עליהן ,three people occupied the enclosure and then one died, or – מהן occupied an enclosure (of more than two beis se’ah, which is forbidden to them), and then one person ,Shabbos causes the validity or invalidity of the partition - שבת גורמת joined them. One holds that meaning that the status remains the same as it was at the start of Shabbos. The other one holds that .the current number of residents causes the validity or invalidity of the partition – דיורין גורמין

based on a case where two ,שבת גורמת The Gemara concludes that it is Rav Huna who holds that chatzeiros were joined in an eruv via their entrance and the entrance became sealed on Shabbos, and a case where they were joined through a window and the window became sealed on Shabbos, about once carrying on Shabbos was permitted, it remains – שבת הואיל והותרה הותרה ,which Rav Huna ruled permitted.

מת מצוה .2 מקום שנהרגים שם ,It was stated in a Baraisa that Rebbe Yehudah ben Teima ruled regarding soldiers in the place that they are killed they are buried. The Gemara asks why it was necessary to teach – נקברים an unattended corpse – מת מצוה קונה מקומו and ,מת מצוה this since it is obvious, given that they are a “acquires” the site where he dies, and answers that the fallen soldier acquires the site where he dies even if he has relatives to attend to his burial.

Which dead person qualifies as a meis mitzvah – איזהו מת מצוה? ,The Gemara brings a Baraisa that asks Whoever has no – כל שאין לו קוברין that anyone present is obligated to bury him)? The Gemara answers) If – .קורא ואחרים עונין אותו אין זה מת מצוה .buriers, meaning any relatives to attend to his burial needs he would call for help and heirs would answer him to attend to his burial, he is not considered a meis mitzvah.

מים אחרונים .3 The Mishnah stated that soldiers are exempt from the obligation of washing their hands before a meal. The Mishnah only taught that they are exempt from washing – לא שנו אלא מים ראשונים ,Abaye said However the washing after the meal is obligatory even for – אבל מים אחרונים חובה ,before the meal מפני שמלח סדומית יש ,is a chiyuv is מים אחרונים soldiers. Rav Chiya bar Ashi said that the reason that because there is salt from Sodom that blinds the eyes. Washing ensures that one – שמסמא את העינים does not have any salt on his fingers from the food that he ate, that could possibly harm him. also applies to one who measures מים אחרונים Rav Acha the son of Rava asked Rav Ashi if this law of salt or is it only pertinent to eating a meal, and Rav Ashi answered that it is no question that one who measures salt should also wash his hands.

Siman – Used Car For the first time in his life the used car salesman felt wanted, when he was welcomed by two guys in a roped off enclosure, who needed help burying a soldier who suddenly died, after blinding himself with salt from his unwashed hands. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יח – Daf 18

פסין לביראות ובורות הרבים .1 We may erect boards – עושין פסין לביראות ,On Daf 17b, the opening Mishnah of the second perek taught for wells to permit drawing water from them on Shabbos. Wells are a reshus hayachid, and therefore one cannot draw water from them into a reshus harabim. However, the Rabannon enacted a unique leniency that would permit people who were travelling up to Yerushalayim for the regalim to draw water from wells on Shabbos. By erecting boards around a well, the area within the boards are to be considered a reshus hayachid, thereby allowing to draw water into it.

The Gemara initially suggests that the Mishnah, which specifies the leniency to be applying to wells, public - בורות הרבים can also be used for פסין does not go according to Rebbe Akiva who holds that .(בור היחיד water holes (but not for a

However, the Mishnah .בורות הרבים around פסין The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah also permits the law for the case of a –באר מים חיים דפסיקא ליה ,only wanted to teach the case of wells because well, which has spring water, is clear cut. Meaning, it makes no difference whether the well is public or which differs between public and private ,בורות private. The Mishnah did not want to teach the law for ones since in the case of a public water hole, people will remind each other not to carry if it dries up, whereas an individual might not remember.

דיומדין .2 When the Mishnah stated we may erect boards for wells to permit drawing water from them on and Rebbe Yirmiyah ben Elazar said ,דיומדין The Gemara asks what are .דיומדין Shabbos, it says to use which means עמוד means two, and it is attached to the word דיו means double posts. The prefix דיומדין ,Adam Harishon was created with two faces - דיו פרצוף פנים היה לו לאדם הראשון ,post. He also teaches From the back and front you have formed me. The Gemara – אחור וקדם צרתני ,as it says in the passuk continues with the machlokes regarding the creation of Chava, which we learned in Berachos Daf 61a.

מקצת שבחו של אדם בפניו .3 מקצת שבחו ,Six of eight teachings of Rebbe Yirmiyah ben Elazar are taught on this Daf. Among them is but – וכולו שלא בפניו ,Part of a person’s praise one may mention in his presence – של אדם אומרים בפניו all of it only in his absence. This is learned from the parsha of Noach, where Hakadosh Baruch Hu For – כי אתך ראיתי צדיק לפני בדור הזה ,praised Noach partially when He spoke to him directly as it says it is you I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation, whereas in Noach’s absence He said, .Noach was a righteous man, perfect in His generation – נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו

Siman – Chuppah (An 18 year old goes to the chuppah) The chuppah built on a platform over the public water hole surrounded by double posts, featured the two faces of the chassan and kallah embroidered on it, along with pesukim that partially praised them.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף יט – Daf 19

צידוק הדין .1 also they cloak their Judge with – גם ברכות יעטה מורה ,Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi taught from the passuk that they (those in gehinnom) pronounce the righteousness of the –שמצדיקין עליהם את הדין ,berachos and they say before - ואומרים לפניו: רבונו של עולם יפה דנת יפה זכית יפה חייבת ,judgment against them Him: Master of the Universe, You have judged properly, You have acquitted the innocent properly, You and You have properly – ויפה תקנת גיהנם לרשעים גן עדן לצדיקים ,have convicted the guilty properly prepared Gehinnom for the evildoers and Gan Eden for the righteous.

2. The fires of Gehinnom The fire of Gehinnom has no power over – פושעי ישראל אין אור גיהנם שולטת בהן ,Reish Lakish states that Jewish sinners The Gemara asks on this from the drasha of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Levi on the passuk, Those who pass through the valley of weeping, which he explains to mean that those - ,עברי בעמק הבכא פושעי who transgress are sentenced to the depths of Gehinnom, where they weep, which implies that .are indeed subject to Gehinnom ישראל

ואתי אברהם אבינו ,The Gemara answers that they are condemned to be in Gehinnom for a short time and Avraham Avinu then comes and brings them up out of Gehinnom, and – ומסיק להו ומקבל להו – בר מישראל שבא על בת עובד כוכבים receives them. (The Gemara adds that this applies to every Jew – דמשכה ערלתו ולא מבשקר ליה ,except for a Jew who had relations with a daughter of an idolater because she draws his foreskin over his circumcision and Avraham Avinu does not recognize him.)

3. Square and round rocks for double-posts. It was taught in a Baraisa that Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar said that if there was a square rock in place of the double posts, we view it that if the rock were to be split it would have an amah on this side and an it is treated as a double post. If there – נידון משום דיומד ,amah on this side in the shape of a right angle was less than an amah on each side, it is not treated as a double post. a round rock ,אבן עגולה Rebbe Yishmael the son of Rebbe Yochanan ben Berokah said if there was an there in place of the double-post, we view the rock that if it were to be hewn into a square shape and then split to form a right angle, and each side was an amah, then it is viewed as a double post.

חד רואין אמרינן תרי רואין לא ,The Gemara explains the machlokes that Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar holds we may view one change in the rock to make it acceptable as a double post, but we may not –אמרינן We may – תרי רואין נמי אמרינן, view two changes to make it acceptable, whereas Rebbe Yishmael holds view even two changes.

Siman – Yacht The evildoers on the yacht to Gehinnom proclaimed Hashem’s perfect justice, unaware that the Jewish passengers brought fire resistant clothing, which they kept on a round rock that served as a double post.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כ – Daf 20

1. A chatzeir that extends into the well area If the end of the chatzeir extends into the well area – חצר שראשה נכנס לבין הפסים ,Abaye asked Rabbah enclosed by the double-posts, what is the law in regard to carrying from within the chatzeir into the area enclosed by the posts, and from the area in between the posts to the chatzeir. Since the chatzeir is owned by its residents and the well area is designated for the use of the people travelling for the regel carrying from one area to the other is perhaps the same as carrying between one person’s property and another person’s property, which is forbidden without making an eiruv chatzeiros. Rabbah answered that it is mutar. Rashi explains that since the pilgrims do not actually reside within the well enclosure, the area is not considered to be owned by them, and therefore carrying into it, or from it, is not considered as carrying from one’s property into someone else’s property.

2. If the water dries up and reappears What is the law if the well dried up on Shabbos, in terms of – יבשו מים בשבת מהו? ,Abaye asked Rabbah Were – כלום נעשית מחיצה אלא בשביל מים ,permitting one to carry within the posts? Rabbah answered these posts given the status as ae mechitzah for any other reason than to allow the travelers to draw Since the water is not here, the mechitzah is not here, (to permit – מים אין כאן מחיצה אין כאן ?water carrying in the area).

Ravin asked what the law would be if the water dried up on Shabbos and then returned on the same it – דהוה ליה מחיצה העשויה בשבת ,Shabbos. Abaye answered that there is no question that it is mutar בין שוגג בין מזיד בין ,is a case of a mechitzah made on Shabbos, and any mechitzah made on Shabbos is–שמה מחיצה ,whether made inadvertently, or deliberately, by accident or willingly – באונס בין ברצון regarded as a valid partition.

3. Does holding an animal make a difference regarding the pasin? The Mishnah on Daf 17b stated that it is mutar to bring the pasin closer to the well if there is enough space within the pasin for a cow to stand with its head and most of its body inside the enclosure and drink. The Gemara asks that if one held the animal, may the animal be given to drink even when most of its body is not in the enclosed area?

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof that it is not allowed, from a Baraisa that only allows holding a its head and most of its body is – ראשה ורובה מבפנים camel and stuffing food into its mouth when within the enclosure. This seems to be a clear-cut proof that it is forbidden.

The Gemara rejects this proof because the Baraisa was referring to a camel, which has a long neck, and it can easily pull its head out into a reshus harabim unless the majority of its body is within the enclosure.

Siman – Café The patrons at the courtyard café that extended into the well area enclosed by double-posts, were fascinated by the vanishing and reappearing water, while the guy holding his camel to give it a drink found it quite frustrating.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כא – Daf 21 if just for animals באר מים חיים Why well must be .1 to drink from a (עולי רגלים only permits animals (of theפסי ביראות A Baraisa on Daf 20b states that must climb up and climb down into the well to drink – מטפס ועולה מטפס ויורד ,well. A person, however .פסין there, as he is not permitted to carry the water within the enclosure of the

only permit animals to drink from a well, why was it said in the פסי ביראות The Gemara asks that if from a well of spring - לבאר מים חיים ,only permits drawing water פסי ביראות name of Shmuel that are only for animals, what difference does it make if the water comes from a well of פסין water? If the we need something – בעינן מידי דחזי לאדם ,running water or of collected water? The Gemara answers that is fit for human consumption. Rashi explains that since it is by virtue of the water that the boards become valid mechitzos, we need superior water, meaning water which is fit for human consumption.

2. The vastness of Torah – לכל תכלה ראיתי קץ רחבה מצותך מאד ,Rav Chisda said in the name of Mari bar Mar about the passuk To every goal I have seen a limit, but Your commandment, (i.e. the Torah), is exceedingly broad, that the concept of the vastness of the Torah was mentioned by Dovid Hamelech, Iyov and Yechezkel, but they did not define it. It was only Zechariah ben Iddo who defined it.

Zechariah had a vision of a folded scroll that was twenty amos long with a width of ten amos. It was written on both sides, so when unfolded it would be forty amos by twenty amos, which is eight hundred square amos. A passuk from Yeshaya indicates that the entire universe is only a zeres, which is one quarter of a divine amah, which means that the Torah is 3,200 times greater than the size of the universe.

3. Why Rebbe Akiva used the water for washing instead of drinking To illustrate the importance of Rabbinic law, the Gemara brings an incident when Rebbe Akiva was old and imprisoned and Rebbe Yehoshua ben Garsi would bring him water daily. One day, half of the water was spilled out by the guard, and Rebbe Akiva used the remaining water to wash his hands before eating instead of drinking it. When asked why he did so, Rebbe Akiva answered that it is better that I cause my own death caused by not drinking enough than I transgress a de’Rabbanon which carries the death penalty.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that when Shlomo Hamelech established the laws of eruv and My son, if your heart is wise, My – בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני ,netilas yadaim, a bas kol proclaimed heart shall rejoice too.

Siman – Car (pronounced “Ca” by Bostonians) When the bochurim piled out of their rental car, to climb down a well of spring water and take a drink, they noticed a massive forty amah scroll on a billboard that read “Better to wash your hands than quench your thirst”.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כב – Daf 22

1. Hashem delays giving s’char to tzaddikim gemurim – לא יאחר לשנאו ,The Gemara discusses the topic of Divine reward. Rebbe Ila expounded on the passuk He will not delay payment to those that hate Him, that Hashem does not delay payment to those that hate Him, but rather gives them their reward in this world. Whereas He does delay payment to tzadikim gemurim, meaning, He postpones their payment until Olam Habah.

What–מאי דכתיב "אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם" ,This is in essence what Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi said is the meaning of that which it is written, “You shall keep the mitzvos which I command you today to do Today, (meaning this world), is the time to do mitzvos, and not – היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם ?them – היום לעשותם למחר לקבל שכרם .(tomorrow, (meaning the world to come is not the time to do mitzvos Today one does mitzvos, and tomorrow, meaning in the world to come, one receives his reward.

2. Does traffic through the pasin invalidate them as mechitzos? The next Mishnah brings a machlokes whether traffic may be allowed to pass through the posts of the אם היה דרך ,enclosure of a well, without disrupting their function as mechitzos. Rebbe Yehudah said he must – יסלקנה לצדדין ,If the path of a reshus harabim cuts between the posts – רשות הרבים מפסקתן And the Chochomim say it is not – וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך .divert the traffic to the side of the enclosure necessary. In their view, the traffic does not invalidate the mechitzos.

Here, in the ruling of the – כאן הודיעך כוחן של מחיצות ,Rebbe Yochanan and Rebbe Elazar both said Chochomim, the Tanna informed you of the power of mechitzos, meaning that the posts are not invalidated by the traffic. This Gemara states that this statement implies that Rebbe Yochanan agrees ירושלים אלמלא דלתיתיה ננעלות ,with this ruling. however it was said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים ,Yerushalayim, if it were not for its doors that were closed at night – בלילה – one would be liable for carrying in a reshus harabim. Meaning that even though Yerushalayim is surrounded by walls (and as Tosfos points out, it had a tzuras hapesach at the entranceways), Rebbe Yochanan holds that traffic passing through would have annulled their enclosing power if not for its doors. The Gemara concludes that Rebbe Yochanan was only discussing the statement of the Chachamim, but he follows the view of Rebbe Yehudah.

3. Areas that have slopes and difficult to walk through ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רשות ,Rebbe Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan .In Eretz Yisroel, one is not chayav for carrying in a reshus harabim on Shabbos – הרבים According to the Gemara’s final understanding of this statement, certain areas that have slopes and are דגלי difficult to walk through, do not have the status of a reshus harabim because it is not similar to the .ענני הכבוד the encampment in the desert where the land was flattened by the - מדבר

Siman – Cab The righteous cab driver who was destined in the future to receive a lot of s’char, drove patiently in the traffic through Yerushalayim, and gave mitzvah rides in areas that had slopes and were difficult to walk through.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כג – Daf 23

1. Carrying in a karpaf The next Mishnah discusses the laws of a karpaf, an area enclosed for non-residential purposes. Even though on a d’Oraysa level it is a reshus hayachid, since it is a large area that can be confused with a reshus harabim the Rabbonon prohibited using it in certain circumstances.

• Rebbe Yehuda ben Bava said that one may carry in a garden or a karpaf that is not more than seventy amos and a fraction by seventy amos and a fraction, that is surrounded by a fence ten a dwelling, or -בית דירה a watchman’s booth, or a -שומרה tefachim high, and provided that it has a that it is near a city. Rashi explains that when the karpaf is close to the city, the owner comes out regularly to use it and it is as if it is designated for residential use. • Rebbe Yehudah says that it is permissible to carry in the karpaf even if it only contains a water hole, a ditch or a cave. • Rebbe Akiva permits carrying in it even if it has none of these, provided that its size does not exceed seventy amos and a fraction by seventy amos and a fraction.

2. The source that a karpaf should be square According to Rebbe Akiva, a karpaf cannot exceed seventy amos and a fraction by seventy amos and a fraction and must be a perfect square. The Gemara seeks a d’Oraysa allusion for this. Rebbe Yehudah The length of the courtyard is – ארך החצר מאה באמה ורחב חמשים בחמשים ,answers with the passuk one hundred amos and its width is fifty by fifty. What does the passuk mean “fifty by fifty,” it said that the length is one hundred? The Torah is saying to take fifty and surround fifty, meaning take the fifty amos by which the chatzeir’s length exceeds its width, and distribute it around the perimeter of the other fifty to form a perfect square equaling five thousand square amos. Since the passuk is not coming to teach this square with regards to the chatzeir of the mishkan, it must be coming to teach it regarding another halachah, i.e. the size of a karpaf.

3. A rectangular karpaf In addition to bringing Rebbe Akiva’s opinion that a karpaf must be square, the Mishnah brings the opinions of Rebbe Eliezer and Rebbe Yose regarding the shape of a karpaf. The Gemara revises their opinions based on a Baraisa that states they both hold that a karpaf may be rectangular up to a ratio of 2:1, as the chatzeir of the Mishkan was 50x100, but it may not be longer by even one amah. The it should be square, whereas Rebbe Eliezer לכתחילה difference between them is that Rebbe Yose holds holds that there is no preference for the karpaf to be square.

Siman – Keg The beer maker’s karpaf full of kegs, featured a watchman’s booth, and was perfectly square, while Mr. Cohen’s neighboring karpaf was rectangular with an exact ratio of 2:1, just like the chatzeir of the Mishkan.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כד – Daf 24

1. Trees planted in a karpaf A Baraisa on Daf 23b stated that if most of the karpaf was planted with trees, it is like a chatzeir and carrying is permitted. There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding when this applies: This is true only if the trees were – והוא שעשויין איצטבלאות ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Avimi • arranged in rows. Rashi explains that planting in rows makes the karpaf a pleasant place to sit, and it is therefore a usable area. even if the trees are not in rows, it is still a – אף על פי שאין עשויין איצטבלאות ,Rav Nachman said • useable area and therefore it is permitted to carry there.

Mar Yehudah visited the home of Rav Huna bar Yehudah and he saw people carrying in karpafs that had trees that were not arranged in rows. Rav Huna told him that he holds like Rav Nachman.

2. Re-enclosing a karpaf for residential use A karpaf more than two beis se’ah, must be originally designated for residential use in order to permit קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא carrying in it. Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel, that in a case of a A karpaf that was more than two beis se’ah that was not originally enclosed for residential – הוקף לדירה purposes, and subsequently a dwelling was built inside it, and a door opened from it into thekarpaf, in פורץ בו פירצה order to make the karpaf as if it was originally designated for residential use, one must and – וגודרו ומעמידו על עשר ומותר ,make a breach in it that is wider than ten amos – יותר מעשר אמות then fence it to restore the breach to no more than ten amos, and carrying is then permitted, because the karpaf has now been re-enclosed for residential use.

Rav Nachman was asked if the karpaf would be permitted through this leniency if they breached an amah of the wall and then fenced in that amah, and then breached another amah next to it and fenced it in, until eventually completely re-erecting a segment of the wall that was over ten amos? Rav Nachman answered that it would be permitted, and he brought proofs of this from cases related to dinei tumah.

3. A karpaf that became full of water There is a machlokes regarding a karpaf of more than two beis se’ah that was enclosed for residential purposes and subsequently became full of water. The Rabbonon said that it is like a karpaf with plants that was mentioned in a Baraisa on 23b, which is unfit for residential use and is therefore forbidden to carry there. It was said in the name of Rava that it is like a karpaf planted with trees and carrying is permitted. Ameimar said that this is only true if the water is fit for use, which Rashi qualifies as fit for drinking. Rav Ashi said that even if it is fit for use, it is only permitted to carry within it if the deep part of the water, (which Rashi says is ten tefachim deep), does not cover an area greater than two beis se’ah. If it did, then the area would be rendered unusable.

(כד) Siman – Pitcher The glass pitchers of water hanging from trees neatly planted in rows, broke from the sound of construction workers breaching a fence to re-enclose a karpaf for residential use, and flooded the area.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כה – Daf 25

1. Erecting a new partition within the walls to make it a new enclosure A karpaf of more than two beis se’ah which was not enclosed – קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה if he moved four tefachim from the old – הרחיק מן הכותל ארבעה ועשה מחיצה ,for residential purposes it is effective in being considered a new enclosure of the – הועיל ,wall and erected a new partition פחות משלשה לא .and therefore carrying is permittedקרפף שהוקף לדירה karpaf, and thereby makes it a If he erected a new partition that was less than three tefachim from the old wall, it is not – הועיל effective. Since the distance between the partition and the old wall is insignificant, the partition is not it is comparable to a – דהוי מחיצה על גבי מחיצה ,recognized as a new enclosure. Rashi explains mechitzah constructed over a pre-existing mechitzah.

It is a machlokes if the distance from the old wall to the new wall was from three to four tefachim. Rabbah said it is effective for re-enclosing the karpaf, because the space between the walls is beyond the distance of lavud, whereas Rava said it is not effective since the area between the walls is not an area of four tefachim it is not considered significant to deem it a new enclosure.

2. Putting mud on the inside of the walls to reduce the size of karpaf The Gemara discusses a method for reducing the area of a karpaf enclosed for non-residential purposes, If one applied mud to the inside of the karpaf’s walls, if the mud – טח בו טיט .to two beis se’ah or less can stand on its own, it is an effective form of reduction and therefore carrying is permitted. If the mud – השתא מיהא קאי ,it is an effective form of reduction – הוי מיעוט ,cannot stand on its own, Rabbah says it is not an effective form – לא הוי מיעוט ,because now, at least, the mud is standing, whereas Rava says since the mud cannot stand on its own, it is – כיון דלא יכול למיקם בפני עצמו לא כלום הוא ,of reduction insignificant, and it does not reduce the size of the karpaf.

3. If the outer wall of a mansion collapsed next to an orchard There was an orchard that was adjacent to the wall of a - ההוא בוסתנא דהוה סמיך לגודא דאפדנא mansion, and the outer wall of the mansion, which served as a wall of the orchard, collapsed. Even though this wall was the only one to enclose the orchard for residential use, and with its collapse one would have thought that carrying would now become prohibited since the orchard was greater than that they may rely on the inner wall of the – ליסמוך אגודא גוויאתא ,two beis se’ah, Rav Bivi thought to say house. Since the inner wall was constructed to enclose the house for dwelling purposes, it should enclose the orchard for the same purpose.

Rav Pappi said to Rav Bivi that his reasoning was incorrect. Since the inner walls were made for the inside of the house and were not constructed to enclose the orchard for residential purposes, carrying in the orchard remains prohibited.

Siman – Silver Anniversary (25th year) The husband’s desperate attempts to make the silver anniversary party work in the non-residential karpaf by re-enclosing it with a new inner fence, and then putting mud on the inside of the old fence, came to naught when the outer wall of the mansion, that was adjacent to it, collapsed.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כו – Daf 26

1. The Reish Galusa’s arbor A case was introduced on the bottom of Daf 25b in which the Reish Galusa had an arbor, (a pavilion set up around a shady tree) in his orchard, that was over two beis se’ah and had not been designated for residential use. He asked Rav Huna bar Chinana to adjust it for him so that they could go there on Shabbos and eat there. Rav Huna went and erected a fence of sticks spaced less than three tefachim apart, along both sides of the path leading from the house through the orchard to the arbor. Rashi explains that Rav Huna bar Chinana held that it was prohibited to carry in the orchard because the arbor had been constructed only after the orchard’s enclosure. Rava then went and pulled out the sticks, because he held that the entire orchard was permitted. He held that the arbor was considered a residence and putting it there converted the orchard into the courtyard of the arbor. Therefore, the orchard was considered enclosed for the use of the residents in it.

The Gemara brings a few cases that support Rav Huna bar Chinana’s view that establishing a residence after the formation of an enclosure does not change the status of the enclosure.

2. Yeshayahu’s yeshiva next to Chizkiyahu’s palace The Gemara teaches that after Yeshayahu informed Chizkiyahu that he was going to die, he exited the palace into the middle yard. The Gemara asks why Yeshayahu went out through this yard? Rashi explains that this yard was at the back of the palace and was not the typical way to leave the palace.

מלמד שחלה חזקיה והלך ישעיהו והושיב ישיבה על :Rabba bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan This teaches that Chizkiyah got ill and Yeshayahu went and established a yeshiva near his door, so – פתחו that the zechus of limud haTorah would protect him. From here we learn that when a talmid chochom gets sick, we should establish a yeshivah near his door.

Because this might lead to – דילמא אתי לאיגרויי ביה שטן ,The Gemara rejects Rebbe Yochanan’s advice .against him (מלאך המות inciting the Satan (i.e. the

3. One forgot to join the eruv It was stated in the Mishnah on Daf 23a, that Rebbe Ilai heard from Rebbe Eliezer that if one of the residents of a chatzeir forgot and did not join in the eruv, then his house is forbidden for him to carry in and out of, and the other residents are permitted to carry in and out of his house. On our Daf, the Gemara questions this ruling based on a Mishnah on Daf 69a, where it is stated that in the above case, his house is forbidden to all residents to carry in and out of.

Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua answers that it is not a difficulty. Our Mishnah goes according to Rebbe one who relinquishes his rights in his chatzeir, also – המבטל רשות חצרו ביתו ביטל ,Eliezer who holds that relinquishes his rights in his home, thereby giving others the right to carry in and out of it. The other Mishnah one who relinquishes – המבטל רשות חצרו רשות ביתו לא ביטל ,goes according to the Rabbanon who hold that his rights in his chatzeir, does not relinquish his rights in his home, and therefore the other residents as well, may not carry in and out of his home.

Siman – Military Coup The enemy soldiers hiding behind the pavilion in the orchard, were so impressed by the temporary yeshiva set up next to the sick king’s palace, that they surrendered and relinquished their rights to their courtyards and their homes. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כז – Daf 27

אין למידין מן הכללות .1 We may make – בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים ומן המלח ,The opening Mishnah of the third perek states an eruv (meaning, an eruvei techumim or a shitufei mavo’os) with any food, except for water and salt.

– אפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ ,we cannot learn from general rules - ,אין למידין מן הכללות ,Rebbe Yochanan said even when the rule concludes by saying, “except”, and specific exceptions are listed, it is not absolute. כל מצות שהזמן ,Rebbe Yochanan made this statement in reference to a Mishnah in Kiddushin that says that All time-bound positive mitzvos, men are obligated in and women are – גרמא אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות And mitzvos which are not time-bound, both women-ושלא הזמן גרמא אחד נשים ואחד אנשים חייבין ,exempt and men are obligated in. This rule is not absolute, because women are indeed obligated in the mitzvos of and they are exempt from - מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא matzah, simchah and hakhel, even though they are Talmud Torah, p’ru u’rvu , and pidyon haben, even though those mitzvos are not time-bound.

Similarly, our Mishnah (as pointed out later in the Gemara) does not mention that one may also not make an eruv with truffles or mushrooms.

2. Buying saltwater with maaser sheini monies All types of food may be purchased – הכל ניקח בכסף מעשר חוץ מן המים ומן המלח ,The Mishnah also stated with maaser sheini monies except for water and salt. In the Gemara there is a machlokes regarding if one can purchase a mixture of salt and water with maaser sheini money .

• One holds that one may buy saltwater with maaser sheini. Rashi explains that since salt water is used as a dip for bread, it qualifies as a significant food. The other holds that salt water cannot be purchased with .a fruit (or something similar to it) must be purchased – פירא בעינן ,maaser sheini because • The one who holds that salt water may be purchased with maaser sheini, would certainly permit using salt water for an eruv. The Ritva explains that maaser sheini would have greater restrictions since it is a d’Oraysa and an eruv is a d’Rabbanon .

הבלעה .3 The Gemara taught that Rebbe Yitzchak who says that one can buy salt water with maaser sheini, only allowed that if there was oil mixed into it. The Gemara asks that one can buy maaser sheini with oil alone, so what is the chiddush that one may purchase maaser sheini with salt water mixed with oil? The Gemara which means that one may pay more for the oil, due to ,הבלעה answers that the chiddush is the concept of the value of the mixed in water and salt, even though the water and salt themselves do not become maaser sheini. The Gemara brings a Baraisa that teaches the source for this concept, that Ben Bag Bag said that the in the passuk regarding purchasing foods with maaser sheini teaches that we may purchaseבבקר extra word cattle, and pay extra for its hides, even though the hides do not become maaser sheini.

Siman – Kazoo (a toy musical instrument that one blows into to create a buzzing sound) Even though the music school said all instruments were welcome, the kid with the kazoo was banned, so dejectedly he went to the store and spent his maaser sheini money on salt water, making sure they mixed some oil in.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כח – Daf 28

1. Spending maaser sheini monies on birds which foods can ,כלל פרט וכלל On Daf 27b, two Baraisos learned from the passuk of maaser sheini utilizing – פרי מפרי וגדולי קרקע ,be purchased with maaser sheini funds. One Baraisa concluded that the food must be something that reproduces from its own seed and is nourished by the ground. The other Baraisa concluded .generated by something that was created from the ground – ולד ולדות הארץ that it must be

The Gemara asks what foods these two Baraisos are arguing about, and after rejecting a suggestion that was erroneously presented in the name of Abaye, Ravina answers that the machlokes is about birds. The first Baraisa includes birds because they are also nourished from the ground, whereas the second Baraisa a place where there was ,רקק excludes them because they were not created from the ground, but from the both dry land and water.

The Gemara goes on to explain how each Baraisa arrived at their conclusion based on the different way they .כלל פרט וכלל understood how to apply the principle of

2. Making an eruv with coriander one may make an eruv with coriander. The Gemara – מערבין בגודגדניות ,It was said in the name of Rav questions this based on a Baraisa that teaches that since coriander causes one to diminish zera, it should not be eaten by those without children, and if the stalks became hard enough for the seeds to have ripened, then even those with many children should not eat it, since it is harmful to one’s health. How then could it be considered a significant food to be used as an eruv, if it has such a detrimental effect?

The Gemara gives three answers. 1. Rav only permitted them to be used for an eruv for those that had children, and only when they were not yet hardened enough to harm them. 2. Even those that were not hardened were permitted to be used for an eruv by those that did not have children since they are suitable for those that do, similar to permitting wine to be used by a nazir for an eruv since wine is permitted to .median coriander, which is a harmless variety – הנדקוקי מדאי others. 3. Rav only permitted

3. The berachos on green grains and hops כשות Rebbe Zeira had a discussion with a young boy outside the Beis Midrash regarding the berachos for בורא פרי אדמה hops and green grain. The boy said that his Rebbe taught him the beracha for hops was -וחזיז Rebbe Zeira said it was more logical that the beracha .שהכל נהיה בדברו and the beracha for green grain was since it שהכל since it grows from the ground, whereas the hops should be ,האדמה for green grain should be is nourished from the air. Rashi explains that hops do not sprout from the earth but grow on prickly branches of shrubs.

The Gemara concludes that the halacha is like the schoolboy, and explains that since hops are a fully is בורא פרי האדמה is said, whereas green grains are not fully ripened so a בורא פרי האדמה matured fruit, a not recited. Hops are also nourished from the ground which is evident when they die after a shrub is cut down.

Siman – Strong Man The big strong man was going to eat the bird he bought with his maaser sheini money, by his eruv made of coriander, right after his lesson from a young boy on the berachos for green grains and hops.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף כט – Daf 29

The majority of this Daf deals with identifying which foods can be used for an eruv, and the specific amounts required.

1. Peaches vs. apples for making an eruv Rav Nachman ruled that the minimum amount of apples required for an eruv is a kav, the amount sufficient for two meals. The Gemara challenges this ruling based on a ruling said in the name of Rav that five peaches is sufficient to make an eruv. Since apples and peaches are both fruits, why does Rav Nachman require the larger amount of a kav for apples?

the peaches are a significant food for the meal. Rashi explains, based ,הני חשיבי ,The Gemara answers on a Gemara later on that for those foods which are eaten as part of the meal the full equivalency of two meals is not required. Rather, only the amount of that food which would be eaten during the two The apples are not significant, and the larger –הני לא חשיבי .meals need to be placed in the eruv amount is required. The mefarshim mention that the apples in Talmudic times were hard and not tasty.

2. Combining multiple foods to equal the amount of two meals And all foods combine to equal the –ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב ,It stated in a Mishnah mentioned earlier amount of food for two meals, which is the amount required to make an eruv. Rav Yosef thought to say, that different foods may be combined only if there is an amount –עד דאיכה סעודה מהאי וסעודה מהאי sufficient from this food for one meal, and one meal from this food; but that smaller amounts of three or Even a half, third or - אפילו למחצה לשליש ולרביע :more foods may not be combined. Rabbah said to him quarter of a meal may come from each of the foods. The only condition is that the combined total equals the amount of two meals.

3. Making an eruv with beer Rav Acha brei d’Rav Yosef thought to say before his father, Rav Yosef, that the amount of beer required to make an eruv is two quarters of a kav, or two lugin. This was based on a calculation made from Hilchos Shabbos regarding carrying, where the amount of beer one would be chayav for carrying is a quarter of a kav, which is four times the amount of wine one would be chayav for carrying. Assuming this ratio of 4:1 is a standard, then if half a lug of wine is needed to make an eruv, then two lugin of beer should be required.

The Gemara says this equation does not apply since the reason we need four times the amount of beer whereas with regards to an eruv we do not ,חשוב than wine for carrying is that we need something We only require an amount that people would normally eat which in .חשוב require an amount that is the case of beer is less than two lugin.

Siman – Cot The indecisive eruv maker put five peaches on his cot next to a kav of apples to decide which to use for his eruv, then changed his mind and chose to combine four foods for two meals instead, and include a little beer.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ל – Daf 30

1. Five grains satisfy hunger and provide sustenance One who - הנודר מן המזון מותר במים ובמלח ,The Gemara inferred from the Mishnah’s statement vowed to abstain from sustenance is permitted to drink water and have salt, that specifically only water and salt are not called sustenance, but all other foods are called sustenance. This seems to refute the We – אין מברכין "בורא מיני מזונות" אלא על חמשת המינין בלבד :opinions of Rav and Shmuel who both said may only make the beracha , “Who creates types of sustenance” on the five types of grains.

Rav Huna said that there is no refutation because the Mishnah is referring to someone who vowed and Anything that satisfies is prohibited to me. Water and salt do not satisfy, but all other – "כל הזן עלי" ,said on the other hand, implies something that sustains ,מזון foods do satisfy. Rashi explains that the term the heart and satisfies hunger, which is something only the five grains do. This distinction is evident in and although פירות גינוסר an incident with Rebbe Yochanan who ate large amounts of the very sweet he felt satisfied he expressed that he was not sustained.

2. Two versions of what Beis Shammai holds regarding an eruv The Gemara brings two versions of what Beis Shammai holds regarding an eruv. It was taught in a We may not make an eruv for a – אין מערבין לנזיר ביין ולישראל בתרומה ,Baraisa that Beis Shammai holds Nazir with wine, or for a Yisroel with terumah. When Beis Hillel challenged Beis Shammai, that just as Beis Shammai agrees that one may make an eruv for an adult erev Yom Kippur even though the adult cannot eat the food on Yom Kippur, since the food may be eaten by children, so too should one be allowed to make an eruv for a Nazir with wine, or for a Yisroel with terumah. Beis Shammai responded that in the case of Yom Kippur, the eruv is a meal that was suitable for this person to eat while it is still day, whereas in the case of the Nazir, the eruv of wine was not suitable to him erev Shabbos.

עד שיוציא מטתו וכל כלי ,According to Chananyah, Beis Shammai would only consider an eruv valid if one took out his bed and all of his utensils which he will need for Shabbos, to the place – תשמישו לשם of the eruv.

3. Four instances where there is no standard measure יש שאמרו הכל לפי מה ,The Gemara seeks to determine whose opinion a Mishnah follows that states There are instances where they said that the measurement is determined according to each – שהוא אדם ,the kemitzah from a Mincha - ,מלא קומצו מנחה .individual, and no uniform measure was established one – השותה מלא לוגמיו ביום הכפורים ,(the handful of ketores (on Yom Hakippurim – מלא חפניו קטרת .and food for two meals for an eruv – ובמזון שתי סעודות לעירוב ,who drinks a mouthful on Yom Kippur

.It must be fit for the individual involved – מאי דחזי ליה בעינן ,Rebbe Zeira said it is Sumchos, who said

Siman – A Melamed (Rebbe) The Rebbe fed his class mezonos to satisfy their hunger and sustain them as they schlepped their beds and utensils out to make an eruv, along with two meals, measured according to each kid.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לא – Daf 31

1. Placing an eruv on a grave - אפילו בין הקברות ,In the Mishnah on Daf 26b, Rebbe Yehudah said that a kohen may place his eruv because the Kohen can make a partition between – מפני שיכול לחוץ ולילך ולאכול ,even in a cemetery himself and the grave and then go (through the cemetery) and eat his eruv.

After determining on our Daf how exactly the Kohen can access the eruv without becoming tamei, the קסברי אסור ,Gemara seeks to understand why the Rabbanon forbid using it. The Gemara explains that they hold that it is prohibited to acquire a dwelling place with objects – לקנות בית באיסורי הנאה forbidden from benefit, and therefore he may not place his eruv on a grave. Rashi explains that a grave and the implements of a corpse are forbidden for one’s personal benefit, based on a gezeirah shavah, which connects the passing of Miriam with the subject of the eglah aruphah. Just as one cannot derive benefit from the decapitated calf, so too one cannot derive benefit from a corpse or its implements.

2. Using maaser rishon whose terumos maasros had been taken for an eruv maaser rishon - ,מעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו The next Mishnah states that one may make an eruv with whose terumah had been taken. The Gemara clarifies that the Mishnah is coming to teach that maaser when the separation was done while the grain was still in – שהקדימו בשבלין rishon is permissible to use the ears, before the owner was even obligated to separate terumah for the Kohen. The owner therefore only needs to separate maaser rishon and terumas maasros, but not terumah gedolah.

The Gemara points out the Mishnah’s teaching is in accordance with Rebbe Abahu who said in the name maaser rishon which was taken – מעשר ראשון שהקדימו בשבלין פטור מתרומה גדולה of Reish Lakish that off while the grain was still in the ears, is patur from terumah gedolah as it says in the passuk regarding And you shall offer up from it Hashem’s –והרמתם ממנו תרומת ה' מעשר מן המעשר ,maaser rishon I told you, (referring to the Levi), to give the – מעשר מן המעשר אמרתי לך .terumah, a tithe of the maaser and not both terumah gedolah and terumos – ולא תרומה גדולה מן המעשר ,Kohen a tithe of the maaser maaser from the Levi’s maaser rishon.

3. A child cannot be a shaliach to place an eruv The next Mishnah states that if one sends his eruv in the hands of a katan, it is not a valid eruv, even if he deposits it in the proper place. The Gemara asks why a katan cannot serve as a shaliach, since Rav a child may collect the eruv food from members of the chatzeir for an – קטן גובה את הערוב ,Huna said eruv chatzeiros. The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is dealing with an eruv techumim, whereas Rav Huna was discussing an eruv chatzeiros. Rashi explains that the purpose of an eruv techumim is to acquire a Shabbos residence, and a minor lacks the power of acquisition, and therefore he cannot serve as a shaliach. In the case of the eruv chatzeiros, however, the child is merely gathering the eruv food into one place, and automatically the various dwellings merge into one place.

Siman – Judge (Law) Judge Kohn was being carried in a box through the cemetery to determine if the eruv was on a grave, when he noticed a Levi separating maaser rishon from grain still in the ears for his eruv and giving it to little Shimmy the shaliach.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לב – Daf 32

חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו .1 Regarding a d’Oraysa, we do not rely on the – בשל תורה אין חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו ,Rav Nachman said regarding a – בשל סופרים חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו presumption that a shaliach performed his shlichus, and d’Rabbanon, we may rely on the presumption that the shaliach performed his shlichus. Rashi explains that the difference is that in regards to a d’Rabbanon, even if the shaliach did not fulfill his shlichus, the transgression is less severe. Regarding both a d’Oraysa and a – אחד זה ואחד זה חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו ,Rav Sheishess said d’Rabbanon, we may rely on the presumption that the shaliach performed his mission.

Rav Sheishess brings three supports to his position, the first one based on a Mishnah that teaches that when the Omer is brought, the Chodosh is permitted to those that live far from Yerushalayim who could not know exactly when it was brought, from midday onward. This seems to prove that in a case of a d’Oraysa, we can לפי שיודעין שאין בית ,presume a shaliach did his shlichus. Rav Nachman answered that this case is different .because people know that Beis Din does not procrastinate - דין מתעצלין

2. Chaver giving basket of fruit to an am ha’aretz תרומות There is a machlokes if one who was invited to take a basket of fruit from a chaver, has to take off ,Rebbe says he may eat from the fruits and assume the chaver separated terumos and maasros .ומעשרות whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says he must first separate terumos and maasros, because chaveirim when they are not in close proximity (of ,שלא מן המוקף are not suspected of separating terumos and maasros the food which it is taken off from).

ניחא ליה לחבר דלעביד הוא ,Ravina understands that the machlokes between them, is that Rebbe holds A chaver would be amenable to commit a minor infraction (i.e. not tithing from produce in – איסורא קלילא so that a common person does – ולא ליעבד עם הארץ איסורא רבה (proximity to the food needing to be tithed not commit a major transgression, such as eating tevel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it would be more amenable to a chaver that the am ha’aretz commit a major infraction, such as eating tevel, and he .מן המוקף himself would not commit even a minor infraction, such as tithing from produce that was not

3. An eruv in a tree The next Mishnah states that if one put his eruv in a tree at a height of more than ten tefachim off the ground, then the eruv is not valid, but if it is below ten tefachim the eruv is valid. The Gemara determines that we are discussing a case where the tree is in a reshus harabim. Therefore, when the eruv is above ten tefachim, and the person intends to establish his Shabbos residence on the ground, then the person is not in the same place as his eruv. However, when it is below ten tefachim, even though there is the problem of כל דבר שהוא משום ,removing the eruv from the tree, the Mishnah is going according to Rebbe who holds Any activity that is prohibited d’Rabbanonon Shabbos, was not forbidden – שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות during bein hashemashos. Since he is permitted to remove the eruv from the tree bein hashemashos, the eruv is considered accessible and therefore valid.

Siman – Lab (Mad scientist) The mad scientist who studied human behavior by giving a shaliach the task of bringing the Omer, and asking a chaver to hand out baskets of fruit, loved watching people figure out what they should do when their eruv was put in a tree. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לג – Daf 33

1. Eruv in a basket above ten tefachim In a Baraisa that was brought as the source for the machlokes between Rebbe and the Rabbanon whether d’Rabbanon’s apply during bein hashemashos, Rebbe said that if one placed the eruv in a basket and hung it on a tree, even if it is hanging above ten tefachim from the ground, the eruv is valid. Ravina clarifies that the tree lacked a width of four tefachim and is therefore not a reshus hayachid, and the basket completes the width to a total of four tefachim.

Rebbe views the basket as if it had a width of four tefachim because he holds like Rebbe Meir who .that we imaginarily carve out a solid edifice to achieve the required dimensions ,חוקקין להשלים ,holds In this case we view part of the tree that is adjoining the basket as if it were hollowed out, thereby extending the width of the basket to a width of four tefachim. Rebbe requires a width of four tefachim We require that the – בעינן עירוב על גבי מקום ארבעה ,because he holds like Rebbe Yehudah who said eruv be in a place that is at least four tefachim wide, so that is on a makom chashuv. together גוד אחית with חוקקין להשלים We do not combine the principles of .2 The Gemara asks why the basket is not considered to be a reshus hayachid since halachically it is viewed as if it is four tefachim wide, and therefore the eruv should be invalid because it is no longer accessible from the reshus harabim? This would be in line with what Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Yehudah said that an area that is elevated ten tefachim high off the ground, and is four tefachim wide, is considered we view the walls of the elevated basket – גוד אחית to be a reshus hayachid, based on the principle of as if they extend down to the ground (and make up a mechitzah of ten tefachim).

The Gemara answers that even Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Yehudah would agree in this case that the basket to make the basket חוקקין להשלים is not a reshus hayachid because we must first apply the principle of to extend the walls downward, and we do גוד אחית four tefachim wide and then use the principle of not combine these two principles together.

3. Tipping the basket Rebbe Yirmiyah said that the eruv in the basket could be valid even in a tree which is four tefachim wide which gives the tree the din of a reshus hayachid. Seemingly the eruv in the basket would be invalid since it is not accessible to one standing in reshus harabim. Rebbe Yirmiyah explains that a basket is different since he can tilt one end of it downward and bring it within ten tefachim of the ground. This would cause the eruv inside to be transferred from a reshus hayachid to a karmelis, making it accessible to one standing in reshus harabim during bein hashemashos, and therefore it is valid.

Siman – Peg Leg Pirate When the pirate with a peg leg spotted the long-lost treasure hidden in a basket on a thin tree that was imaginarily hollowed out, and had invisible mechitzos, he shot a cannonball and the basket tipped over.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לד – Daf 34

1. A makom shevisa on top of a closet On Daf 33b, Rebbe Yirmiyah said that the eruv in a basket is valid even if it is above ten tefachim high in a tree which is four tefachim wide, since the basket can be tilted downward bringing the eruv within ten tefachim of the ground, which has the din of a karmelis, and thereby making it accessible to bring it into a reshus harabim during bein hashemashos. The Gemara challenges Rebbe Yirmiyah based on a Baraisa that states that if one intended to establish his makom shevisa (Shabbos residence) on top of a closet which was placed against a wall, and he placed the eruv in the closet below ten tefachim, (which Rashi explains means at a height of nine tefachim in a place people use to adjust their loads which has the status of reshus harabim), the eruv is invalid. The eruv is in a reshus harabim and it requires to be transferred to the top of the closet, which is a reshus hayachid. The Gemara asks why the eruv is not valid being that one may tilt the closest, as Rebbe Yirmiyah stated.

Rebbe Yirmiyah answered that the closet mentioned in the Baraisa was nailed to the wall, making it impossible to tilt the closet. Rava answered that even if the closet was not nailed into the wall, the eruv would be still be invalid since the Baraisa was discussing a tall closet, that if one would tip the top forward, it would extend more than four amos from the wall, and then he would not be within four amos of the place that he had designated as his makom shevisa.

2. An eruv in a pit one hundred amos deep The Mishnah on Daf 32b stated that if one placed an eruv in a pit, even if it was a hundred amos deep, the eruv is valid. The Gemara seeks to determine where this pit was located. If it was in a reshus hayachid, then why does the Mishnah state that “even if the pit is a hundred amos deep,” just as a reshus hayachid extends all the way to the heavens, so too does it extend all the way downwards, and therefore there is no chiddush in saying that “even if the pit is a hundred amos deep”. On the other hand, if the pit is in a reshus harabim, then it is obvious that the eruv is invalid since the person’s makom shevisa is in a reshus harabim and the eruv is in a reshus hayachid. The Gemara concludes that the pit is in a karmelis, and the Mishnah is according any Shabbos prohibition which – כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות ,to Rebbe who holds that is a d’Rabbonon is not forbidden during bein hashemashos.

3. An eruv in a closet with a lost key ,If he placed the eruv in a closet, and then he locked it – נתנו במגדל ואבד המפתח ,The next Mishnah states and then he lost the key, making the eruv inaccessible, according to the Tanna Kamma the eruv is still valid. Rebbe Eliezer said that if he does not know where the key is, it is not a valid eruv.

The Gemara asks why the eruv should be valid according to the Tanna Kamma, since his makom shevisa is in one place and the eruv is in another. Rashi explains that even though they are both in a reshus hayachid, the eruv is still inaccessible making it as if they are in two different places. Rav and Shmuel both say that the case ,פוחת לכתחילה ונוטל ,is dealing with a closet made of bricks, and is going according to Rebbe Meir who holds that if a house of produce was sealed, making them inaccessible on Yom Tov, one may break through the wall and take the fruit. The Gemara clarifies that the bricks of the house were not cemented together, so breaking the wall would not be violating soser - demolishing.

Siman – Ladder The strange man who climbed a ladder to make his makom shevisa on top of a closet and then accidently dropped his eruv into a deep pit, forgot where he put the key for his closet made of bricks that he needed to get a rope. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לה – Daf 35

1. Two additional explanations of the eruv locked in the closet and the lost key The Gemara brings two more explanations for the machlokes between the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Eliezer regarding an eruv locked in a closet and the key is lost.

.we are dealing with a closet made of wood –הכא במגדל של עץ עסקינן ,Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say and the melachah of –אין בנין בכלים ואין סתירה בכלים and ,כלי The Tanna Kamma holds that it is a building and destroying does not apply to utensils. Therefore, the person may break open the closet even on Shabbos. Rebbe Eliezer holds the closet is an ohel, which may not be demolished on Shabbos or Yom Tov. The eruv is invalid because it is inaccessible.

,We are dealing with a closet that has a lock –במנעול וקטיר במתנא עסקינן ,Abaye and Rava both say which is tied with a rope, and a knife is needed to cut the rope. The Tanna Kamma held like Rebbe Yose .מוקצה מחמת חסרון כיס All keilim may be taken on Shabbos except for –כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת ,who said Therefore a knife can be used to cut the rope. Rebbe Eliezer holds like Rebbe Nechemyah who holds .for their primary use. Therefore, the knife cannot be used –לצורך תשמישן ,that keilim can only be taken

2. An eruv becoming inaccessible or a - ,ונפל עליו גל ,If the eruv rolled beyond the techum –נתגלגל חוץ לתחום ,The next Mishnah states heap of rubble fell on it, if this occurred while it is still day, it is not a valid eruv. If it occurred after dark, it is a valid eruv. The Gemara clarifies that in the first case, the eruv rolled beyond four amos from the edge of the techum, and in the second case, according to Rebbe, it was a case where he needed a hoe and a pick to excavate the eruv, which is the issur d’Oraysa of digging. If it was just a case of moving the muktzeh rocks by hand, it would be permissible to do according to Rebbe during bein hashemashos.

teaches that even if a נתגלגל חוץ לתחום The Gemara explains that both cases are needed. The case of teaches that נפל עליו גל wind could blow it back inside the techum, the eruv is still invalid. The case of even though it is physically within the techum, the eruv is not valid.

3. Rebbe Meir goes l’chumroh in a case of a safek eruv The Mishnah introduces a machlokes when it is a safek when the eruv became inaccessible, with Rebbe Meir going l’chumrah and prohibiting the use of the eruv. The Gemara clarifies that Rebbe Meir goes l’chumrah because he holds techumin are a d’Oraysa. The Gemara questions this based on Rebbe Meir for measuring the techum. This method מקדרין בהרים saying that one may use the lenient method of involves viewing a mountain as if it was drilled through, and is only permitted in d’Rabbonan cases. How could Rebbe Meir permit this if he holds techumin are d’Oraysa? The Gemara answers that Rebbe Meir מדקרין himself holds that techumin are d’Oraysa and he was only quoting his Rebbeim who permitted .because they held techumin are a d’Rabbanon בהרים

Siman – Children’s Choir singing La-La-La The children’s choir sang La-La-La when they finally got their eruv out of the locked wooden closet tied with a rope, but stopped when it blew away and got crushed under a heap of stones, which had been dislodged by men who were measuring the techum by a mountain.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לו – Daf 36

טומאה דרבנן even with a ספק טומאה לחומרא Why Rebbe Yose holds .1 The Gemara points out a difficulty, that on the previous Daf, Rebbe Yose said in the Mishnah regarding whereas in the Mishnah brought from ,ספק עירוב לקולא an eruv techumin which is a d’Rabbanon, that .טומאה דרבנן with a ,ספק טומאה לחומרא Mikvaos he holds

tumah d’Rabbanon is different – שאני טומאה הואיל ויש לה עיקר מן התורה ,Rav Huna bar Chinana said since it is a concept rooted in a d’Oraysa. Meaning that there is tumah Med’Oraysa, and therefore we are machmir even by tumah d’Rabbanon so that one will not come to be lenient by a doubtful tevillah when he is tamei mid’Oraysa. Eruv techumim, however, is purely a d’Rabbanon innovation. The Gemara provides two additional answers.

2. Two loaves of terumah for an eruv, one tamei and one tahor Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak asked Rav Huna that if one had two loaves of terumah, one tamei and one tahor, and he did not know which was which, and after placing the two loaves at the edge of the techum he said: “Let my eruv be made with the tahor loaf, whichever one it is,” is the eruv valid?

בעינן סעודה הראויה מבעוד יום ,Rav Huna answered that according to both Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Yose ,we require a meal that is suitable while it is still day, on Friday, and it is not in this case. Meaning – וליכא that since he does not know which loaf is the tahor one, he is not permitted to eat either of them. Therefore, the eruv was not suitable to eat at the time that he placed it. Rashi explains that in the Mishnah’s case of a safek, the eruv was suitable at the time that he placed it.

ברירה .3 of retroactive designation, and shows how it may be ,ברירה The next Mishnah introduces the concept of used in the case of placing an eruv. A person may place two eruvin in opposite directions of his makom shevisa, and say if a chochom comes from the east, my eruv is to the east, if he comes from the west, למקום ,my eruv is to the west. If one chochom comes from the west and the other from the east I shall go to the place I choose on Shabbos. This means that the eruv which is in the –שארצה אלך direction he chooses will be retroactively valid, and the other void.

Rebbe Yehudah said that in the case of two chochomim that come from different directions, if one was his Rebbe he must go to his teacher. Rashi explains that according to Rebbe Yehudah we assume that he wanted the eruv that was in the direction of his Rebbe to take effect.

Siman – Lulav The two lulavim floating in the mikvah with a questionable forty se’ah, had two loaves of terumah stuck on each of them, one tahor and one tamei, and were taken to opposite sides of the city, to be used as eruvin.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לז – Daf 37 with terumos and maasros ברירה .1 The Gemara there .ברירה We learned on Daf 36b that Rebbe Yehudah in the Mishnah holds of the concept of brought a statement from Rav that the Mishnah’s version of Rebbe Yehudah is incorrect based on a Baraisa .ברירה that Ayo taught that indicated that Rebbe Yehudah does not hold of

from a Tosefta that ברירה The Gemara here brings another source that Rebbe Yehudah rejects the validity of states that if one bought a barrel of wine from kusim and he has no keilim to separate trumos and maasros Rebbe Meir says he should say: Two lugin which I shall separate in the future from these hundred lugin of wine are hereby designated as terumah, ten lugin which I shall separate later are designated now as maaser rishon, nine lugin are designated now as maaser sheini immediately by transferring its kedushah onto coins and after doing this, the person may immediately drink, provided he leaves over enough wine for the various separations. Rebbe Yose, Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Shimon forbid this, because they reject the concept of Ulla disputes this version of the .ברירה We see from here that Rebbe Yehudah rejects the validity of .ברירה .is valid ברירה Tosefta and says that Rebbe Yehudah holds like Rebbe Meir that

2. Making an eruv for someone he will choose later even ברירה Rava asked Rav Nachman who the Tanna was in a Baraisa that does not accept the concept of with regard to a d’Rabbanon. The Baraisa taught that if one said to five people, “I am making an eruv for whomever of you that I shall later choose, the one I have chosen will be permitted to go beyond the techum and the ones I have not chosen will not be permitted to go beyond the techum”, If he chose while it is still Friday, his eruv is valid, whereas if he chose once it became dark the eruv is invalid. Clearly the Tanna of this even for the d’Rabbanon of techum. Rav Nachman did not who the ברירה Baraisa rejects the validity, of Tanna was.

The Gemara asks why Rav Nachman does not tell Rava the Tanna comes from the school of Ayo and answers that Rav Nachman had not heard of Ayo’s version of Rebbe Yehudah. with d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanons ברירה or no ברירה .3 The Gemara addresses conflicting Baraisos, one in which Rebbe Shimon does not accept the concept of and one in which he does, and suggests that the rulings in one Baraisa are reversed so that Rebbe ברירה .ברירה Shimon is consistent in not accepting the concept of

The Gemara questions the need for this solution, since it could have been suggested that Rebbe Shimon in d’Oraysa cases such as the case of separating terumos and maasros, but does ברירה does not hold of accept it in d’Rabbanon’s, such as the case of the techum, and answers that the Amora who reversed the holds it applies to both d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanonsand the ברירה rulings holds that the one who accepts .rejects it for both d’Oraysas and d’Rabbanons ברירה one who rejects

Siman – Laser Tag The laser tag champ who hid behind the Cusi barrel of wine and declared his future intent to take terumos and maasros, successfully zapped his opponent who was chosen from the five-man team to go beyond the techum and share the message that bereirah never works for d’Oraysas or for d’Rabbanons.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לח – Daf 38

1. Shabbos and Yom Tov are two separate kedushos according to Rebbe Eliezer The next Mishnah in the perek introduces a machlokes whether two separate eruvin are required in a case when Yom Tov falls on either Friday or Sunday. Rebbe Eliezer holds that an eruv can be made for one day without the other, or for both days in different locations. The Chochomim hold that only a single eruv can be used, and it must be in effect for both days. Otherwise, an eruv should not be used.

In the Gemara, the Chochomim challenge Rebbe Eliezer by saying that just as he agrees that one cannot make two separate eruvs for the same day, to be half of the day in the north and half of the day in the south, since a person cannot have two makom shevisas on the same day, so too he should agree that one cannot – התם קדושה אחת הכא שתי קדושות ,make two separate eruvs for two separate days. Rebbe Eliezer answers There, in the case of one day, it is a single period of kedushah, whereas in the case of Yom Tov and Shabbos there are two separate periods of kedushah.

2. The Rabbanon go l’chumroh because of a safek שאם עירב ברגליו ביום ,In a Baraisa, Rebbe Eliezer challenged the Chochomim and asked that since they agree that if one made his eruv with his presence on the eve of the first day by staying in the desired – ראשון location until night, if he wishes to extend his eruv for the second day he must make the eruv with his presence again on the eve of the second day, and similarly they agree that if one made his eruv with food on the first day and it was consumed, he would not be permitted to leave the city’s techum on the second day, so the Chochomim seemingly agree that Yom Tov and Shabbos are two separate periods of kedusha. The The Rabbanon are unsure whether they are two separate periods – רבנן ספוקי מספקא להו ,Gemara answers of kedushah or one, and therefore they ruled l’chumroh in both cases.

3. Rav holds an egg laid on Shabbos is prohibited on Yom Tov and vice versa due to hachanah When Rav Huna died, Rav Chisda entered the study hall and asked if Rav really said that the halachah is in accordance with the opinion of four zekeinim who follow Rebbe Eliezer’s opinion that Yom Tov and Shabbos are two separate kedushos? If so, this would contradict another ruling of Rav who said that when Shabbos and Yom Tov occur on consecutive days, an egg laid on the first day is forbidden on the second day, which implies that Rav holds that the two days are one period of kedushah, otherwise what is laid on one day should be permitted on the next.

Meaning, that .הכנה Rabbah answered that in Rav’s ruling regarding the egg, the egg is forbidden because of it is forbidden to derive benefit from an item on Shabbos or Yom Tov that was prepared on an immediately preceding Shabbos or Yom Tov.

(דבר לח) Siman – Chicken soup The Bubby who prepared two pots of chicken soup as eruvin for the two separate kedushos of Yom Tov and Shabbos, as a chumroh because of a safek, didn’t eat the egg on Shabbos that was laid on Yom Tov because of hachanah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף לט – Daf 39

הכנה Why non-verbal declaration of eruv is not .1 The Gemara on 38b clarified that Rabbah forbids the renewal of an eruv from Shabbos to Yom Tov, or from Yom Tov to Shabbos, if a verbal declaration is involved, because the verbal declaration makes it an If a declaration is not required for the renewal, such as in the case of establishing the eruv .הכנה act of with one’s presence, the renewal is permitted.

Rabbah bar Rav Chanin said to Abaye that if Rabbah would have heard what was taught in a Baraisa, that a person may not walk to the edge of his field on Shabbos or Yom Tov to discern what it requires for after Shabbos, and a person may not stroll on Shabbos or Yom Tov towards the gate of the city in order to enter the bathhouse immediately after Shabbos, he would have retracted his view, since we .הכנה see that even an activity done with no verbal designation is also forbidden as

The Gemara answers that Rabbah did indeed hear this Baraisa and did not retract his view. In the Baraisa’s cases it is obvious to others that he is preparing for tomorrow. In the case of the eruv however, it is not obvious since if it is a Rabbinical student people will think that he got distracted in his studies and ended up there, and if he is an am ha’aretz they will think he ended up there looking for his lost donkey.

2. Two days of Rosh Hashanah are two separate kedushos The next Mishnah addresses the question of whether the two days of Rosh Hashanah are treated as one period of kedushah, or as two separate periods of kedushah which is the opinion of Rebbe Yehudah. The Gemara clarifies that the Chochomin who argued against Rebbe Eliezer in the case of Shabbos and Yom Tov being on consecutive days, and hold that they are one period of kedushah, agree with Rebbe Yehudah here that one may make separate eruvin for the two days of Rosh Hashanah. Rashi explains that since only one of the days is essentially a Yom Tov and the other is a weekday, they are treated as two separate periods. 3. Two days of Yom Tov shel Galyus The Gemara relates an incident in which a deer that was captured by nochrim on the first day of Yom Tov shel galuyos, was brought to the house of the Reish Galusa and slaughtered on the second day of Yom Tov. Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda ate it because they held that only one of the two days was actually Yom Tov, so even if the animal was captured on Yom Tov (and eating it would therefore be forbidden because of amira lakum), the day they ate it was not a Yom Tov. Rav Sheishess did not eat it. Rashi explains that Rav Sheishess views the two days as one continual period of kedushah, making the meat forbidden on both days.

Siman – Letter (Mailman) The mailman, who passed a Rabbinical student distracted in his studies, was delivering two-days’ worth of Rosh Hashanah cards to the Rabbi’s house when nochrim carrying a captured deer also showed up at the door.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מ – Daf 40

בכדי שיעשה .1 The Gemara discusses the issue of a Jew benefiting from work done by a nochri, and brings the following There were these canopy makers, for whom hadassim – הנהו בני גננא דגזו להו אסא ביום טוב שני .incident were cut down by nochrim on the second day of Yom Tov, and that evening Ravina allowed them to smell the hadassim immediately upon the conclusion of Yom Tov. Rava bar Tachlifa said to Ravina that he should forbid them to smell the branches because they are not bnei Torah, and they will come to treat the second day of Yom Tov lightly.

Rav Shemayah objected to this statement which implies that if they were indeed bnei Torah they would be but one is required to wait after Yom Tov the amount of – והא בעינן בכדי שיעשו ,permitted to smell them time that it takes for the work to be done, before being permitted to benefit from work that was done on .בעינן בכדי שיעשו ,Yom Tov. Rava was asked what his opinion was, and he ruled

2. Mentioning Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashanah Rabbah said that when he was in the Yeshiva of Rav Huna, they asked Rav Huna what the halachahwas כיון דחלוקין במוספין regarding mentioning Rosh Chodesh in the tefillos of Rosh Hashana. Do we say that Since one brings different Mussaf offerings on Rosh Hashana and on Rosh Chodesh, Rosh Chodesh – אמרינן or perhaps, one mention of “remembrance” is – או דילמא זכרון אחד עולה לכאן ולכאן ,should be mentioned a day of – זכרון תרועה ,sufficient for both of them. Rashi explains that Rosh Hashanah is called and it will be for – והיו לכם לזכרון ,remembrance of the Teruah, and the Torah says regarding Rosh Chodesh in the Rosh יום הזכרון you a remembrance. Since Hashem promises to remember us on both days, the term Hashana tefillos can refer to both.

זכרון ,After extensive discussion, the Gemara concludes that both Rav Chisda and Rabbah individually said . One mention of “remembrance” is enough for both occasions – אחד עולה לו לכאן ולכאן

3. Making a shehechiyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur Rabbah also asked Rav Huna whether a Shehechiyanu should be recited on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. ,Since they only come from time to time, we should recite them – כיון דמזמן לזמן אתי אמרינן Do we say that or perhaps since they are not called regalim, we do not recite – או דילמא כיון דלא איקרי רגלים לא אמרינן them, because only the regalim have an elevated sense of simcha. Rav Huna did not know the answer. Rabbah then went to Rav Yehudah and said to him that he understood that one has reshus to make the beracha on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but he does not know if it is a chovah to recite it. Rav Yehudah answered that Rav and Shmuel hold that it is only a chovah to recite a shehechiyanu on the three regalim. The halachah is that one needs to recite a – הלכתא אומר זמן ,After extensive discussion the Gemara rules shehechiyanu on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

Siman – Pool (Water) When the canopy workers by the pool saw the hadassim delivery truck arrive, they feverishly finished setting up for the Yom HaZikaron services so the chazan could make a shehechiyanu.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מא – Daf 41

1. Breaking a fast before Shabbos what is the halachah – מהו לאשלומי ,Rav Huna was asked that if a student took upon himself to fast on Friday concerning completing the fast until definite nightfall? This would be problematic since it is forbidden to fast on Shabbos. Rav Huna did not know the answer and neither did Rav Yehudah.

Rava brought a Baraisa that taught that when Tisha b’Av comes out on Shabbos or when erev Tisha b’Av ומעלה על שלחנו אפילו כסעודת שלמה בשעתו ,comes out on Shabbos, a person may eat and drink all he needs – and he may bring up onto his table all types of food, even like the banquet of Shlomo Hamelech in his time. we may bring the person who is fasting – מביאין לו כביצה ואוכל ,If Tisha b’Av falls on erev Shabbos, however in order that – כדי שלא יכנס לשבת כשהוא מעונה ,only a kibeitzah sized amount of food to eat before Shabbos he should not enter Shabbos suffering from the hunger of the fast. We see from the Baraisa that one is not ,However .תענית יחיד his fast even on Tisha b’Av, therefore he certainly does not complete it with a משלים the Gemara concludes later that we do indeed complete the fast of Tisha b’Av when it falls on erev Shabbos.

שלשה אין רואין פני גיהמם .2 Three types of people do not even see the façade of – שלשה אין רואין פני גיהנם ,It was taught in a Baraisa דקדוקי עניות וחולי ,Gehinnom because the pain and misery they suffer in the this world atone for their sins those who suffer from extreme poverty, intestinal disorders and the pursuit of creditors. Some – מעיין והרשות say also someone who has a bad wife, such as in the case when he cannot divorce her because the kesubah is too high or they have children together. The Gemara asks what the practical teaching of this is, and to accept these challenges with love. Rashi explains that accepting them with love – לקבולי מאהבה ,answers brings kaparah.

3. Going outside dalet amos to relieve oneself The opening Mishna in the fourth perek taught that if someone was removed from his techum on Shabbos, he is only permitted to move four amos from his location. Rabbah was asked what the halachah is if the Human – גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה ,person needs to relieve himself, and he answered ,לא תסור dignity is so important that it supersedes a prohibition of the Torah, meaning the commandment of which teaches us not to deviate from the decrees of the Rabbanon. Therefore, one may walk out of his four amos in order to relieve himself, even though there is a prohibition of the Rabbanon that one cannot leave his four amos.

Based on this, the Chochomim in Nehardea said that if he is wise, he should re-enter his techum while seeking a private area and once he has returned to his original techum legally, he may stay there. Rashi explains that we learn this from the Mishnah, which permits one to be back in his original techum when he is forcibly returned there. All the more so then in our case, when he returns to his original place with halachic permission.

Siman – Grandma (Ma) When the Grandma gave the Grandpa a burnt k’beitzah piece of fish to break his taanis right before Shabbos, it aggravated his intestinal disorder, forcing him on Shabbos to leave his dalet amos in order to relieve himself.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מב – Daf 42

1. If one does not know where techum ends if someone was walking on – היה מהלך ואינו יודע תחום שבת ,Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel he may walk – מהלך אלפים פסיעות בינוניות ,Shabbos and he does not know where the Shabbos techum ends .and this is the measure of the techum – וזו היא תחום שבת ,two thousand average-sized steps in one direction Rashi explains that the distance traveled by a person with each step is one amah.

2. Nochrim encircled one’s makom shevisa with a partitions if he made his –שבת בבעקה והקיפוה נכרים מחיצה בשבת ,Rav Nachman also said in the name of Shmuel Shabbos residence in an open field (thereby giving him two thousand amos from that spot), and nochrim he may still walk only two thousand amos from his – מהלך אלפים אמה ,encircled it with partitions on Shabbos makom shevisa. Rashi explains that since the eruv took effect when it was an open area, we cannot consider However, he – ומטלטל בכולה על ידי זריקה .the large enclosed area as dalet amos based on walls erected later may transport objects within the entire enclosure by means of throwing. Since the field is enclosed it has the status of a reshus hayachid in which carrying is permitted.

Rav Huna agrees that he can walk two thousand amos in any direction from his makom shevisa, but he may ,carry four amos. He does not permit throwing the object beyond his techum - ,מטלטל ארבע אמות only be out of concern that he might be drawn after his object and step out of his techum. He – שמא ימשך אחר חפצו משום דהוי כמחיצה שנפרצה במלואה ,restricts carrying within the two thousand amos of his makom shevisa because this case is similar to a partition that was breached along its entire length, leaving – למקום האסור לה it completely open to a place in which carrying is forbidden. Meaning, that since the enclosed area now has two areas, one in which he is permitted to walk and should be permitted to carry in, and another in which he is forbidden to carry in even by throwing, because it is beyond his techum limit, and these two areas are not partitioned off from each other, he is forbidden to carry even within his two thousand amos.

3. Two reasons why halacha is like Rabban Gamliel regarding walking on a boat In the Mishnah on Daf 41b, Rabban Gamliel and Rebbe Eliezer ben Azaryah were in a boat that had sailed beyond the techum, and they walked within the entire ship on Shabbos, whereas Rebbe Yehoshua and Rebbe Akiva did not move out of their four amos.

הואיל ושבת באויר ,The Gemara brings two explanations why the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel. Rabbah says because he established his Shabbos residence within the walls of the ship while it was still – מחיצות מבעוד יום הואיל ,day, which enables him to treat the entire ship as his four amah area. Rebbe Zeirah said the reason is because the ship is constantly in motion, he constantly gets – וספינה נוטלתו מתחילת ארבע ומנחתו בסוף ארבע a new dalet amos within which to walk. The Gemara addresses what the practical difference is between these two opinions.

Siman - Mob The mobster took two thousand steps to the freshly enclosed area in the open field where his prisoner was kept, only to discover he had escaped and boarded a ship, where he walked about freely.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מג – Daf 43

1. Do the halachos of techum apply above ten tefachim? Do the halachos of techum apply –יש תחומין למעלה מעשרה או אין תחומין למעלה מעשרה ,Rav Chananya asked above ten tefachim or not? If they do not apply, then it would be permitted for someone to travel beyond the techum at a height above ten tefachim.

The Gemara attempts to prove that the laws of techum do not apply above ten tefachim from an incident where seven rulings that were said on Shabbos morning before Rav Chisda in the town of Sura were repeated Shabbos afternoon before Rava in Pumbedisa, which is at a greater distance than the techum. The Gemara suggests that it must have been Eliyahu HaNavi who travelled in the air above ten tefachim and reported the teachings, which proves techumin do not apply above ten tefachim, since he would not violate Shabbos. This proof is rejected as the Gemara suggests that it might have been Yosef Shida, Yosef the demon, who travelled beyond the techum because he is not shomer Shabbos.

2. Why the Moshiach will not come on Shabbos The Gemara then attempts to prove that the laws of techum do apply above ten tefachim based on a Baraisa I am a Nazir effective on the day that“ –הריני נזיר ביום שבן דוד בא ,that teaches that if someone declared he is permitted to drink wine only on Shabbos and –מותר לשתות יין בשבתות ובימים טובים ,”Moshiach comes Yom Tov. Rashi explains that it is certain that Moshiach will not arrive on those days.

The Gemara suggests that the reason the Moshiach will not come on Shabbos and Yom Tov is that he will not violate the laws of techum and travel more than two thousand amos. If the laws of the techum do not apply above ten tefachim then it would still be possible for the Moshiach to arrive on Shabbos by travelling in the air above ten tefachim, and the Nazir should not be permitted to drink wine on Shabbos. This seem to prove that the techum does apply above ten tefachim.

The Gemara gives a different reason for why the Moshiach will not come on Shabbos and Yom Tov. The passuk in Malachi states that Eliyahu HaNavi will be sent to announce the pending arrival of Moshioch the –כבר מובטח להן לישראל שאין אליהו בא לא בערבי שבתות ולא בערבי ימים טובים מפני הטורח day before, and There is a tradition that Eliyahu will not arrive on erev Shabbos or erev Yom Tov because of the difficulties it would impose on people to complete their preparations while taking time to great Eliyahu.

שפופרת .3 on the boat, a hollow tube שפופרת The Gemara brings a Baraisa that teaches that Rabban Gamliel used a with which he was able to look and sight a distance of two thousand amos on land or at sea. Rashi explains that a long hollow tube narrows and shortens the viewers range and can be calibrated to yield a maximum distance of two thousand amos. The Baraisa brings additional innovative ways to calculate measurements.

Siman – Magazine The demon flying above ten tefachim beyond the techum to deliver the magazine about seven rulings, was spotted flying over a crowd busy preparing for Shabbos by a man on a boat with a hollow tube.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מד – Daf 44

1. Creating a human enclosure On the bottom of Daf 43b the Gemara brought an incident when Nechemyah brei d’Rav Chanilai became engrossed in his learning and accidently went out of his techum. When he realized where he was, he stopped and remained within his dalet amos. When Rav Chisda told Rav Nachman, Nechemya’s Rebbe, Rav Nachman make a human partition for him by lining up people so that their – עשה לו מחיצה של בני אדם ויכנס ,said bodies form an enclosure around him which reaches back into the techum and let him enter his original techum.

Rava said it was obvious that the case was where there were not enough people to form an enclosure all the way back to the techum, and Rav Chisda wanted to know if the halachah follows Rebbe Eliezer who permits a person within two amos of his techum to return to it. If there had been enough people, there would be no question that it would be permissible since the halachah goes according to Rabban Gamliel who permits a person to move through an entire enclosed area even though the person was not in the enclosure at the start of Shabbos.

2. Using a person as a sukkah wall Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak brought a Baraisa that taught that if a wall of a Sukkah fell on Yom Tov one is not לפי שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחילה ביום טוב ואין ,permitted to station a person, animal or utensils in its place because one may not make a temporary structure from start on Yom Tov and it goes – צריך לומר בשבת without saying that he may not do so on Shabbos. Rava brought a Baraisa that seemingly disagrees and says, so that he – כדי שיאכל וישתה וישן ,a person may use his friend as a wall of a Sukkah – עושה אדם את חבירו דופן may eat, drink and sleep in it.

The Gemara resolves the contradictions by saying that the first Baraisa involves someone who is aware that he is being used as a mechitzah which does not work. The second Baraisa involved someone who was not aware that he was being used as a mechitzah.

הבלעת תחומין מילתא היא .3 One who left his techum with reshus, for example for edus – מי שיצא ברשות ,The next Mishnah states hachodesh, and was told that there was no longer any need for him to testify, has a new techum of two thousand amos in every direction. If he was told this while he was still in his original techum, it is as if he had never left. Rabbah explains that this means that it is as if he never left his house. The Gemara explains that since he uprooted himself from his techum by setting out to leave, one might have thought that his new techum is centered around him. The Mishnah is coming to teach therefore, that this is not so if he is still in his original techum. Rav Shimi bar Chiya says that it means that if the new techum overlaps with his original techum it is as if he never left his original techum. The Gemara clarifies that Rav Shimi bar Chiya holds, there is a halachic principle that the overlap of two techumim areas join the two – הבלעת תחומין מילתא היא areas into a single techum, and Rabbah disagrees with this rule.

Siman – Mud The distracted student who walked out of his techum into a muddy field and needed more humans to form an enclosure, called his friend who was standing in as a Sukkah wall, and the man who was no longer needed for edus hachodesh.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מה – Daf 45

1. When a Jewish city is under siege by nochrim if nochrim besieged a Jewish city on – נכרים שצרו על עיירות ישראל ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav ואין מחללין עליהן ,Jews may not go out against them with weapons – אין יוצאין עליהם בכלי זיינן ,Shabbos nor may they violate Shabbos because of them. A Baraisa stating the same, further clarified – את השבת where the nochrim came over a money matter, meaning – על עסקי ממון ,that this rule was only said but if they came over a matter of – אבל באו על עסקי נפשות ,where there was only a threat to property lives, meaning where people’s lives are being threatened, they may go out against them with their ,And in a case of an attack on a border city – ובעיר הסמוכה לספר .weapons and be mechallel Shabbos even if the nochrim only came over a matter of straw and stubble, which are not worth much, Jews may go out against them with weapons and be mechallel Shabbos. The reason is that the capture of a border city by the enemy would expose the interior of the country to invasion.

2. Someone sleeping on the journey and did not know it had become dark Someone who fell asleep on a – מי שישן בדרך ולא ידע שחשכה ,The second Mishnah on the Daf states journey and was not aware that it had become dark, and he did not have in mind to acquire a techum, Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri says that he has two thousand amos in every direction from his location, whereas the Chochomin say that he only has four amos.

– חפצי הפקר קונין שביתה ,Rav Yosef proves from a Baraisa that Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri holds ownerless objects acquire a Shabbos residence and may not be moved beyond the techum, and therefore a sleeping person as well acquires a makom shevisa from which to measure a techum. The Baraisa stated that if rain fell on erev Yom Tov, and was ownerless when Yom Tov began, it has a fixed techum of two thousand amos in each direction. This must reflect the opinion of Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri since Chochomim hold that one who falls asleep before Shabbos only has four amos.

3. Rain does not acquire its makom shevisa in the clouds it is – הרי הן כרגלי כל אדם ,The Baraisa that Rav Yosef brought also stated that if rain fell on Yom Tov treated like the feet of anyone who eventually owns it, meaning it has their techum. The Gemara asks, let the waters acquire their shevisa in the ocean, since it was there at the start of – ליקני שביתה באוקיינוס Yom Tov, and Rebbe Yitzchak answers that the water was already in clouds that had gathered before Yom Tov. The Gemara goes on to explain that the reason that the water does not acquire its makom the water in the clouds is – מיא בעבים מינד ניידי ,shevisa in the clouds and receive a techum area there is constantly in motion, and therefore does not receive a techum limit until it comes to a halt.

Siman – Monopoly The children playing monopoly in the quaint border town under siege, didn’t realize their fathers fell asleep before it got dark in open fields under threatening clouds filled with water constantly in motion.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מו – Daf 46 The majority of this Daf discusses rules of psak.

הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן נורי .1 Rebbe Yaakov bar Idi told Rebbe Zeira that he heard Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi say explicitly that the halachah is like Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri who grants a sleeping person a techum of two thousand amos. In the halachah follows – הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב ,addition, Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi said a general rule that the more lenient opinion in issues regarding eruvin.

The Gemara asks why both statements were necessary, and three answers are given. Rav Pappa gives the second reason, explaining that it was important for Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi to state that the halachah is is referring only to הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב like Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri, as one might have thought that cases of eruvei chatzeiros but not to eruvei techumin, for we learn in a Mishnah that eruvei chatzeiros can be for we may benefit someone without their– שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ,done for someone without their consent consent, and an eruv chatzeiros is a clear benefit. On the other hand, one may not make an eruv techumin for one may not disadvantage someone without– שאין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו ,without the person’s consent their consent, and shifting one’s eruv results in his losing his ability to travel in the opposite direction.

הלכה, מטין, נראין .2 The halachah follows Rebbe Akiva when he – הלכה כרבי עקיבא מחברו ,Rebbe Yaakov and Rebbe Zerika said and it follows Rebbe Yose against his colleagues even – וכרבי יוסי מחבריו ,disputes an individual colleague .and it follows Rebbe against an individual colleague – וכרבי מחבירו ,where there is more than one

,we incline towards these rules - מטין Rebbe Assi says these rules are halachah, Rebbe Chiya bar Abba says means that it may be publicized at a public הלכה Rashi explains .נראין and Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Chaninah says means that these rules may be followed in individual cases but should not be publicized, and מטין ,lecture means that we may not rely upon these rules for deciding a case, but if one did, the decision is not נראין reversed.

3. Rules of psak when Tannaim disagree רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה הלכה כרבי ,Rebbe Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan regarding disputes and it is not necessary to teach that between Rebbe Yose and ,יהודה, רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי הלכה כרבי יוסי Rebbe Meir the halachah follows Rebbe Yose, for if against Rebbe Yehudah Rebbe Meir’s view does not prevail, then against Rebbe Yose there is no question it does not prevail.

Rav Assi said that since there is a rule that in disputes between Rebbe Yehudah and Rebbe Shimon, the halachah follows Rebbe Yehudah, he can learn from this that in a dispute between Rebbe Yose and Rebbe Shimon, the halachah follows Rebbe Yose, , because if Rebbe Yehudah does not prevail against Rebbe Yose, certainly Rebbe Shimon does not. In regard to disputes between Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Shimon, it is left as a .all of these rules are not valid – ליתנהו להני כללי ,teiku. Rav Mesharshiya said

Siman – Cow (Moo) the Rabbi ,הלכה כדברי המיקל בעירוב After placing a cow hide on the traveler sleeping in the field because publicized in a public lecture the rules of psak with a chart to learn whom the halachah follows when it comes to disputes.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מז – Daf 47

היכא דאיתמר איתמר .1 On Daf 46b Rav Mesharshiya stated that the general guidelines for paskening halachah are not valid. The Gemara brought sources for his position which are rejected. On this Daf, four more sources are brought, and they too are rejected.

The first source is a Mishna on Daf 49b which brings four opinions whether a resident of a chatzeir who did not join in the eruv chatzeiros with the other residents in his chatzeir, and went to a different city for Shabbos, voids the entire eruv by not participating.

Rav paskens like Rebbe Shimon, and not like Rebbe Yehuda, and even if he stays in the same city he does not void the eruv for the other residents in the chatzeir. According to the guidelines listed on Daf 46b when there is a disagreement between Rebbe Shimon and Rebbe Yehudah the halachah follows Rebbe Yehudah. where it was said – היכא דאיתמר איתמר היכא דלא איתמר לא איתמר ,The Gemara rejects this proof saying explicitly that the halachah follows a certain opinion, we follow that opinion and not the general rules, and only where nothing was said about who the halachah should follow, do we follow the general rules.

2. A Kohen leaving Eretz Yisroel to learn Torah Another source for Rav Mesharshiya was brought from a Baraisa that brought a machlokes regarding when a Kohen may contaminate himself with tumah d’Rabbanon by travelling outside of Eretz Yisroel if when he cannot – בזמן שאין מוצא ללמוד ,necessary, to learn Torah. Rebbe Yehudah said he may only do so even – אף בזמן שמוצא ללמוד נמי יטמא ,find a teacher in his present location to learn from. Rebbe Yose said for one does not – שאין מן הכל זוכה אדם ללמוד ,when he can find a local teacher he may become tamei merit to learn from everyone. Rashi explains that there are certain teachers whose learning is very organized and they teach their talmidim in a short, concise way. Rebbe Yochanan said that the halachah is according to Rebbe Yose. Seemingly Rebbe Yochanan needed to teach this because the rule that we always pasken like Rebbe Yose when he argues with Rebbe Yehuda, is not always correct.

Abaye answered that Rebbe Yochanan needed to state this because one might have thought the rules of Daf 46b are only true for Mishnayos, but not for Baraisos. Rashi explains that a Baraisa is less precise, and sometimes the names are switched.

חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה .3 a nochri’s possessions do not acquire a – חפצי נכרי אין קונין שביתה ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel makom shevisa, and they therefore may be moved beyond two thousand amos from their original location. The Gemara seeks to understand who this ruling goes according to, and answers that it goes according to ,The chiddush here is that one might have thought .חפצי הפקר אין קונין שביתה the Chochomim who hold ,there is a ban restricting objects of non-Jewish owners to a techum – גזירה בעלים דנכרי אטו בעלים דישראל because of objects that have Jewish owners. Therefore, Shmuel is coming to inform us that no such ban exists.

Siman – Maze The participants in the giant maze, who were told to ignore the general guidelines and follow the owner’s rules, raced to find the very organized teacher sitting at the exit, while picking up as many nochri possessions as possible to score extra points.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מח – Daf 48

1. Defining the dalet amos for one who does not have a techum The Gemara clarifies the three opinions in the Mishnah on Daf 45a who hold that a traveler who fell asleep at the onset of Shabbos does not acquire a makom shevisa and is restricted to dalet amos. The Chochomim hold that he can travel four amos in each direction, giving him a square space of 8x8 amos. Rebbe Eliezer holds that he can only travel two amos in each direction, with him in the center of a four amos square. Rebbe Yehudah agrees that he is restricted to a four amos square, but he can choose where he wants his מחלוקת להלך אבל לטלטל דברי הכל ,four amos to be and walk up to four amos in one direction. Rava said machlokes of four amos or eight amos is only in regard to walking, but in regard ארבע אמות אין טפי לא the– to carrying in reshus harabim everyone agrees that only four amos are permitted.

2. The source for dalet amos The Gemara seeks the source that a person without a techum is only permitted to move within a four-amos sit, each man in his place on – שבו איש תחתיו ,area, and brings a Baraisa which taught that the passuk His body when – גופו שלש אמות ?like that which is underneath him. How much is that – כתחתיו ,Shabbos and he gets one amah in order to stretch his – ואמה כדי לפשוט ידיו ורגליו ,lying down extends three amos his body when lying down – גופו שלש אמות ,arms and legs, according to Rebbe Meir. Rebbe Yehudah says and he receives one – ואמה כדי שיטול חפץ מתחת מרגלותיו ומניח תחת מראשותיו ,extends three amos additional amah so that he can take an object from under his feet and place it under his head. The difference between these two opinions is that Rebbe Yehuda only allows an area that is exactly four amos, while Rebbe Meir allows an area slightly larger than four amos. Rashi explains that Rebbe Meir’s method results in slightly more than four amos since a person needs a little more than one amah in which to stretch.

3. Three chatzeiros where two outer chatzeiros joined in an eruv with the middle one In the Mishnah on Daf 45b, Rebbe Shimon likened the case of three people, each limited to a four amah area, where the middle person overlapped, to a case of three chatzeiros which open to one another and also open into reshus harabim, and the two outer chatzeiros each joined in a an eruv with the middle chatzeir. The middle chatzeir is permitted to carry into the outer chatzeiros and the outer chatzeiros can carry into the middle chatzeir, but the two outer chatzeiros are prohibited with each other. The Gemara asks why the residents of the outer chatzeiros are prohibited to carry into each other’s chatzeir if they joined with the middle one. They should all become one entity and carrying should permitted for all of them.

Rav Yehuda says that the case is where the middle chatzeir placed eruvin in the outer chatzeiros, therefore there is nothing merging the outer chatzeiros. Rav Sheishess says that it can even be a case where the outer chatzeiros placed eruvin in the middle chatzeir except they placed them in different houses, and therefore they are not considered as merged. The Gemara analyzes these two opinions.

Siman – Brainiacs The brainiacs were having a field day calculating how many ways they could walk in a dalet amos square, and lying down to get exact measurements, annoying the residents in the middle chatzeir that made an eruv with two others. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף מט – Daf 49

המקפיד על עירובו .1 If one of the residents of – המקפיד על עירובו אין עירובו עירוב ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel the chatzeir is particular with his portion of the eruv, meaning he does not want anyone to eat the – מה שמו? עירוב שמו bread that he had given, his eruv is not a valid eruv. The reason for this is that What is its name? Eruv is its name. Rashi explains that the shoresh of “eruv” also means “pleasant”, “areiv”, which means that the merger among the residents should be harmonious. Rav Chanina but he is called one of – אלא שנקרא מאנשי ורדינא ,his eruv is an eruv - עירובו עירוב ,disagrees and says the people of Vardina, who were known for their stinginess.

עירוב משום קנין או דירה .2 An eruv merges the houses in a chatzeir together by means of an – עירוב משום קנין ,Shmuel said מפני שאינה ,acquisition. And the reason a person cannot purchase a share in an eruv with money because money is not always available erev Shabbos. If one tried making an eruv – מצויה בערבי שבתות because the Chochomim disqualified it because people בדיעבד with money it does not even work might come to think that money is the primary method of making an eruv, and if it is not available they might not come to think of making it with bread, and the institution of eruv will fall into disuse and come to be forgotten. An eruv is effective because it effects a residence, meaning it gives all – עירוב משום דירה ,Rabbah says of the residents of the chatzeir a symbolic residence where the bread is placed, even though they do not legally acquire a share of that house. There are three practical differences between them. According to Shmuel, a kli can be used since it is a viable way to make a kinyan but according to Rabbah it cannot since people identify their residence with their food, not utensils. According to Rabbah, the food can be worth less than a shaveh perutah but according to Shmuel it cannot. According to Rabbah, a child can collect the food for the eruv, but according Shmuel he cannot since he is not old enough to make an acquisition. מי שבא בדרך וחשכה לו .3 One who was traveling erev Shabbos and it became – מי שבא בדרך וחשכה לו ,The next Mishnah states dark and he knew of a landmark such as a tree or a fence which was within two thousand amos of לא ,my residence is underneath it – שביתתי תחתיו ,both his house and his present location, and said he has said nothing. The Gemara on Daf 50a will explain the reason for this. The Gemara – אמר כלום means that he has no makom shevisa even לא אמר כלום brings a machlokes Rav and Shmuel whether in his current location and cannot travel to the tree, or it means that he cannot travel home but he can still travel to the tree.

Siman – Meat (Butcher) The stingy butcher, who wouldn’t let anyone eat from his tiny pastrami sandwich eruv, which joyfully cost him less than a shaveh perutah to make, got stuck when it got dark while making a delivery, far away from the landmark tree. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נ – Daf 50

1. Two versions of how Rabbah explained Rav’s position On Daf 49b Rav stated that one who did not specify his makom shevisa under a tree not only does not attain a makom shevisa there but also does not have a makom shevisa in his current location. There are two versions of how Rabbah explained Rav’s reasoning that one does not attain a makom shevisa under the tree.

because his four-amah area is not defined. Rashi explains that since it – משום דלא מסיים אתריה ,The first version is because – משום דקסבר כל שאינו בזה אחר זה is not defined, he does not acquire anything. The second version is cannot take effect – אפילו בבת אחת אינו ,he holds that whichever legal situations cannot take effect consecutively simultaneously. Rashi explains that the halachah allows a person to only establish one dalet amos area as his residence, and once he does, he can no longer establish a second residence. He can therefore not designate more than one residence simultaneously, and if he does, none of them are valid. In this case, since the area beneath the tree covers several four-amahareas, and he is not specifying which four-amahis his residence, it is as if he is designating them all simultaneously, which does not work.

2. How wide an area under the tree it was only taught regarding a tree – לא שנו אלא באילן שתחתיו שתים עשרה אמה ,Abaye said regarding Rav’s ruling that has an area of twelve amos beneath it, but in the case of a tree that does not have twelve amos beneath it, a portion of his residence is recognizable. Rashi explains that since the tree’s width is less – הרי מקצת ביתו ניכר than twelve amos, the middle four amos necessarily include a section of the four amos areas on either side of the tree. Regardless of whether his dalet amos is the middle section or one of the side sections, at least a portion of his residence is in the middle four amos, and Abaye considers this enough to establish a residence for him.

Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua objected, saying there is no basis that the middle four amos are his residence, and knowing that part of his residence falls somewhere within them is not sufficient to make his residence defined. Therefore, he taught that Rav’s ruling applies in a case where the tree has eight amos beneath it, but if it has just a portion of his residence is recognizable beneath the tree. In this case, any – הרי מקצת ביתו ניכר ,seven amos division into four-amah units necessitates having the units overlap, at least partially.

3. Placing two eruvin in opposite directions A Baraisa is brought to support Shmuel’s position (see 49b), that stated that if one erred and placed an eruv in both directions, believing that an eruv may be established in two directions, or if he said to his servants, “Go and establish an eruv for me,” and one of them placed an eruv for him in the north and the other placed one in the south, he may travel to the north only as far as his eruv to the south allows, and he may travel to the south only as far the as the eruv in the north allows, and if the two established techum boundaries do not overlap, but have on תיוובתא him at the center point between them, he may not move from his place. The Gemara asks if this is a .Rav is a Tanna and he is allowed to disagree with a Baraisa .רב תנא הוא ופליג ,Rav and answers

Siman – Nincompoop (Silly, foolish person) The nincompoop, who spent all day trying to figure out how define a four-amaharea under a tree, going from tree to tree with eight to twelve amos beneath them, finally gave up and sent his servants out in opposite directions to make an eruv for him.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נא – Daf 51

1. The source for two thousand amos of a techum The Gemara seeks the source that a techum measures two thousand amos and brings a Baraisa with the this refers to the –אלו אלפים אמה ,let no man leave his place –אל יצא איש ממקומו ,passuk that states two thousand amah limit of the techum.

The Gemara asks how it is known that the passuk is alluding to a distance of two thousand amos, and Rav Chisda answers by bringing four gezeirah shavos that link makom from the passuk ultimately to the ומדתם מחוץ לעיר את ,ערי לויים word chutz in the passuk regarding the open area that surrounds the And you shall measure from outside the city on the east side, two thousand – פאת קדמה אלפים באמה amos.

כדי שיהיה נשכר לזוויות .2 they form a ,עגולות In the Mishnah on 49b, Rebbe Chanina ben Antignos said the two thousand amos are ,they form a square, like a square board ,מרובעות כטבלא מרובעת ,circular area and the Chochomim said so that he may gain the corners. This means - ,כדי שיהיה נשכר לזוויות ,four thousand amos on each side that the person can travel the diagonal of a square which is 1.4 times its side.

The Gemara brings a Baraisa that teaches according to Chochomim, that all measurements for Shabbos ,Based on this, Rav Acha bar Yaakov said .ערי לויים observers shall be like the square shape around the One who transfers an object a distance of four amos in the reshus –המעביר ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים is not liable unless he transfers it a distance equal to them –אינו חייב עד שמעביר הן ואלכסונן ,harabim and their diagonal, which means he is not liable unless he transfers it 5.6 amos, the diagonal of a four- amah square.

עיקר עירוב בפת או ברגל .3 a poor man, meaning a traveler with no food, may make –העני מערב ברגליו ,The Mishnah on 49b stated This law –אנו אין לנו עלא עני ,an eruv with his feet, meaning with his physical presence. Rebbe Meir said is only for a poor man. Rebbe Yehudah said it applies to both a poor man or a rich man, meaning The Chochomim did not say - ,לא אמרו מערבין בפת אלא להקל על עשיר ,someone who has food at home so –שלא יצא ויערב ברגליו ,for one to make an eruv with food except to make it easier for the rich man that he should not need to go out before Shabbos begins and make an eruv with his feet, meaning with his physical presence. On our Daf, Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda dispute what the machlokes between Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Yehudah is about. Siman – Gnawing beaver which connects to beaver pelt hats When the goofy looking tour group wearing beaver pelt hats came within 2000 amos of the Levitical city, their guide had them walk the diagonal distance from one corner to another, and then showed them how to make an eruv, some with their food, and some with their feet.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נב – Daf 52

1. Rebbe Yose be’Rebbe Yehuda’s leniency one who has two homes, separated by a – מי שיש לו שני בתים וביניהן שני תחומי שבת ,It was taught in a Baraisa as soon as he takes to the – כיון שהחזיק בדרך ,distance equal to two techumin, meaning four thousand amos he acquires an eruv. Rebbe Yose Be’Rebbe Yehuda said even more than this, that even if his – קנה עירוב ,road friend met him as he was setting out to travel and said to him, “Spend the night here because the weather is ,the next day, which is Shabbos – למחר משכים והולך ,too hot or cold for traveling,” and he followed his advice he may rise and travel to the next city.

There is a machlokes regarding what was Rebbe Yose Be’Rebbe Yehuda’s additional leniency. Rabbah said that everybody agrees that he needs to verbally declare that his desired residence is in the next they disagree only whether he actually needs to set out for the second city. Rebbe Yose – כי פליגי להחזיק ,city Be’Rebbe Yehudah says he does not, and he only needs to plan to do so.

they disagree only if he – כי פליגי לומר ,Rav Yosef said that everybody agrees that he needs to take to the road needs to verbally declare that his desired residence is in the second city.

2. Going outside the techum b’meizid Someone who exited the techum, which Rashi explains to mean - ,מי שיצא חוץ לתחום ,The next Mishnah states ,even one amah past the boundary – אפילו אמה אחת ,with daas, b’meizid, and not for the purpose of a mitzvah may not enter the techum. Rebbe Eliezer says he may reenter if he went two amos, but not if he – לא יכנס went three amos. Rashi explains that according to Rebbe Eliezer, since a person is considered in the middle of his dalet amos, with two amos all around him, the two amos overlap with his original techum, as he holds of of overlapping – הבלעת תחומין The Tanna Kamma holds a meizid cannot take advantage of .הבלעת תחומין techumin.

אין המשוחות ממצין את המדות .3 one who was outside of the techum when it – מי שהחשיך חוץ לתחום ,The last Mishnah in the perek states became dark, even by only one amah, may not enter the techum. Rebbe Shimon says that he may enter back for the– שאין המשוחות ממצין את המדות ,into the techum even if he was fifteen amos past the techum surveyors who place markers to delineate the city’s techum do not place them exactly at two thousand amos, .because of those that err, meaning people who wander slightly beyond the markers – מפני הטועין

Rather .לאו דוקא Rashi gives two explanations regarding the fifteen amos. The first pshat is that fifteen amos is it is an approximation. The second pshat is based on the fact that the surveyors measure the techum with ropes measuring 50 amos. Since this necessitates measuring 40 times, and one tefach and half a fingerbreadth of the rope is held by each surveyor at the ends, a total of fifteen amos is lost when they measure the techum.

Siman – The Newbie to Yiddishkeit The enthusiastic family invited the Newbie who had set off on the road to his second home, to have some dinner and stay the night, after they were horrified their other guest stepped intentionally out of the techum, claiming he was allowed to wander up to fifteen amos.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נג – Daf 53

מערת המכפלה .1 שני בתים זה ,One taught that the cave was .מערת המכפלה Rav and Shmuel disagreed on the meaning of it consisted of – בית ועליה על גביו ,two rooms one in front of the other, and the other taught – לפנים מזה a room with an upper level above it. The Gemara asks that the term “a double cave” is indeed a fitting description for a cave with a room and an upper level (Rashi – because it has two ceilings), however mean according to the one who says that it was a cave with one room מכפלה what does the word behind the other? Rashi explains that it is essentially one cave with two sections. The Gemara answers, .that it had multiples of couples, meaning that many couples were buried there – שכפולה בזוגות

2. How the residents of Yehudah retained their learning retained their – נתקיימא תורתם בידם ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the residents of Yehudah Torah knowledge, unlike the residents in the Galil. Four reasons are given. They were precise in matters of language, meaning that they meticulously reviewed what – דדיקי לישנא - they were taught using the exact language of their Rebbeim. and gave simanim for what they learnt to aid in memorization . Rashi explains that – ומתנחי להו סימנא - since they knew the exact language of the teachings they were able to attach appropriate symbols to each one. they learned from only one teacher. Rashi explains that even if two teachers teach the – גמרי מחד רבה - same thing, it might be confusing and difficult to remember because they use different words. Rashi gives two explanations. Either that they taught what they learned to others, or they – דגלו מסכתא - sought reasons for what they had learned.

זו קצרה וארוכה .3 Rebbe Yehoshua ben Chananyah said that “In all my days no one ever beat me in a verbal encounter except for a woman, a little boy and a little girl”. In the incident with the little boy, he once was walking down the road and saw a little boy sitting by a fork in the road. He asked him which path he should take – וזו ארוכה וקצרה ,This one is short and long – זו קצרה וארוכה ,to get to the city, and the boy answered and this one is long and short. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Chananyah went down the path that was “short and long” and when he approached the city he discovered that it was surrounded with gardens and orchards that blocked access to it. He went back to the boy and asked him “Didn’t you tell me that this path is short?” The boy responded that he had also told him that it was long. Rebbe Yehoshua kissed the boy on for you are – שכולכם חכמים גדולים אתם ,Praiseworthy are you Yisroel – אשריכם ישראל ,his head and said .from your old to your young – מגדולכם ועד קטנכם ,all very wise

Siman – Nigerian Prince On his second attempt, the Nigerian Prince finally discovered the double cave filled with students who meticulously reviewed what their Rebbe said and memorized their learning with Simanim, after listening more carefully to the little boy at the fork of the road who gave directions.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נד – Daf 54 The majority of this Daf deals with retaining one’s learning.

1. Verbalizing one’s Torah aids in retention For it is sweet when you – כי נעים כי תשמרם בבטנך יכנו יחדו על שפתיך ,Rav Ami said regarding the passuk אימתי דברי תורה נעימים,retain them, meaning the words of Torah, in your belly, set together on your lips ,when you retain them in your belly – בזמן שתשמרם בבטנך ?when are the words of Torah sweet – And when do you retain them in your – ואימתי תשמרם בבטנך .meaning that you do not forget them when they are set together on your lips, meaning when you arrange –בזמן שיכונו יחדיו על שפתיך ?belly the words of Torah in an orderly fashion and express them with your lips.

a – שמחה לאיש במענה פיו ודבר בעתו מה טוב ,Rebbe Zeira said that this can be learned from the passuk אימתי שמחה ,man has joy in the answer of his mouth; and something in its proper time, how good it is .when the answer is in his mouth – בזמן שמענה בפיו ?when does a man have joy in his learning – לאיש

2. Repeating a lesson to one’s students four times the procedure in which Torah she’baal peh was originally taught to ,סדר משנה A Baraisa presents the Klal Yisroel, in which Moshe, Aharon, Aharon’s sons and the zekeinim taught the Torah four times. A person is obligated to – חייב אדם לשנות לתלמידיו ארבעה פעמים ,Rebbe Eliezer said we learn from here repeat each lesson to his student four times, for if Aharon, who learned directly from Moshe who – הדיוט מפי הדיוט על אחת כמה וכמה ,learned it directly from Hakadosh Boruch Hu, had to learn this way then an ordinary person from an ordinary person all the more so. And teach the bnei Yisroel, that a – ולמדה את בני ישראל ,Rebbe Akiva says that we learn from the passuk and put it in – ושימה בפיהם ,person is obligated to teach his student until he knows it. From the passuk until it is fluent – עד שתהא סדורה בפיהם their mouths, we learn that one is obligated to repeat a lesson in their mouths. The Gemara later brings the story of Rebbe Preida who needed to repeat a lesson four hundred times to a certain student, and one time he needed to teach it an additional four hundred times.

3. Torah is only acquired with simanin ,Torah knowledge cannot be acquired except with simanim – אין תורה נקנית אלא בסימנין ,Rav Chisda said אל תקרא put it in their mouths, which we expound – שימה בפיהם ,which is learned from the passuk Rebbe Abahu derived this teaching from the .סימנא but as שימה do not read it as –שימה אלא סימנה עשו ציונים set up signs for yourself, make for yourself, which teaches us – הציבי לך צינים שמי לך ,passuk – אמר לחכמה אחתי את ומדע לבינה תקרא ,make signs for the Torah. Rebbe Elazar derived it from – לתורה עשה say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and you should call understanding a relative, which teaches us .make signs for the Torah – מודעים לתורה

Siman – Noodles (Pasta Chef) The great pasta chef, who recited his grand recipes by memory with joy in his belly while teaching his apprentices at least four times, had simanim signs all over his kitchen to help him remember them.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נה – Daf 55

לא בשמים היא .1 The – לא בשמים הוא...ולא מעבר הים הוא ,The Gemara presents three different interpretations of the passuk [Torah] is not in the heavens nor is it across the oceans. that if it were in the – שאם בשמים היא אתה צריך לעלות אחריה ,x Avdimi bar Chama bar Dosa said – ואם מעבר הים היא אתה צריך לעבור אחריה ,heavens, you would be required to ascend there to reach it and if it were across the ocean, you would have to cross it to reach it. Torah will not be found in one who believes that his – לא תמצא במי שמגביה דעתו עליה כשמים ,x Rava said nor will it be found in one – ולא תמצא במי שמרחיב דעתו עליה כים ,mind towers over it like the heavens who believes his mind is as broad as the ocean . in relation to it. ולא ,Torah will not be found in those who are arrogant – לא תמצא בגסי הרוח ,x Rebbe Yochanan said and Torah will not be found amongst traveling businessmen nor with – תמצא לא בסחרנים ולא בתגרים peddlers.

2. How boundaries are drawn around cities The Mishnah on Daf 52b addressed how the boundaries of a city are determined in order to measure the techum. On this Daf, a Baraisa is brought that addresses how to measure cities with different configurations. .A rectangular city keeps its boundaries and is not squared off – ארוכה כמות שהיא .A circular city is squared off – עגולה עושין לה זוויות A square city keeps its boundaries, even if it is not aligned with east, west, north - מרובעת אין עושין לה זוויות and south. If it is wider on one end and narrower on the – היתה רחבה מצד אחד וקצרה מצד אחר רואין אותה כאילו היא שוה other, the boundaries are drawn as parallel lines to make it a rectangle. Other configurations are discussed as well, such as when houses stick out beyond the rest of the houses, and bow shaped or L-shaped cities .

3. Measuring the techum for hut dwellers we measure their techum only – אין מודדין להן אלא מפתח בתיהן ,For hut dwellers – יושבי צריפין ,Rav Huna said from the doors of their homes, and not from the edge of their town. Rashi explains that huts do not constitute a town since they are temporary dwellings.

Rav Chisda asked that if this is so, then how could the Jewish people in the midbar travel up to three parsaos on Shabbos to relieve themselves at the back of the camp? Meaning, if the techum was measured from the doorways of their individual tents, then they should be limited to two thousand amos from their tents. Rava By the word of Hashem they would – על פי ה' יחנו ,were different as it says דגלי מדבר answered that the considered as if they had a permanent encampment. Rashi – כמאן דקביע להו דמי camp, and therefore it was explains that since their encampment was determined directly by HaKadosh Boruch Hu, it was significant, and therefore it was considered enough to be a permanent dwelling.

Siman – Speed Limit Sign (55 mph) The guy who held the speed limit sign had his head in the heavens, as he proudly slowed traffic down where they were drawing the boundary of the city and condescendingly told the hut dwellers their encampment didn’t qualify as a town.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נו – Daf 56

1. Residents of steep cities prematurely age Any city that has steep ascents and – כל עיר שיש בה מעלות ומורדות :Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav the people and animals in – אדם ובהמה שבה מתים בחצי ימיהן ,descents, making travel through it difficult it die in the middle of their normal life span.

They age halfway – אימא מזקינים בחצי ימיהן ,The Gemara asks if they literally die so early, and answers through their years, meaning the strain of walking up and down causes them to age prematurely.

2. How to align the square of the city מרבעה ,When the surveyor comes to draw the square of the city – בא לרבעה ,It was taught in a Baraisa ,he needs to align the square with the direction of the world, meaning facing due north – בריבוע עולם He places its northern boundary facing the north of the – נותן צפונה לצפון עולם .south, east and west and the – וסימנך .and its southern boundary facing the south of the world – דרומה לדרום עולם ,world The – עגלה בצפון ועקרב בדרום :signs for determining which directions are due north and south are constellation of the calf is in the north and the scorpion is in the south. if he does not know how to align the square with – אם אינו יודע לרבעה בריבוע של עולם ,Rebbe Yose says – מרבעה כמין התקופה ,the directions of the earth, because he is unfamiliar with the above constellations he draws the square according to the seasons, meaning according to the points of sunrise and sunset on the longest and shortest days of the year. The Baraisa goes on to explain how this is done.

3. The source for one thousand amos of open area outside the Levitical cities the boundary – תחום ערי לוים אלפים אמה ,It was taught in a Baraisa that Rebbe Eliezer b’Rebbe Yose said – צא מהן אלף אמה מגרש .of the area added to the Levitical cities is two thousand amos in every direction נמצא מגרש .Subtract from this strip one thousand amos adjacent to the city, to be left as an open area והשאר שדות (It comes out that the open area will be one fourth, (which the Gemara clarifies later – רביע and the remainder of the area around the city, another strip one thousand amos wide, serves as – וכרמים fields and vineyards.

The Gemara asks what the source is that the open area should be one thousand amos wide, and Rava The open areas of the cities that you – מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה סביב ,answered that the passuk states give to the Leviim shall be from the wall of the city, outward, one thousand amos, which means that the Torah is stating: Surround the city with a strip which is one – אמרה תורה סבב את העיר באלף thousand amos wide.

Siman – The Shusher in shul going nu, nu, nu. The shusher from the steep city shul who was prematurely grey, was hired to shush the crowd so they shouldn’t disturb the surveyor trying to figure out due north, in his effort to square off the Levitical city, known for its one thousand amos of beautiful open area.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נז – Daf 57

1. The source for a karpaf we grant a karpaf, an open area that is 70 2/3 amos wide, to a – נותנין קרפף לעיר ,The next Mishnah states לא אמרו קרפף אלא בין שתי ,city before measuring the techum, according to Rebbe Meir. The Chochomim say they did not say the rule of a karpaf except with regard to the separation between two cities. Which – עיירות ,if this one has seventy amos and a fraction - אם יש לזו שבעים אמה ושיריים ולזו שבעים אמה ושיריים means that and that one has seventy amos and a fraction, meaning the cities are separated by no more than 141 1/3 the karpaf granted to each of them causes the two of them to – עושה קרפף את שתיהן להיות אחד ,amos become one.

The Gemara asks for the source for adding a karpaf, and Rava brings the passuk regarding Levitical cities, –אמרה תורה תן חוצה ואחר כך מדוד from the wall of the city outward, which means that – מקיר העיר וחוצה the Torah is stating that one needs to grant an outside area to the city, and only then measure the techum.

2. Machlokes about the Chochomim’s opinion regarding a karpaf There is a machlokes Amoraim regarding what the Chochomim hold regarding a karpaf. ,the Chochomim mean that we grant a karpaf to each city –נותנין קרפף לזו וקרפף לזו ,Rav Huna said - meaning a distance of up to 141 1/3 amos may separate the two cities and they are still considered as one. the Chochomim hold that there is one karpaf for both, meaning that – קרפף אחד לשתיהן ,Chiya bar Rav said - there cannot be more than 70 2/3 amos between the two cities for them to be considered as one. The Gemara goes through a lengthy analysis of these two opinions.

3. The case of three villages ,so too, regarding three villages grouped together – וכן שלשה כפרים המשולשין ,It was stated in the Mishnah ,if there are 141 1/3 amos between the two outer villages – אם יש בין שנים חיצונים מאה וארבעים ואחת ושליש .the middle village causes the three of them to become one – עשה אמצעי את שלשתן להיות אחד

The Gemara assumes that the three villages are in a row, which would mean that they all become one because of the middle village which unites them. Rashi explains that there is not more than 70 2/3 amos .to Rav Huna תיובתא separating any two villages. This seems to be a

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna interprets the Mishnah differently. The three villages are in a triangle, and the two villages that serve as the base of the triangle are separated by much more than 141 1/3 amos. If the middle village was inserted in between the two outer villages so that they would be a row, then there would be no more than 141 1/3 amos between any village, and the middle village causes them to be combined to one. From here we see that two villages can be combined as long as there is no more than 141 1/3 amos between them.

Siman – Pinocchio’s Nose When news got out that the Pinocchio factory was commissioned to make an exceptionally long nose to measure the karpaf of a city, two cities called to make an order double the length, followed by three villages that lived in a triangle.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נח – Daf 58

1. The source that the measuring rope is fifty amos. We may – אין מודדין אלא בחבל של נ' אמה לא פחות ולא יותר ,The Mishnah at the bottom of Daf 57b states not measure with anything but a fifty-amah rope, neither shorter or longer. The Gemara seeks the source for this ruling, and Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav brings the passuk The length of the courtyard is one – ארך החצר מאה באמה ורחב חמשים בחמשים ,regarding the Mishkan hundred amos, and its width is fifty by fifty. What does the passuk mean when it says, “fifty by fifty”? The Torah is instructing to measure with a fifty-amah rope. The -אמרה תורה בחבל של חמשים אמה מדוד Gemara objects since that passuk was brought on 23b to teach that one takes fifty amos and surrounds fifty amos to make a perfect square, which was the source that a karpaf must be square. The Gemara we חמשים בחמשים ,From the fact it said .חמשים חמשים ,answers that the passuk could have just said learn both these laws. neither more or – לא פחות ולא יותר ,In terms of why the Mishnah said that the rope must be fifty amos no less than fifty amos because a short rope increases the – לא פחות מפני שמרבה ,less, a Baraisa explains and no more than fifty amos because – ולא יותר מפני שממעט ,measure since it stretches when pulled taut a long rope decreases the measure since it sags in the middle . 2. Measuring inclines The Mishnah stated that when the one measuring the techum reaches a valley or mountain, he should spanning or piercing, which enables him to measure in a straight line – מבליע ואם לאו מקדרין measure by and not include the length of the incline in the measurement. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that when a plumb line would descend downward four amos – שאין חוט המשקולת יורד כנגדו ,this only applies but if the plumb line would descend – אבל חוט המשקולת יורד כנגדו מודדו מדידה יפה ,from the top edge straight down, because the incline is so steep, he measures the valley properly along the floor and can ignore the distance of the incline. This is a leniency because it will lengthen the overall distance.

3. Using an expert to measure the techum we do not measure the techum with anyone but an –אין מודדין אלא מן המומחה ,The next Mishnah states If it was found that the expert extended the techum – ריבה למקום אחד ומיעט למקום אחר .expert surveyor we accept - שומעין למקום שריבה ,at one point and shortened it at another along the same side of the city the measurement in the place that he extended it. Rashi explains that we accept the larger measurement as accurate and explain the discrepancy by saying that the short measurement resulted from not pulling the rope taut enough.

Siman – Noach Goldberg the Zookeeper Noach Goldberg the Zookeeper, who was mapping out his new Chol HaMoed exhibit with a fifty-amah rope, didn’t know what to do when it came to steep inclines, so he called in the expert.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף נט – Daf 59

1. Making a shituf in a public city that became private In general, the Rabbanon were concerned that in public towns, if one shituf permitted carrying in the entire town, then people, particularly the children, might come to think that carrying in any public domain is permitted, forgetting that there was a shituf. To prevent forgetting about the prohibition of carrying, they mandated that one section of the city is not included in the shituf so that carrying will be forbidden between the town and the excluded area.

If a private town became – עיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים ,With this background, the next Mishnah states but if a public – ושל רבים ונעשית של יחיד ,we may join the entire town in one eruv – מערבין את כולה ,public we may not join the entire town in one eruv, unless one set aside – אין מערבין את כולה ,town became private outside the eruv an area that is equivalent in size to the town of Chadashah in Yehudah which has fifty inhabitants, according to Rebbe Yehudah. Rebbe Shimon says that it is sufficient to set aside three chatzeiros containing at least two dwellings each. Rashi explains that in a case of a public city that became private, there is a concern that the city will become public again, and joined in one shituf, and people will come to forget about the prohibition of carrying.

2. Adjusting a reshus harabim that runs through the middle of town It was taught in a Baraisa that if a private town became public and a reshus harabim passes through the one places either a lechi at both ends - או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן ,middle of the town .and then one may carry in the street in between them – ונושא ונותן באמצע ,or a korah at both ends

The Gemara asks who the Tanna of the Baraisa is, and Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua answers that it is Rebbe Yehudah, who holds that a reshus harabim that has two walls is a reshus hayachid which can be adjusted with either two lechis or two korahs.

3. The status of a ladder against the wall of a thoroughfare If a public town had a ladder at one – סולם מכאן ופתח מכאן מהו ,Rav Ami bar Ada of Harpanah asked Rabbah end of the thoroughfares that enabled people to walk over the wall, and a regular entrance at the other, what is the law? Do we consider the thoroughfare as if it has two entrances and therefore one section of the city must be left out of the shituf, or is it considered a town with one entrance and the entire town is included in the shituf?

the ladder has the status of an entrance, thereby – סולם תורת פתח עליו ,Rabbah said in the name of Rav prohibiting one shituf for the entire town. Rav Nachman said that Rabbah misunderstood Rav and that Rav A ladder has the status of an entrance – סולם תורת פתח עליו ותורת מחיצה עליו ,Adda said in the name of Rav and of a mechitzah. It has the status of a mechitzah so that it does not cancel the town’s wall, thereby permitting one shituf for the entire town. It is considered an entrance when it is between two chatzeiros, giving the residents the choice to either make an eruv between themselves, or two make two separate eruvin.

Siman – A knight in shining armor The two knights jousting in the private city that had turned public, raced from opposite ends of the reshus harabim running through the middle of it that had two lechis, while the locals sat on ladders by the walls to watch. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ס – Daf 60

1. Excluding from the eruv an area that is not open to the city The residents of Kakunaei asked Rav Yosef to give them someone to arrange an eruv for their town, which Rashi explains was a public town that had become private. Rav Yosef sent Abaye and told him to make sure that what he does is not complained about in the Beis Midrash. Abaye went and saw some houses that opened towards the river which ran along the city, but the houses had no opening to the city, and he wanted to make them the excluded section necessary in order to make an eruv for the city. He then reconsidered because he thought perhaps only a section that could join the city could be used as the excluded area. After going back and forth in his analysis, he finally concluded that even houses that could not join the eruv could be used as the excluded section, based on Mar bar Pophidasa from Pumbedisa who designated an inhabited storehouse of straw as his excluded section, despite the fact that a storehouse is not a place of residence that it should require an eruv.

2. A city with just 50 inhabitants In the Mishna on 59a Rebbe Yehuda said that the area that needs to be excluded from the eruv is an area the size of the town of Chadashah, that only had fifty inhabitants. The Gemara asks if a town the size of Chadashah that is not adjacent to a larger town requires setting aside an area to be excluded from its One says it – חד אמר בעיא שיור וחד אמר לא בעיא שיור .eruv. Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagreed requires an excluded section and one says that it does not require an excluded section.

מה שנשכר הוא מפסיד .3 מה שנשכר הוא ,The next Mishnah states that if one placed his eruv even one amah beyond the techum what he gains in the direction of his eruv, he loses in the opposite direction. The Gemara – מפסיד challenges this based on a Baraisa that teaches that if one placed his eruv even one amah beyond the and he loses – ומפסיד את כל העיר כולה ,he gains that amah – משתכר אותה אמה ,extension of the techum because the – מפני שמדת העיר עולה לו במדת התחום ,the entire width of the town in the opposite direction measure of the town counts towards the measurement of the techum. This contradicts our Mishnah which stated that he loses in one direction only what he gained in the other.

The Gemara answers that the Baraisa and Mishnah are referring to different cases. The Baraisa is discussing a case in which his two thousand amah measure ended in the middle of the town. Therefore, the town counts fully towards the techum measure. The Mishnah was referring to a case where his two thousand amah measure ended at the end of the town or beyond, in which case the town only counts for four amos and he may resume measuring his techum beyond the end of the town.

Siman – Smiley Face Stickers The Beis Midrash awarded the rare smiley face sticker of approval to the one who excluded an area not open to the city from the eruv, for the town of just fifty inhabitants, but warned the one whose techum ended in the middle of town, he couldn’t go any further.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סא – Daf 61 1. A town by a ravine – עיר שיושבת על שפת הנחל Rav Yosef said in the name of Rami bar Abba who said in the name of Rav Huna if there is a thin wall, four – אם יש לפניה דקה ארבעה ,a town that is situated at the edge of a deep ravine מודדין ,amos high, in front of the entire length of the town to prevent residents from falling into the ravine we measure the techum from the edge of the ravine, since the town is considered extendedמשפת הנחל – If there is no wall, we measure the techum only from the – ואם לאו אין מודדין לה אלא מפתח ביתו .until there door of each house. Rashi explains that since people are fearful to use the outside area, the town is not considered to be a yishuv kavua (a fixed residential area) but rather a collection of temporary dwellings, .the hut dwellers discussed on Daf 55b - יושבי צריפין similar to the

2. The towns of Geder and Chamsan Rav Yosef based his position on a Baraisa that Rebbe permitted the residents of the town of Geder to go down to the town of Chamsan but the residents of Chamsan could not go up to Geder. Rav Yosef explained that the residents of Geder had built a thin wall at the edge of their town to prevent falling which enabled them to measure their techum from there, whereas the residents of Chamsan had not and therefore had to measure their techum from their individual houses.

The Gemara presents alternative explanations for Rebbe’s ruling. Rav Dimi explained that the residents of Geder would get drunk on Shabbos and assault the people of Chamsan who visited. Rashi states that they כלבא בלא מתיה שב ,would even kill them. Rebbe allowed the residents of Geder to visit Chamsan because a dog outside of his town does not bark for seven years, meaning one naturally becomes more – שנין לא נבח timid when outside his town. Therefore, Rebbe was not concerned that the residents of Geder would become aggressive in Chamsan.

3. Placing the eruv in the middle of a town The next Mishnah stated that if one was in a large town and placed his eruv in a small town, or vice versa, he may traverse the entire town in which the eruv was placed and –מהלך את כלותה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה He has no more –אין לו אלא ממקום עירובו אלפים אמה ,travel two thousand amos beyond it. Rebbe Akiva said than two thousand amos from the place of his eruv. Rebbe Akiva holds that only one who actually camps in the town can treat the town as his four amos, but not one who merely places his eruv there.

Rebbe Akiva asked the Chochomim if they do not agree that if one placed his eruv in a cave that he has only two thousand amos from the place of the eruv, and not from the edge of the cave and they responded that when there are no inhabitants in the cave, but if there were inhabitants –שאין בה דיורין ,that is only in a case in there, it would be treated like the city and the techum would be measured from the edges of the cave.

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that a desolate town has the same status of an uninhabited cave. it meant it cannot be inhabited, therefore –אין בה דיורין ,According to Rebbe Elazar, when the Mishnah said he measures from the eruv. A desolate town can be inhabited; therefore, he can measure the eruv from the edge of town.

Siman – Saw When the residents by the ravine discovered that the neighbor they hired with the chainsaw to put up a fence tended to get violent on Shabbos, they kindly advised their guests to place their eruv in a cave or even better, in a desolate town. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סב – Daf 62

1. One who lives with an idolater in the same chatzeir הדר עם העכו"ם בחצר או מי שאינו מודה בעירוב הרי זה ,The opening Mishnah of the sixth perek on Daf 61b stated One who lives with an idolater in a chatzeir or with someone who does not accept the laws of eruv, such – אוסר עליו as a Kusi, that person restricts him from carrying items from his house into the chatzeir. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov unless there are two Jews living in – עד שיהו שני ישראלים אוסרין זה על זה ,said that the idolater never restricts separate residences in the chatzeir.

On our Daf, Abaye clarified that according to both the Tanna Kamma, who is identified as Rebbe Meir, and to Rebbe והכא ,the residence of an idolater is not considered a residence – דירת עובד כוכבים לא שמא דירה ,Eliezer ben Yaakov and here, they are disagreeing about a decree to deter a Jew from being – בגזירה שמא ילמד ממעשיו קא מיפלגי שפיכות influenced by an idolater’s actions. Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that since an idolater is suspected of it is uncommon for a single Jew to live in such a chatzeir out of fear of coming to harm, and the Rabbanon do ,דמים not make a gezeira in an uncommon case. However, it is common for two Jews to live in the same chatzeir as an idolater, and therefore in that case the Rabbanon were gozeir that an eruv will not work. Rebbe Meir disagrees and says that sometimes a lone Jew will live in such a chatzeir, therefore, the Rabbanon decreed that an eruv will not work in this case as well.

2. The idolater renting out his rights in the chatzeir Abaye explained that the gezeirah the Rabbanon enacted only permitted the Jews to carry if the idolater rented out and an idolater will not rent out these rights. This in turn will – ועובד כוכבים לא מוגר ,his rights to the chatzeir inconvenience the Jews who will not be permitted to carry and will motivate them to move out. There is a machlokes regarding what type of rental is required:

a strong rental is required, which the Gemara explains to mean that he has the – שכירות בריאה ,Rav Chisda says ▪ right to fill the chatzeir with his furniture. The idolater will be reluctant to rent out his rights for fear of losing his rights permanently. a token rental is sufficient, with which the Jew has no rights to fill the chatzeir – שכירות רעועה ,Rav Sheishess says ▪ The idolater will be suspicious that the Jew is engaged in sorcery, since – חשיש עובד כוכבים לכשפים .with his furniture he does not understand the need for the rental, and he will therefore be reluctant to rent out his rights.

3. Paskeing shailos in the presence of one’s Rebbe we have a rule that the Mishnah of Rebbe Eliezer – קיימא לן משנת רבי אליעזר בן יעקב קב ונקי ,Abaye said to Rav Yosef ben Yaakov is limited but pure, meaning that Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion is not mentioned too often, but may a talmid render this legal decision, that the – מהו לאורויי במקום רבו ,when it is, we pasken like him. Abaye asked halachah follows Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov, in the vicinity of his Rebbe? Rashi explains that since it is clear cut and requires no judgment, maybe it is permissible, or is it still considered a chutzpah for a talmid to rule before his Rebbe? Rav Yosef answered that it is not permitted, citing the time that Rav Chisda would not answer his simple kashrus question while Rav Huna, Rav Chisda’s Rebbe, was alive.

Siman - Submarine The two Jews who lived in the same chatzeir as the retired submarine admiral weren’t exactly sure how to convince him to rent out his rights in the chatzeir, and their local Orthodox Rabbi wasn’t very helpful as he wouldn’t even pasken simple shailos while his Rebbe was alive.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סג – Daf 63

The majority of the Daf continues with the topic of one paskening halachah in the presence of his Rebbe.

1. Paskening in front of one’s Rebbe to stop someone from doing an issur Ravina, who was a talmid chaver of Rav Ashi, once paskened in front of Rav Ashi to stop someone from אין חכמה ,doing an issur, and then asked him if it was disrespectful that he did so. Rav Ashi responded There is no sage or wise man or matter of advice which may stand against –ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה' Wherever there is a possible disgrace –כל מקום שיש בו חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב .the will of Hashem of Hashem’s name we do not worry about giving respect to a Rebbe.

2. The consequences of paskening in the presence of one’s Rebbe The Gemara brings three statements regarding one who paskens in the presence of his Rebbe. Anyone who –כל המורה הלכה בפני רבו ,Rebbe Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan - ,deserves to be bitten by a snake –ראוי להכישו נחש ,renders a legal decision in the his Rebbe’s presence based on a passuk from Iyov. He is called a sinner, based on a passuk from – נקרא חוטא ,Zeiri said in the name of Rav Chanina - Tehillim. is lowered from his level of greatness. He brings the incident - מורידין אותו מגדלתו ,Rebbe Eliezer said - of Elazar HaKohen giving over halachos to the soldiers when Moshe was available to teach them. Even though Elazar told the men that HaKadosh Boruch Hu transmitted them to the brother of his father and not directly to him, he was punished in that Yehoshua never needed to ask him anything.

3. Why Yehoshua went to the grave with no sons Anyone who answers a word in front of his teacher, which –כל דמותיב מלה קמיה רביה ,Rebbe Levi said goes to the grave without a –אזיל לשאול בלא ולד ,Rashi explains to mean that he paskens halachah child. He brings a proof from Yehoshua told Moshe to silence Eldad and Meidad who prophesied that Moshe would not bring bnei Yisroel into Eretz Yisroel, and subsequently was punished with no sons.

בשביל שביטל את ישראל לילה אחת ,Rebbe Abba bar Pappa said Yehoshua was punished with no sons because he caused Yisroel to abstain from marital relations for one night. This occurred –מפריה ורביה when Yehoshua was reprimanded by a malach during battle for bitul Torah. As part of his teshuva, Yehoshua stayed up all night learning while maintaining the siege on Yericho which meant that the aron, כל זמן ,that accompanied them in battle, was not returned to the Mishkan in Gilgal. We have a tradition Any time the aron and the Shechinah are not –שארון ושכינה שרויין שלא במקומן אסורין בתשמיש המטה resting in their normal place, Jews are prohibited from having marital relations. Therefore, Yehoshua was punished, measure for measure, with having no sons.

Siman – Segway The talmid who paskened in front of his Rebbe that it was forbidden to go beyond the speed limit on a Segway, stood right next to a slithering snake going over the grave of someone who died childless.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סד – Daf 64 1. When an idolater refuses to rent out his rights in the mavoi The Gemara on Daf 63b related that there was a certain mavoi in which an idolater named Lachman bar Ristak lived, and he refused to rent out his rights in the mavoi, restricting the Jews from carrying items into it. After rejecting a couple of recommendations that Abaye made to the residents, on our Daf, Rava suggested that they should let one of the residents go and develop a relationship with the idolater and then request by doing this, he would –דהוה ליה כשכירו או לקיטו ,permission to use a place in his chatzeir to store something as a year-round employee and a שכיר become similar to an employee or part-time farm hand. Rashi defines a אפילו ,as someone hired for reaping and harvesting seasons. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuelלקיט even a Jewish employee or farm hand working for an idolater may give his –שכירו ואפילו לקיטו נותן עירובו ודיו share of the eruv and this is sufficient for the idolater’s dwelling. Rashi writes that the worker only has to join the eruv and does not have to rent out the owner’s rights to the Jewish residents.

2. Drinking wine and davening ואם התפלל תפלתו ,Someone who drank wine should not daven –שתוי אל יתפלל ,Rabbah bar Rav Huna said ,Someone who is drunk should not daven –שיכור אל יתפלל .and if he did daven, his tefillos are valid –תפלה and if he did daven his tefilos are an abomination. As two Amoras were taking –ואם התפלל תפלתו תועבה leave of each other, one suggested they each say something that the other has never heard for Rav Mari bar A person should not take leave of –לא יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרו ,Rav Huna said כל ,as שתוי his friend except with a halachah for by doing this he will remember him. One began by defining כל שאינו יכול לדבר as שיכור as one who is still capable of speaking before a king, and a –שיכול לדבר לפני המלך .as one who is not capable of speaking before a king –לפני המלך

3. Purchasing a sefer Torah when one suddenly becomes wealthy The other Amora asked what one should do who takes possession a ger’s estate who died with no relatives to inherit him in order that it stays in his hands? Rashi explains that since the windfall is a source of astonishment to people because he received it without any effort, it will not remain secure unless he uses part of it for a mitzvah. He answered that he should purchase a sefer Torah with some of the monies. Rav Sheishess said that a husband who married a wealthy woman should do the same. Rashi says that his sudden gain will arouse an ayin hora and performing a mitzvah will protect it. Rava said that even someone who invested and profited should do the same. Rav Pappa said even someone who found a found a lost object of great value should do the same.

Rav Chanin, and some say it was Rebbe Chanina, said that this principle that a person will retain his Yisroel declared a vow. Rashi –וידר ישראל נדר ,possessions if he does a mitzvah with them is learned out from explains that before bnei Yisroel went to war with Arad after Aharon’s death, they vowed to donate the spoils of the cities they would capture as hekdesh. With this act of tzedakah their tefilos were answered and they were victorious.

Siman – Secret Agent The secret agent, on a mission to befriend an idolater and become his farm hand, was told by his spymaster before departing not to drink and daven and to purchase a sefer Torah if he suddenly becomes rich.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סה – Daf 65

1. When is the ideal time for limud haTorah? The Gemara presents different opinions regarding the ideal time for limud haTorah: Night was created specifically for sleeping, which Tosfos – לא איברי ליליא אלא לשינתא ,Rav Yehudah said ▪ explains refers to short summer nights when there is little time to learn. The moon’s light was created specifically for limud – לא איברא סיהרא אלא לגירסא ,Reish Lakish said ▪ haTorah. they are from – דיממי נינהו ,When people told Rebbe Zeira that his teachings were sharp, he responded ▪ daytime study. ▪ When Rav Chisda’s daughter asked him if he does not need to sleep a little, he responded that soon in the grave there will be days that are long for the purpose of sleeping and short for the purpose of learning and doing mitzvos. .we who learn Torah are daytime workers – אנן פועלי דיממי אנן ,Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said ▪ would borrow and repay his learning time. Rashi explains that if he did – יזיף ופרע ,Rav Acha bar Yaakov ▪ not complete his learning quota during the day, he would finish it at night.

2. Properties of wine The Gemara lists many properties of wine: Anyone who is settled with a clear mind – כל המתיישב ביינו יש בו דעת שבעים זקנים ,Rebbe Chiya said ▪ is 70 and the gematria of יין of the seventy judges. The gematria of דעת even after drinking wine, has the when wine enters a person his secret exits, due to the loss – נכנס יין יצא סוד ,secret) is 70 to teach that) סוד of his inhibition. Rashi explains that therefore one whose secret does not come out, and has a clear mind even after drinking, is equal to the seventy judges. בכוסו :In three ways can a person’s true character be perceived –בשלשה דברים אדם ניכר ,Rebbe Ilai said ▪ also with –אף בשחקו ,with his cup of wine, with his wallet and with his anger. Some add –ובכיסו ובכעסו his laughter.

3. Leasing rights in a chatzeir from the landlord When Reish Lakish and the talmidim of Rebbe Chanina visited an inn of a nochri where they wanted to stay for Shabbos, they wanted to know if they could lease the rights of a house of a nochri who lived in the chatzeir with two Jews, from the landlord, since the tenant was not home. They knew that they could not if the landlord did not have rights to evict the tenant before the lease expires. Their question was specifically in a case where the landlord could. Do we say that since the landlord can evict the tenant, they can lease the rights from him, or do we say that since he has not yet evicted him, they cannot? Reish one can be lenient with a safek d’Rabbanon. When ,ספק דבריהם להקל Lakish said they should, based on they returned and asked Rebbe Afeis if they had done the correct thing, he told them that they had.

Siman – Sheep (Shepherd) The wise shepherd learning by the light of the moon with his secret cup, wallet and stress ball inside his hut, advised the guests at the nochri inn to lease the rights of the travelling tenant from the landlord who could evict him.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סו – Daf 66

שוכר כמערב דמי .1 is similar to joining in an eruv which can only be done before שכירות On Daf 65b the question was raised if Shabbos, or if it is similar to bitul reshus (relinquishing rights), which can be done on Shabbos? When Rebbe Yochanan was told that the Rabbanon who were staying at a non-Jewish inn that only had Jewish guests, leased the rights from the non-Jewish owner who arrived on Shabbos, he said that what they had .and can be done on Shabbos ביטול רשות is similar to שכירות done was correct, implying that

On our Daf, the sages of Nehardea asked on Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling given that Rebbe Yochanan had the rules of leasing are similar to joining in an eruv, which implies that leasing ,שוכר כמערב דמי ,ruled can be שכירות cannot be done on Shabbos. The Gemara answers that Rebbe Yochanan does hold that done on Shabbos, and when he said that leasing is similar to joining in an eruv he meant that it is similar to joining in an eruv in three ways: 1. One may lease with a payment less than a shaveh perutah. 2. A of an idolater can rent out his rights in a chatzeir. 3. One person may lease the rights of an לקיט or שכיר idolater on behalf of five Jewish residents that live in the chatzeir.

2. Shmuel’s first principle of three for bitul reshus any - כל מקום שאוסרין ומערבין מבטלין ,Shmuel stated three principles for bitul reshus. The first one states place where residents restrict a chatzeir if they do not join in an eruv, and they could join in an eruv, they of two chatzeiros- שתי חצרות זו לפנים מזו may relinquish their rights. Rav Sheishess gives the example of arranged one behind the other and the residents of the inner chatzeir must pass through the outer one to reach the mavoi or the reshus harabim. The residents of the inner chatzeir restrict the residents of the .their right to pass through – דריסת הרגל outer chatzeir from using the chatzeir because of

Rashi explains on Daf 67a, that according to Shmuel the Chochomim only allow bitul reshus when two conditions are met. 1. The residents could have made an eruv together and 2. now that they did not, they become restricted in their use of the chatzeir when Shabbos begins.

ביטול רשות בחורבה .3 a house in ruins, is situated between two inhabited - חורבה There is a machlokes about a case where a houses where both residents can use it as a common chatzeir and require an eruv chatzeiros to use it. bitul reshus does not work to permit one of the residents to carry – אין ביטול רשות בחורבה ,Shmuel says ▪ there. Rashi explains that the Chochomim only allowed the leniency of bitul reshus for chatzeiros since people are accustomed to use it. A ruin is not regularly used. there is bitul reshus in a ruin. The Meiri explains that – יש ביטול רשות בחורבה ,Rebbe Yochanan says ▪ since it can be rebuilt it falls under the rules of bitul.

Siman – Tailor (Sewing) The tailor, who was delighted that he leased the rights to a chatzeir for the price of a cheap needle, just like he spent on his eruv, was upset to find that it was for a chatzeir behind another chatzeir with a house in ruins in between the homes.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סז – Daf 67

1. Bitul reshus when a nochri dies on Shabbos When Rav Chisda and Rav Sheishess would meet each other, Rav Chisda’s lips would tremble from Rav Sheishes’s vast knowledge of Mishnayos and Rav Sheishes’s entire body would tremble from Rav Chisda’s analytical skills.

Rav Chisda asked Rav Sheishess two questions. The second one dealt with a case where two Jews lived in the If the nochri died on Shabbos what is the halachah? May one – מת נכרי בשבת מהו .same chatzeir as a nochri of the Jews be mevatel his reshus to permit the other one to carry in the chatzeir? Rav Chisda clarified that his question was only going according to Shmuel who holds that two Jews cannot lease the rights of an innkeeper that returned on Shabbos to then permit one resident to be mevatel his reshus to the other. but in our ביטול רשות and שכירות Therefore, his question is, did Shmuel prohibit it because it required both or he would not allow it here either? Rav Sheishess ,ביטול רשות case he would allow it since it only requires answered that he holds they can be mevatel reshus but Rav Hamnuna says that they cannot.

2. When a nochri also has a private entrance If a nochri, who lives in the – נכרי שיש לו פתח ארבעה על ארבעה ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel which opens into an – פתוח לבקעה ,same chatzeir as two Jews, has an entrance of four by four tefachim empty field, even if he brings camels and wagons in and out the entire day through the entrance of the mavoi, he does not restrict the members of the mavoi, because it is assumed that he prefers to use his private entrance. Rashi explains that he has more open space there than in the mavoi. Rav Nachman bar Ami even if the nochri’s chatzeir opens into – אפילו פתוח לקרפף ,said that he had a tradition from his Rebbeim that a karpaf, he does not restrict the mavoi. Rashi explains that the karpaf too has more space than the mavoi.

3. Challenging leniencies in psak In a case where hot water which was meant to wash an eight-day-old child on Shabbos spilled out, Rabbah ruled that one could ask a non-Jew to bring hot water from Rabbah’s house who lived in the chatzeir, since the houses in the chatzeir had not joined in an eruv or a shituf prohibiting the Jewish residents to carry. Abaye related that he wanted to question Rabbah on this but Rav Yosef would not permit him. Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Kahana that when he was in the yeshivah of Rav Yehudah, Rav Yehudah would say, With a d’Oraysas, if one paskens a lenient ruling we consider – בדאורייתא מותבינן תיובתא והדר עבדינן מעשה בדברנן עבדינן מעשה והדר ,all possible refutations and only afterwards carry out that decision in practice and with a d’Rabbanons, if one gives a lenient psak we carry out his decision and only –מותבינן תיובתא afterwards do we consider possible refutations.

Afterwards Abaye asked his question and Rav Yosef answered that in this case it is permitted because of we have two issur d’Rabbanons; amira l’akum and-שבות דשבות commonly referred to as ,תרתי דרבנן .לצורך מצוה carrying in a chatzer without an eruv, which therefore makes the action permitted

Siman – Sizzling Barbeque It was chaos in the chatzeir when the nochri hosting a barbeque died of a heart attack watching his racing camels escape through the private entrance into the field, after knocking down a servant carrying hot water for a baby. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סח – Daf 68

1. Why Abaye and Rabbah did not have an eruv On Daf 67b an incident involving spilled hot water indicated that the chatzeir that Abaye and Rabbah lived in had no eruv nor shituf. On our Daf, Rabbah bar Rav Chanin asked Abaye how it was possible that a mavoi that had these two great men live in it did not have an eruv or shituf?

literally "way") of) אורחיה Abaye responded that there was not anything that he could do. It was not the Rabbah to collect the shituf. Rashi explains that it would be beneath his dignity to collect the food. Abaye said that he himself was too busy learning, and the other residents did not care if there was a shituf. He also said that it was not possible for him to transfer ownership of the bread in his basket to the other residents, since if they were to request their portion of the eruv, he would not be able to give it to them. Rashi explains that since Abaye could not afford to give away his bread every week it indicates that he was not willing to treat אחד מבני מבוי שביקש יין ושמן ולא ,the others as full-fledged partners. Abaye brought a Baraisa that stated If one member of the mavoi requested the wine or oil of the shituf and they did not give – נתנו לו בטל השיתוף it to him, the shituf is annulled.

מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין .2 There is a machlokes whether one resident of a chatzeir can be mevatel his reshus to the second resident, מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין ,and then that second resident be mevatel his reshus back to the first resident. Rav said The Gemara suggests that their machlokes is linked to the .אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין ,and Shmuel said machlokes between the Chochomim and Rebbe Eliezer on Daf 26b whether when one who is mevatel his rights in his chatzeir is also mevatel his rights in his house. Rav holds like the Chochomim that he retains his rights in his house, and therefore, someone who is mevatel his rights to the chatzeir is not completely removed from it and is not viewed as a member of another chatzeir. Shmuel holds like Rebbe Eliezer who holds that he does relinquish his rights to his house, thereby totally removing himself from the chatzeir, and he is therefore considered like a resident of another chatzeir and may not receive back the rights to his former chatzeir. While this linkage is rejected by some, Rav Ashi did accept this explanation.

3. The status of a Tzaduki In the Mishnah on Daf 61b, Rabban Gamliel mentioned an incident with a Tzaduki that lived in his chatzeir, from which we learned that a Tzaduki may be mevatel his rights in a chatzeir. The Gemara here asks why Rabban Gamliel mentioned a Tzaduki when the Tanna Kamma did not discuss a Tzaduki at all, and answers a Tzaduki is like a nochri in – צדוקי הרי הוא כנכרי ,The Tanna Kamma stated .חסורי מיחסרא that it is a case of and Rabban Gamliel said that a – ורבן גמליאל אומר צדוקי אינו כנכרי ,that he may not be mevatel his reshus Tzaduki is not like a nochri and he may relinquish his rights. That is why Rabban Gamliel’s father told them to hurry and carry out their keilim to the mavoi. Meaning, the story was that the Tzaduki was mevatel his rights in the chatzeir, and Rabban Gamliel's father told them to carry out their keilim before the Tzaduki carried out his own keilim into the mavoi and restrict them. Rashi explains that they must use the mavoi after the start of the Shabbos to demonstrate that they have seized the Tzaduki’s rights which he was mevatel.

Siman – S’chach At the Sukkah carnival in the chatzeir covered with s’chach, the kids played the “Who is going to set up the eruv?” game and “Mevatel Reshus” tag while the fathers were having a blast at the “Dunk the Tzaduki” water tank booth.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף סט – Daf 69

איזהו ישראל מומר .1 who is considered an irreligious Jew, which Rashi explains to mean that , איזהו ישראל מומר – :Rav Huna said This is anyone – זה המחלל שבתות בפרהסיא .we consider this person an irreligious Jew in regard to everything who publicly desecrates Shabbos. Rav Nachman asked which Tanna does Rav Huna's statement goes one who is – חשוד לדבר אחד חשוד לכל התורה כולה ,according to. If it goes according to Rebbe Meir who said אפילו באחד מכל איסורין שבתורה ,suspected in one area of Torah law is suspected to violate the entire Torah even if he violated any Torah prohibition other than Shabbos he should be considered a mumar for – נמי one - חשוד לדבר אחד לא הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה ,everything? If it goes according to the Rabbanon who say עד דהוי מומר ,who is suspected to violate one area of Torah law is not suspected to violate the entire Torah unless he is a heretic for avodah zarah, why did Rav Huna say only a mechallel Shabbos is a – לעבודת כוכבים mumar in regard to everything?

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered that Rav Huna's question was, who is considered irreligious insofar as he to cede and relinquish his rights in regard to an eruv. To that, Rav Huna– ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות is not able is not suspect in מחלל שבת בפרהסיא Rav Huna holds like the Rabbanon that a .המחלל שבת בפרהסיא answers other areas, but he is treated as a nochri in regards to ceding and relinquishing his rights of an eruv. Rav Ashi disagreed and said that Rav Huna was following a Tanna that holds chillul Shabbos is as stringent as avodah zara.

2. When one of the residents forgets to participate in the eruv Members of a chatzeir, one of whom forgot – אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב ,The next Mishnah states his house is restricted with regards to – ביתו אסור מלהכניס ומלהוציא ,and did not participate in the eruv both to him and to them, even though he was mevatel his reshus to the – לו ולהם ,carrying articles in or out other residents. The Gemara asks why his house is restricted to the residents if he was mevatel his reshus, and answers that the case is that he was only mevatel the rights of his chatzeir, and the Rabbanon hold, one who relinquishes his rights to his chatzeir does not relinquish – המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו לא ביטל because a person sometimes lives in a house without having – דדייר איניש בבית בלא חצר ,rights to his house rights to a chatzeir.

3. The resident who relinquishes his rights is considered a guest however, their houses are permitted to him and to them. The – ושלהם מותרין לו ולהם ,The Mishnah continues Gemara asks what the reason is that the person who relinquished his rights to the chatzeir is permitted to carry from the other residents’ houses to the chatzeir, since this should seemingly cause him to get back his .because he is considered to be their guest – דהוי אורח לגבייהו ,rights in the chatzeir. The Gemara answers Rashi explains that since he did not carry from his house, even though he uses the chatzeir, he does not regain his relinquished rights because he is considered like their guest.

Siman – Soot (Chimney sweep) After years of running his chimney sweep franchise on Shabbos, the former Yisroel mumar did teshuvah, and whenever he forgot to participate in the eruv, his understanding neighbors always treated him like a guest.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ע – Daf 70

1. Does one need to be mevatel reshus to each resident explicitly? ושכח אחד מהן ולא ,If five residents are living in one chatzeir –חמשה ששרויין בחצר אחת ,Abaye asked Rabbah when he –כשהוא מבטל רשותו ,and one of them forgot and did not join the eruv with the others –עירב does he need to relinquish –צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד או לא ,relinquishes his rights to allow the others to carry to each one explicitly or not? Perhaps it is sufficient to be mevatel his reshus to just one of them. Rabbah .He must be mevatel his reshus to each one explicitly –צריך לבטל לכל אחד ואחד ,said

Abaye challenged Rabbah from the first case in a Baraisa which teaches seven halachos regarding bitul One resident who did not join in the eruv may relinquish his –אחד שלא עירב נותן רשותו לאחד שעירב .reshus rights to one who did join. Abaye said this implies that there was a third person in the chatzeir otherwise who did the second person join his eruv with, and we see that the first person only had to be mevatel his reshus He made his eruv with someone who was–דהוה ומית ,to one of the residents. Rabbah answered and said there who died. Therefore, it was sufficient for the person to relinquish his rights to the resident that remained.

2. Can an heir be mevatel reshus? May an heir relinquish rights to property he received on –יורש מהו שיבטל רשות ,Rava asked Rav Nachman Shabbos from his deceased father? Do we say that since if he had wanted to join in the eruv on erev Shabbos he could not because the house and his share of the chatzeir was not his, he can also not relinquish his ?he is the leg of this father, meaning an extension of his father –כרעיה דאבוה הוא ,rights, or perhaps

והני ,I say an heir may relinquish his rights in the house he inherits –אני אומר מבטל ,Rav Nachman answered .but the talmidim in Shmuel’s yeshivah taught he may not relinquish his rights -דבי שמאול תנו אין מבטל includes an heir תורת ביטול רשות .3 The Gemara challenges Rav Nachman who says the heir may be mevatel his reshus from a Baraisa that Any chatzeir that was permitted for the first part of Shabbos –כל שמותר למקצת שבת הותר לכל השבת ,states And any chatzeir that –וכל שנאסר למקצת שבת נאסר לכל השבת ,remains permitted for the entire Shabbos –חוץ ממבטל רשות ,was restricted for the first part of Shabbos remains restricted for the entire Shabbos that he can be ,איהו אין יורש לא ,except for the instance in which someone relinquishes his rights. This implies חוץ מתורת ביטול ,mevatel his reshus, but his heir cannot. The Gemara answers that the Baraisa should state The chatzeir remains restricted except for the institution of bitul reshus. Rashi explains that an heir is– רשות included in the institution of bitul, since he is considered an extension of his father.

The Gemara brings further challenges to Rav Nachman’s position.

Siman – One-eyed Martian The one-eyed Martian was fascinated watching the Jewish earthling be mevatel his reshus to four neighbors explicitly, as they wished him condolences for the passing of his father and praised the institution of bitul reshus.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עא – Daf 71

1. Machlokes Beis Shammai/Beis Hillel whether bitul reshus may take place on Shabbos Two Baraisos were brought to challenge Rav Nachman’s position that an heir may be mevatel a reshus when אין ביטול ,he inherits it on Shabbos. Rebbe Yochanan said that the Baraisos follow Beis Shammai who say that bitul reshus may not take place on Shabbos, whereas Rav Nachman holds like Beis Hillel – רשות בשבת that it can.

ביטל ,Abaye explains the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, saying that Beis Shammai holds ,that bitul reshus is considered a kinyan, and making a kinyan on Shabbos is assur – רשות מיקנא רשותא הוא ,a simple abandonment of rights – אסתלוקי רשותא בעלמא הוא ,whereas Beis Hillel say that bitul reshus is which is mutar to do on Shabbos.

2. When is a partnership sufficient and no shituf is required? if a baal habayis was a partner with his mavoi – בעל הבית שהיה שותף לשכניו ,The next Mishnah states they do – אין צריכין לערב ,with this one with wine and with that one with wine – לזה ביין ולזה ביין ,neighbors -לזה ביין ולזה בשמן ,not need to join in an eruv, i.e. shituf, because the partnership is sufficient. If, however .they must join in an eruv – צריכין לערב ,he was a partner with this one with wine and with that one with oil Rashi explains that they may not rely on their partnership since the wine and oil are in different containers. .in either case they do not need to join in an eruv – אחד זה ואחד זה אין צריכין לערב ,Rebbe Shimon says

Rav Yosef explained that the machlokes between the Tanna Kamma and Rebbe Shimon is based on a machlokes between Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri and the Rabbanon regarding terumah oil that is floating on top of terumah wine and a tevul yom touched the oil but not the wine. The Rabbanon hold that he has only both of them, the oil and – שניהן חיבורין זה לזה ,invalidated the oil whereas Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri says wine, are connected to each other, and therefore they both become invalidated. The Tanna Kamma holds like the Rabbanon, that oil and wine are two separate entities, and Rebbe Shimon holds like Rebbe Yochanan ben Nuri who views the wine and oil as a single entity.

3. A partnership in the purchase of a barrel of wine אחד זה ואחד זה צריכין ,A third opinion is introduced in a Baraisa which states, Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai said in both cases in our Mishnah, they must join in an eruv, meaning a shituf. Rabbah explains that if each – לערב person poured his jug into the same barrel, Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai agrees with the Rabbanon that it is a valid eruv. He disagrees in a case where they purchased a barrel of wine in partnership. Rebbe Elazar ben Tadai that there is no retroactive determination of specific ownershipand therefore, the eruv is ,אין ברירה ,holds that there is a retroactive determination of specific ownership ,יש ברירה ,invalid, whereas the Rabbanon hold and the shituf is valid. The Ritva explains that the barrel of wine is viewed as if it had been divided into individually owned jugs after the purchase and then poured back into the vessel.

Siman – Donkey going “ee-aw”. The demoralized donkey driver, after learning that bitul reshus may not take place on Shabbos because it’s a form of kinyan, was informed his partnership with his neighbors using oil and wine didn’t work as a shituf, and the barrel of wine they had purchased together couldn’t be used either.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עב – Daf 72

1. When Rebbe Meir and the Chochomim disagree about making both an eruv and a shituf On Daf 71b a Baraisa taught that an eruv must be made with bread and not with wine. Rashi explained that an eruv is symbolic of a residence, and a person’s residence is determined by bread and - ,עירב משום דירה not wine. A shituf on the other hand could be made with wine or bread. Rashi explains that a shituf merges the rights of the chatzeiros and not the houses, and wine suffices to create that merger. Rebbe Meir ruled in order not - שלא לשכח תורת עירוב מן התינוקות ,that it is necessary that a person make an eruv and a shituf to cause the institution of eruv to be forgotten from the children who would say that their fathers did not make an eruv. The Chochomim said that doing only one of them would suffice for that.

Rebbe Nachumi and Rabbah disagreed on what the machlokes was about. One said that when a shituf is made with bread, Rebbe Meir would agree that it suffices for the eruv. They only argue when the shituf was made with wine. The other one said that the Chochomim would agree that when the shituf was made with wine, that an eruv is also required. They disagree only when the shituf was made with bread.

2. Five groups spending Shabbos in a mansion Five groups that spent Shabbos in one – חמשה חבורות ששבתו בטרקלין אחד ,The next Mishnah states ,an eruv is needed for each group, and Beis Hillel say – עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה ,mansion, Beis Shammai say one eruv suffices for all of them, unless some of them are staying in separate rooms or – עירוב אחד לכולן upper stories.

Rashi explains that they were divided into five areas in a large room and each area had a door leading to a common chatzeir, which also served residents of other buildings that opened into it. According to Beis Shammai they would require five separate eruvin with the other residents, as well as an additional eruv to carry from one group area to the others.

The Gemara presents a four-way machlokes regarding which type of partition Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree on.

3. Brothers eating at their father’s table Brothers who eat at their - האחין שהיו אוכלין על שלחן אביהם וישנים בבתיהם ,The next Mishnah states father’s table but sleep in their homes, which Rashi explains to mean that their houses are in the same they need an eruv – צריכין עירוב כל אחד ואחד ,chatzeir as their father’s, which also includes other residents for each one if they want to join in an eruv with the other residents in the chatzeir.

the place of sleep determines a person’s – מקום לינה גורם ,The Gemara suggests that the Mishnah implies residence, but Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Mishnah’s case was where the brother’s receive support from their father but do not live there. The Gemara brings a machlokes regarding what - לינה the place of bread and Shmuel said - פיתא place of residence. Rav said - מקום דירה determines ones the place of sleep.

.piece of birthday cake (עב) Siman – Thick Five families brought their bread and wine/eruv & shituf travel kits for the Shabbos they were spending in the mansion partitioned as groups, to celebrate their rich father’s birthday with a massive piece of cake, although they all wished they could have slept at home.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עג – Daf 73

1. Wives vs. Servants someone who has five wives – מי שיש לו חמש נשים מקבלות פרס מבעליהן ,It was taught in a Baraisa who live in separate houses in a chatzeir, but receive support from him, and he lives in a house in that or five servants who live in separate houses but – וחמשה עבדים מקבלין פרס מרביהן ,same chatzeir receive support from their master who lives in that same chatzeir, Rebbe Yehudah ben Beseirah is matir the chatzeir to be used by everyone in the case of the women but is oser it in the case of the servants. Rashi explains that even though the servants are supported by the master their relationship is not as strong as marriage.

Rebbe Yehudah ben Bava is matir the chatzeir in the case of the servants but he is oser it in the case of the women. Rav explained Rebbe Yehudah ben Bava’s reason for holding that the master-servant and Daniel was in the gate of the – ודניאל בתרע מלכא ,relationship is stronger is based on the passuk king. The Meiri explains that even though Daniel spent most of his time learning, and was not actually in the king’s court, since he was conscious of his obligations to the king, it was considered as if he was in the gate of the king.

2. Measuring a yeshiva’s techum Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rav Sheishess where members of a yeshivah should measure their techum from if they eat their bread in the inns of a nearby valley and come to sleep at the yeshivah, and Rav Sheishess answered that they measure it from the yeshivah. The Gemara asks that if this is so then when someone places his eruv techumin within two thousand amos of his home and sleeps at home, אנן ,why is the techum measured from the location of his eruv? The Gemara answers that in that case we can attest to their intentions that if they could reside by their eruv they would, whereas in – סהדי we can attest that they would prefer if people would – אנן סהדי ,the case of the yeshivah students bring bread to them in the yeshivah.

3. When Rebbe Meir is not concerned that Toras Eruv will be forgotten חמש חצרות פתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות למבוי ,One of the four cases mentioned in the next Mishnah states – Five chatzeiros that open to one another and also open to a mavoi, if they joined in an eruv for the chatzeiros and merged in a shituf for the mavoi, and one of the residents forgot and did not join in the they are permitted here (in the chatzeir) and here (in the mavoi). This seems to – מותרין כאן וכאן ,eruv indicate that a shituf can serve in lieu of an eruv. Yet the Gemara clarifies that the Mishnah is going according to Rebbe Meir who holds that both an eruv and shituf are necessary. The Gemara explains in order not to cause the – שלא לשכח תורת עירוב מן התינוקות ,that Rebbe Meir’s concern was institution of eruv to be forgotten by the children, but here, since most of the residents did join in the eruv it will not be forgotten. Therefore, even Rebbe Meir would allow the shituf to serve in lieu of an eruv in this case.

Siman – Giant Ostrich Egg When the wealthy innkeeper with five wives and five servants, proudly told the visiting yeshiva he prepared a giant ostrich egg for breakfast, they politely turned around and went back to their dorms located in five chatzeiros, where always one of them forgot to join in the eruv.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עד – Daf 74

1. What type of mavoi can be adjusted with a lechi or a korah? There is a three-way machlokes regarding what type of mavoi can be adjusted with a lechi or a korah: a mavoi is not rendered permissible with – אין מבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה עד שיהו בתים וחצרות פתוחין לתוכו ,Rav said ▪ a lechi or a korah unless there are houses and chatzeiros opening into it, which means at least two chatzeiros that each contain two homes. even one house without a chatzeir and one chatzeir to which at least – אפילו בית אחד וחצר אחת ,Shmuel said ▪ one house opens. even a ruin on one side, and a chatzeir to which at least one house – אפילו חורבה ,Rebbe Yochanan said ▪ opens. Rav Yosef clarified to Abaye that Rebbe Yochanan did not permit a mavoi if a path through a vineyard is somewhat suitable for a – חזי לדירה on one side of the mavoi instead of the ruin. The difference is that a ruin is residence whereas the vineyard path is not.

אין לנו בעירובין אלא בלשון משנתנו .2 The Gemara relates that when Rebbe Elazar overheard someone give over Shmuel’s opinion, that even one house without a chatzeir and one chatzeir to which at least one house opens can be adjusted with a lechi or אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון ,korah, he was surprised and went to challenge Shmuel, since Shmuel had said we do not have the right to establish leniencies in the laws of eruvin other than those found in the – משנתנו the – שהמבוי לחצרות כחצר לבתים ,wording of the Mishnah, and he applied that to our Mishnah that stated relationship of a mavoi to its chatzeiros is similar to the relationship of a chatzeir to its houses. The plural form of chatzeiros implies that more than one chatzeir is required to grant mavoi status. Shmuel was silent and the Gemara seeks to determine if his silence meant that he accepted or that he rejected the challenge.

3. The mavoi of Ivus bar Ihi The Gemara suggested that Shmuel did not retract his position based on a mavoi in which Ivus bar Ihi lived that was adjusted with a lechi and Shmuel permitted it. The Gemara on Amud Beis clarifies that a shul also opened into the mavoi that contained an apartment, making this a case of a mavoi with one chatzeir, the one in which Ivus lived, and one house, the apartment in the shul. After Shmuel’s death Rav Anan came and threw the lechi down because it did not have two chatzeiros with two houses each opening into it, and Ivus protested since the lechi was done under the direction of Shmuel. This seems to indicate that Shmuel did not retract his position.

The Gemara rejects this proof saying that Shmuel did accept Rebbe Elazar’s objection and retracted and required two chatzeiros with two houses each. In this case, the chazzan of the shul would eat his meals at his where one sleeps – מקום לינה גורם home in another chatzeir and sleep in the shul. Since Shmuel held that defines his residence, the shul building was considered a regular chatzeir with two homes, the room the chazzan slept in, as well as another apartment in it. This, together with the chatzeir of Ivus made this mavoi legitimate since it was considered to have two chatzeiros.

Siman – Witness The expert witness, who was testifying in the case of a mavoi with a ruin on one side, quoting with confidence the loshon of a Mishnah, was asked if he saw the chazzan who ate dinner at home go to sleep in the shul.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עה – Daf 75

דריסת הרגל .1 The next Mishnah introduces a machlokes between Rebbe Akiva and the Chochomim in a case of two chatzeiros which are arranged one behind the other, and each one joined in its own eruv. The point of .the right of passage of the inner chatzeir restricts the outer chatzeir - דריסת הרגל dispute is whether the When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel he explained in the name of Rebbe Yannai the understanding of the machlokes, which was subsequently challenged.

When Ravin came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel he gave over the proper understanding of Rebbe Yannai’s רגל המותרת ,explanation of the machlokes, that in fact there are three opinions. The Tanna Kamma holds the right of passage of a person who is permitted in his own chatzeir, does not restrict the outer - אינה אוסרת even the right of passage of someone who is – אפילו רגל המותרת אוסרת ,chatzeir. Rebbe Akiva holds Just as the – כשם שרגל מותרת אינה אוסרת ,permitted in his own chatzeir forbids, and the Rabbanon hold so too, the right – כך רגל האסורה אינה אוסרת ,right of passage of a person who is permitted does not restrict of passage of a person who is restricted does not restrict.

2. A joint eruv between two chatzeiros It was stated in a Baraisa that if the residents of the two chatzeiros placed a joint eruv in the inner chatzeir and one of the residents of the outer chatzeir forgot to join in the eruv, Rebbe Akiva holds that the residents of both chatzeiros are restricted, whereas the Chochomim say that the inner chatzeir is permitted and the outer one is restricted.

they allow the ,אין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר The Gemara explains that according to the Chochomim who hold I merged with you to – לתקוני שיתפתיך ולא לעוותי ,inner chatzeir to dissolve the eruv because they can claim improve my situation and not to detract from it. Rebbe Akiva does not permit the inner residents to dissolve This provides an alternative way for the inner residents to .יש ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר the eruv since he holds restore their rights in the chatzeir via the residents in the outer chatzeir being mevatel reshus in their chatzeir.

בית שער דיחיד .3 if ten houses are arranged one behind – עשרה בתים זה לפנים מזה ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel the inner – פנימי נותן את עירובו ודיו ,the other, where only the outer house opens directly to the chatzeir house must contribute its portion of an eruv being formed in the chatzeir with the other residents, and this is even the outer one must contribute, which the Gemara clarifies –אפילו חיצון ,sufficient. Rebbe Yochanan said to mean the ninth inner house.

the gatehouse of an individual is – בית שער דיחיד שמיה בית שער The Gemara explains that Shmuel holds legally treated as a gatehouse, and therefore the ninth house which only serves as an entrance for the tenth it is not treated as – לא שמיה בית שער house, does not restrict the chatzeir, whereas Rebbe Yochanan holds since they serve בית שער a gatehouse and must contribute to the eruv. All the other houses are considered a as entranceways for more than one house, and therefore, do not restrict the eruv.

Siman – Am Ha’Aretz The neighbors of the Am Ha’Aretz who were already annoyed with his constant walking through their chatzeir, and forgetting to join in the joint eruv, were horrified when they found out he just bought the tenth house in the long row of housing. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עו – Daf 76 question בית שער ובית The .1 Rachavah tested the Rabbanon with the following question: If there are two chatzeiros with two houses between them, and one chatzeir placed its eruv in the house which adjoins the other chatzeir, and the other chatzeir did the same and placed its eruv in the house adjoining the other chatzeir, do they each acquire an eruv or not? The question hinges on the following: Do we judge each house as the house for an a gatehouse, or do we judge each house as a – בית שער eruv on the far side, and the house in between as a to the chatzeir that adjoins it? The Rabbanon answered that either way they do not acquire an ,בית שער is invalid. If each house בית שער it does not work since an eruv in a בית שער eruv. If each house is deemed a is deemed a house, then each chatzeir would have to walk through a house that was not joined in its eruv.

The Gemara clarifies that this is different than bein hashemashos which can be deemed halachically it is not a noticeable thing, since the – לא מינכרא מילתא nighttime for some and daytime for others, since first part could be day and the latter part night. It is therefore not a clear contradiction, and people will take not both. Rashi explains ,בית שער these halachos seriously. A house, however, must be either a house or a to another, will make this halacha look like a בית שער that to consider it as a house to one person and as a joke.

2. A window between two chatzeiros In a – חלון שבין שתי חצרות ארבעה על ארבעה בתוך עשרה ,The opening Mishnah of the seventh perek states case of a window between two chatzeiros that is at least four tefachim by four tefachim in size and located the residents of the two chatzeiros may join in two –מערבין שנים ,within ten tefachim of the ground or if they desire – ואם רצו מערבין אחד ,independent eruvs, because they are still considered separate areas they may join in one communal eruv because the window connects them. Rashi explains that since the height of the wall to the window is less than the ten-tefachim minimum height of a mechitzah, and since the window’s size qualifies it as a portal, the two chatzeiros are considered connected and may join in an eruv.

Rebbe Yochanan said that a round window in the wall must have a circumference of twenty-four tefachim, and the lower two tefachim and a bit more must be within ten tefachim of the ground so that if one inscribes a four by four square inside the circle it will be found that part of the square is within ten tefachim of the ground. The Gemara analyzes this ruling.

3. A window between two houses this ruling was only learned regarding a window – לא שנו אלא חלון שבין שתי חצרות ,Rav Nachman said אפילו למעלה ,but a window that is between two houses – אבל חלון שבין שני בתים ,between two chatzeiros if the residents of the two – אם רצו מערבין אחד ,even it is completely above ten tefachim – מעשרה נמי a house is – ביתא כמאן דמלי דמי ,homes want to join in one mutual eruv, they may. The reason for this is regarded as being full of objects. Therefore, the window is considered as though it were not higher than ten tefachim from the floor.

Siman – IV (Intravenous) that morphed into a house at bein בית שער The sick construction worker on IV hallucinated and saw a hashemashos, land on a chatzeir wall with a square frame inside a round window, separating homes with high windows and full of floating objects. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עז – Daf 77

1. Moving things on a thin wall dividing two chatzeiros The Gemara brings a machlokes regarding a wall between two chatzeiros that is ten tefachim high but not the airspace of the two domains, meaning the – אויר שתי רשויות שולטת בהן ,four tefachim wide. Rav said therefore, one may not move – לא יזיז בו אפילו מלא נימא ,unmerged chatzeiros, control the top of the wall anything on it, even as much as the fullness of a hair. The Gemara clarifies that the top is a makom petur and it should be mutar to carry on top of the wall, and even to carry from the top of the wall to each chatzeir, as we find that it is permitted to carry from a makom petur to a reshus hayachid, and to a reshus the Rabbanon strengthened - חכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה ,harabim. However, Rav holds out of concern that people איסורי דרבנן their own enactments, meaning they were more machmir with will violate them in order to move things between two chatzeiros, than they were that people will violate in a similar situation. Rebbe Yochanan disagrees with Rav and holds that people can איסור דאורייתא an even carry food from their chatzeir to the top of the wall since it is a makom petur.

2. A wall separating two chatzeiros on different levels a – כותל שבין שתי חצרות ,Rabbah said in the name of Rav Huna who said in the name of Rav Nachman ,if one of its sides is ten tefachim high – צידו אחד גבוה עשרה טפחים ,wall which is between two chatzeiros and one of its sides is level with the ground of the other chatzeir, which Rashi – וצידו אחד שוה לארץ we give the use of the – נותנין אותו לזה ששוה לארץ ,explains to mean it does not reach a full ten tefachim – משום דהוה לזה תשמישו בנחת ,top of the wall to this chatzeir which its ground is level with the wall because for the residents of the upper chatzeir it is easy to use, since the top of the wall is within ten and for the residents of the lower chatzeir its use is – ולזה תשמישו בקשה ,tefachim of the chatzeir’s floor with difficulty. And in every case where for one chatzeirs use is with ease and the others use is with .we give use of it to this chatzeir for which the use is with ease – נותנין אותו לזה שתשמישו בנחת ,difficulty

3. Which ladders reduce the height of a wall The Gemara introduces a ruling regarding reducing the height of the wall below ten tefachim so that its An Egyptian ladder does not reduce – סולם המצרי אינו ממעט והצורי ממעט .top can be considered a portal the height of the wall when leaned against it but a Tyrian ladder does. An Egyptian ladder has less than four rungs, and a Tyrian ladder has four. Rav Acha the son of Rava asked Rav Ashi why the Egyptian ladder – משום דהוה ליה דבר שניטל בשבת ,does not work to reduce the height of the wall and Rav Ashi explained and anything – וכל דבר שניטל בשבת אינו ממעט ,because it is something that may be moved on Shabbos ladder is heavy, it צורי that may be moved on Shabbos does not reduce the height of the wall. Since the will presumably not be moved on Shabbos, which makes it as if it is permanent.

Siman – Goat The world-famous circus goats danced along the thin wall between two chatzeiros, then did back flips down to the lower chatzeir before climbing back up on a moveable Egyptian ladder on their two hind legs.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עח – Daf 78

1. A peg in a post if a post that is ten tefachim high and four tefachim – עמוד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה ,Rav Huna said and one – ונעץ בו יתד כל שהוא מיעטוwide, thereby constituting a reshus hayachid, stands in a reshus harabim wedged a peg of any size into the top of the post, the peg reduces some of the top’s surface area rendering it a makom petur.

and the – ובגבוה שלשה ,The Gemara presents three interpretations of Rav Huna’s ruling: Rav Ada bar Ahavah said peg must be three tefachim high. Rashi explains that if it is not three tefachim it is considered part of the top’s even though the peg is not three tefachim high, it – אף על פי שאין גבוה שלשה ,surface. Abaye and Rava both said still renders the top of the post a makom petur since that part of the surface where the peg was put is not usable. even if the peg is three tefachim – אפילו שגבוה שלשה טפחים ,Rav Ashi disagreed with both interpretations and said high it does not render the top of the post a makom petur because it is possible to hang something onto the peg. Rashi explains that since the peg performs a function of the post, it is considered as part of the post and not something that detracts from it.

2. Straw rungs between two narrow ladders Rav Yosef asked Rabbah what the halachah is if one placed two ladders against the wall, each one less than two tefachim wide, and he put straw in the middle, which Rashi explains to mean that he pressed the straw into the shape of rungs and connected them to each ladder. Do we regard the ladders as having the requisite width of four the ball of the foot cannot go up on them, since one usually – אין כף הרגל עולה בהן ,tefachim? Rabbah answered steps on the middle of part of the rung. Therefore, the straw rungs are not a valid extension.

Rav Yosef then asked what the halachah is if one affixed straw rungs on either side of a narrow ladder and Rabbah the ball of the foot can go up on them, and therefore the straw rungs are a valid – כף הרגל עולה בהן ,responded extension.

סולם Using an ordinary tree or an asheirah tree as a .3 what is the halachah if one made a tree into a ladder? Is the tree – עשאו לאילן סולם מהו ,Rav Yosef asked considered a pesach which allows the two chatzeiros to join in a mutual eruv even though one may not climb a tree עשאו ,on Shabbos? He then asked that if we rule that an ordinary tree can indeed serve as a ladder to be an eruv from the הנאה what is the halachah if one made an asheirah tree into a ladder? Since one gets –לאשירה סולם מהו eruv chatzeiros, would it be permissible to use it?

Rabbah answered that the tree is mutar and the asheirah is assur. The Ritva explains that since it is permitted to use the tree as pesach during the week, we view the Shabbos challenge as incidental and it does not affect the כל ,tree’s legal status as a pesach. Rebbe Yochanan said, and there are those that say that Rebbe Elazar said the tree which cannot be climbed because of hilchos Shabbos is assur, but the asheirah - שאיסור שבת גורם לו אסור which cannot be used for a non-Shabbos related reason is mutar. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak presents a third answer.

Siman – Child going “uch” The mischievous kid who went “uch” when he saw the bowl of spinach, balanced it on a three tefachim peg stuck in a post, then booby trapped the ladders to get it by placing straw rungs in the middle, and required climbing up an asheirah tree.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף עט – Daf 79

1. A ditch filled with earth and pebbles The Mishnah on the bottom of Daf 78b stated that if a ditch between two chatzeiros that was ten tefachim deep and four tefachim wide, was filled with earth and pebbles, the two chatzeiros must join in one common even without the – אפילו בסתמא ,eruv and not make two separate eruvs. The Gemara says that this implies owner of the earth and pebbles stating intent that he wants to leave the earth and pebbles there, we view the ditch as if it is permanently filled. This contradicts a Mishnah in Ohalos that teaches that a house filled with straw or rocks is only considered filled if one specifically intends to leave them there permanently. Three answers are given. x Rav Assi answered that our Mishnah is Rebbe Yose with whom the Tanna in Ohalos disagrees. x Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua said that we cannot compare to tumah to Shabbos, as people would even abandon a wallet for the duration of Shabbos, since it is muktzeh, but are less likely to abandon something because of tumah. x Rav Ashi answered that people are more likely to mevatel something in a ditch as it is normal to fill in, than in a house that is not normal to fill in.

2. A haystack between two chatzeiros If a haystack between two chatzeiros is – מתבן שבין שתי חצרות גבוה עשרה טפחים ,The next Mishnah states the residents may make two independent eruvs but may not make – מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד ,ten tefachim The residents of one of the chatzeiros may feed their animals – אלו מאכילין מכאן ואלו מאכילין מכאן .one eruv from here, (meaning the haystack), and so may the other residents. Rashi explains that we are not concerned that their animals will eat so much straw that the height of the haystack will shrink below ten tefachim causing the chatzeiros to merge and prohibit carrying.

as long as the owner does not – ובלבד שלא יתן לתוך קופתו ויאכיל ,Rav Huna said regarding feeding the livestock put straw into his basket to feed the animals. Rashi explains that the reason that this is forbidden is either because he might take too much and reduce the height of the mechitzah, or because the straw is muktzeh.

כיצד משתתפין במבוי .3 מניח את החבית ואומר ?How do we make a shituf for a mavoi – כיצד משתתפין במבוי ,The next Mishnah states One places a barrel containing food and declares, “Let this belong to all of the residents of – הרי זו לכל בני מבוי and he may confer ownership to them through his adult son or ,ומזכה להן על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים”,the mavoi .or through his Jewish servants or his wife ,ועל ידי עבדו ושפחתו העברים ועל ידי אשתו ,daughter

the barrel that is being used for – חבית של שיתופי מבואות צריך להגביה מן הקרקע טפח ,Rav Yehudah said shitufei mevo’os, must be lifted it at least one tefach from the ground, otherwise it remains in the domain and control of its owner.

Siman – Pen (Sofer with a quill) The distracted sofer who tripped over a ditch filled with pebbles, dropped his quill in a haystack separating two chatzeiros, while knocking over an eved ivri holding a barrel a tefach off the ground.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פ – Daf 80

1. A wife contributing to the shituf without her husband’s consent ההוא .The Gemara discusses whether a reluctant resident can be forcibly included in an eruv or shituf There was a nochri who guarded over the town’s weapons in Rebbe– טורזינא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרבי זירא Zeira’s neighborhood, who refused to lease his rights to the residents in his chatzeir, prohibiting them from carrying. They came to Rebbe Zeira who told them that Reish Lakish said in the name of Rebbe a person’s wife may join her family in an eruv by – אשתו של אדם מערבת שלא מדעתו ,Chanina contributing her husband’s food, even without his consent.

Shmuel said that similarly if one regularly contributes to the shituf but one week does not want to בני המבוי נכנסין לתוך ביתו ונוטלין ,participate out of spite in order to prevent the residents from carrying the residents of that mavoi may enter his home and forcefully take a shituf – שיתופן ממנו בעל כרחו contribution from him , with his wife’s permission according to Tosafos. 2. If food in the shituf is diminished or more residents are added If the shituf food became diminished from the required amount – נתמעט האוכל ,The next Mishnah states one may add his own food to complete the required amount – מוסיף ומזכה ,before the onset of Shabbos and he does need to notify them, even – ואין צריך להודיע ,and confer ownership upon the other residents if he uses their food. Rashi explains that even though the residents must approve of their food for the shituf, consent is not needed in this case since they have already approved of the shituf.

if more residents were added to the original residents, so that the – נתוספו עליהן ,The Mishnah continues one may add his own food to – מוסיף ומזכה וצריך להודיע ,shituf food is insufficient for all of the residents reach the required amount and confer ownership to the new residents, but he must notify them and solicit their approval if he desires to use their food. Rashi explains that all of the residents must be permitted to eat any of the shituf food.

3. The amount of food that must be contributed to the shituf – בזמן שהן מרובין ,The Mishnah states that the measure of food that must be contributed to the shituf provisions equivalent to two meals for one–מזון שתי סעודות לכולם ,when the residents are numerous is when they are few, it is food equivalent to the volume of –בזמן שהן מועטין כגרוגרת לכל אחד ואחד ,person when are these rules of – במה דברים אמורים ,a dried fig for each one of the residents. Rebbe Yose said Regarding the inception of the eruv when it is originally made – בתחילת עירוב ?measurements stated but with regards to the remnants of the eruv, any amount is sufficient, and the – אבל בשירי עירוב כל שהוא food need not be replenished for the upcoming Shabbosim. Rebbe Yose disagrees with the Tanna Kamma who said the food must be replenished. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that eighteen residents or more qualify as numerous.

Siman – Payday (wads full of cash in the pockets) The pompous neighbor with wads full of cash in his pockets, didn’t want to contribute to the shituf to spite his neighbors, so his wife came along and without his consent, added enough food to the diminished shituf for eighteen residents. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פא – Daf 81

1. Using whole loaves for the eruv or shituf בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן ,The Mishnah on the bottom of Daf 80b stated that according to Rebbe Eliezer ,any food may be used to make an eruv or shituf except water and salt. Rebbe Yehoshua said - המים ומן המלח only a whole loaf of bread is valid as an eruv. Even if a loaf that is baked from a se’ah of flour is – ככר הוא עירוב slightly broken, it may not be used, whereas a loaf the size of an issur, so long as it is whole, may be used as an eruv.

– משום איבה ,Rebbe Yose ben Shaul said in the name of Rebbe that the reason for Rebbe Yehoshua’s ruling is because of ill will. Rashi explains that the residents who contributed whole loaves might complain to those who contributed only broken loaves. Rav Ashi explained to Rav Acha brei d’Rava that even if all of the residents – שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו ,contributed only broken loaves, Rebbe Yehoshua would not approve because perhaps the situation will revert to its problematic state that people will become accustomed to donate broken loaves even when others donate whole loaves.

2. Giving money to the grocer or baker without doing meshichah A – נותן אדם מעה לחנוני ולנחתום כדי שיזכה לו עירוב ,The next Mishnah states that according to Rebbe Eliezer person may give a ma’ah to a grocer or a baker so that the grocer or baker can confer upon him ownership in the eruv or shituf made from the grocer’s wine or the baker’s loaf of bread, whereas according to the .his money does not acquire a share of the eruv for him – לא זכו לו מעותיו ,Chochomim

he did not do meshichah and – הא לא משך ,The Gemara asks how Rebbe Eliezer could permit payment alone bring the food into his possession, which is a De’Rabbonon requirement to acquire an object. Rav Nachman Rebbe Eliezer treated this – עשאו רבי אליעזר כארבעה פרקים בשנה ,said in the name of Rabbah bar Avahu matter like the case of “four seasons of the year.” The Gemara cites a Mishnah in Chullin that enumerates the four busiest days of the year for butchers, as the days before Shemini Atzeres, Pesach, Shavuos and Rosh Hashanah. The Rabbanon waived the necessity for meshichah on these days because of these special circumstances. Rashi explains that Rebbe Eliezer rules that in the case of eruv the Rabbanon also waived the need for meshichah to facilitate making the eruv because it is for Shabbos.

3. Giving money to a neighbor who is acting as a shaliach the Chochomim concur that in regard to – ומודים חכמים בשאר כל האדם שזכו לו מעותיו ,The Mishnah continues all other people who are not merchants, to whom the resident gave money with which to acquire for him a portion of the eruv, that his money acquires for him ownership in a portion of the eruv food. Rashi explains that when the person says, “Obtain for me a possession in the eruv,” his intent is different. Since ordinary people do not sell loaves of bread, he intended to merely appoint the other person to act as his shaliach, where the money is being provided for the service rather than payment for the loaf of bread. In the case of the grocer, if the person had instructed him to make an eruv for him, the eruv would be valid.

Siman – Grandpa The grumpy Grandpa, who complained when a neighbor brought him a broken loaf of bread to join the eruv, while he was waiting in the long line to pay the butcher erev Shavuos, got insulted when someone else gave him money for the eruv and asked him to act as his shaliach.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פב – Daf 82

1. If one was not informed about the eruv before Shabbos וכל ,The opening Mishnah of the eighth perek discusses setting up a communal eruvei techumin and states it is permitted to be used by whomever accepted to have his makom shevisa at the – שקבל עליו מבעוד יום מותר but if he only accepted it after dark – משתחשך אסור שאין מערבין משתחשך ,site of the eruv while it is still day he is prohibited, for one cannot make an eruv after dark.

– אין ברירה ,The Gemara suggests that the ruling that the eruv must be accepted while it is still day implies the person could say after dark that the eruv ברירה there is no retroactive clarification, because if there was was retroactively acceptable to him while it was still daytime. Rav Ashi rejects this proof saying that the a case where the makers of the eruv informed him ,הודיעוהו ולא הודיעוהו Mishnah was distinguishing between can only ברירה of the existence of the eruv and where they did not inform him. Rashi explains that retroactively clarify, when the potential for clarification existed. In this case, the person had no knowledge of the eruv until Shabbos began.

2. A child is included in his mother’s eruv a child, even in his sixth year, can fulfill his obligation to make an – קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו ,Rav Assi said eruv with his mother’s eruv. Rashi explains that she does not need to formally give the child ownership of the eruv as the child is considered a part of her and it is assumed that she had the child in mind since he cannot be without her.

3. The quantity of food required for eruvei techumin מזון שתי סעודות ?What is the quantity required for eruvei techumin – כמה הוא שיעורו ,The next Mishnah asks Food for two meals for each and every person who want to participate in the eruv. Rebbe Meir – לכל אחד ואחד ,the quantity of food for weekday meals, not Shabbos meals. Rebbe Yehudah said – מזונו לחול ולא לשבת ,says And both intend to – וזה וזה מתכוונים להקל .for Shabbos meals and not for weekday meals – לשבת ולא לחול rule leniently, meaning it is determined by the meal which is smaller. Rashi explains that Rebbe Meir holds that people eat more at Shabbos meals because of the tastiness of the food, whereas Rebbe Yehudah holds that people eat less at Shabbos meals because they eat three seudos on Shabbos.

Rav Yosef asked Rav Yosef brei d’Rava whose view does his father accept, and he answered that Rava accepted Rebbe Meir’s opinion of weekday meals. Rav Yosef said that he too accepts Rebbe Meir’s opinion for if one accepted Rebbe Yehudah’s opinion that a Shabbos meal is smaller than a weekday meal, there is It, referring to the stomach, leaves room for a tasty – רווחה לבסימא שכיח ,difficulty with the popular saying dish, which lends credence to the notion that people eat more on Shabbos because of the tastiness of the food.

Siman – Pub The pub owner was outraged that the eruvei techumin set-up committee forgot to inform him about the existence of the eruv, after his wife participated with her five-year-old child in mind, bringing two small weekday meals that tasted quite bland.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פג – Daf 83

1. Different measurements for a se’ah The Mishnah on Daf 82b discussed the quantity of bread required to make an eruv, which lead to the סאה ירושלמית יתירה על ,Gemara analyzing the specific measurements. A Baraisa on this Daf teaches The Yerushalmi se’ah is larger than the se’ah in the midbar by a sixth, which Rashi explains to - מדבריות שתות and the Tzipori se’ah is larger than the – ושל ציפורית יתירה על ירושלמית שתות ,mean what we call a fifth Yerushalmi se’ah by a sixth, which we would refer to as a fifth.

The Midbar se’ah was in use when the Torah was given and had a volume of 144 kibeitzim. The Yerushalmi se’ah was introduced during the time of Bayis Rishon and had a volume of 173 kibeitzim. The Tzipori se’ah was adopted when the Sanhedrin was located in Tzipori which occurred during Rebbe’s leadership. It was 207 kibeitzim.

2. The amount of dough to be obligated to separate challah The first of – ראשית ערסתכם It was taught in a Baraisa regarding the mitzvah of challah, that the passuk says your doughs, “your doughs” implies that the dough from which one must separate challah is “your dough” that you had in the Midbar. How much was the dough in the Midbar, meaning the daily portion of mann? and the Omer is one tenth of an Ephah. The ephah was equal to three se’ah, so – והעומר עשרית האיפה הוא that the omer according to the size of the dough in the Midbar was 3/10 of a se’ah.

One who eats as much as this measure, referring – האוכל במדה זו הרי זה בריא ומבורך ,The Baraisa concludes If he eats more he is – יתר על כן רעבתן .to the minimum quantity specified for challah, is healthy and blessed .If he eats less than this, his innards are defective – פחות מכאן מקולקל במעיו .considered a glutton

3. Lowering vs. throwing The next Mishnah introduces the principle that the use of an area is assigned to those for whom it is easier to use. The Gemara lists six cases of areas accessible to two chatzeiros who have each made a separate eruv. a given area which is – לזה בשלשול ולזה בזריקה ,There is a machlokes between Rav and Shmuel in a case of only accessible to the residents in one chatzeir by lowering objects to that area, and only accessible to the residents in the other chatzeir by throwing objects to the area. Rav holds they are both forbidden since the degree of difficulty in using the area is equal. Shmuel holds that the residents who can lower into the area its use is with ease. Lowering down requires less effort than - תשמישו בנחת ,are permitted to use it because throwing up.

The Gemara on the next amud attempts to determine if the halachah is according to Rav or Shmuel but fails to come to a resolution.

Siman – Pogo Stick The reigning pogo stick champ easily jumped over piles of Desert, Yerushalmi and Tzipori se’ahs of grain, while the kid who ate more than an omer for breakfast got an upset stomach when he jumped down to a platform and he couldn’t jump back up.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פד – Daf 84

1. Residents who live on the same level as a mirpeses lowering down is ,שלשול This Daf continues with the machlokes between Rav and Shmuel whether throwing something up or not, in terms of determining who has rights to use a ,זריקה considered easier than given area. The Gemara attempts to bring a support to Shmuel that lowering down is easier from the If the residents of a chatzeir – אנשי חצר ואנשי מרפסת ששכחו ולא עירבו Mishnah. The Mishnah stated that –כל שגבוה עשרה טפחים למרפסת פחות מכאן לחצר ,and the residents of a mirpeses forgot to make an eruv Whichever area is ten tefachim high above the floor of the chatzeir belongs to the mirpeses, and whichever area is elevated less than this belongs to the chatzeir. This seems to support Shmuel since the residents of the mirpeses actually live in an upper story and make use of the mirpeses by lowering things to it.

The Gemara defends Rav by saying that just as the term mirpeses was used in a different case to mean the residents who live on the same level of the mirpeses and not above it, so too here. In that case, the residents of the mirpeses have access to it directly which is why they can use the area on Shabbos and those in the chatzeir that require throwing up to it cannot.

2. A ledge protruding from a nineteen tefach high wall אנשי חצר ואנשי עלייה ששכחו ולא ,The Gemara attempts to bring a support to Rav from a Baraisa that states If the residents of a chatzeir and the residents of a second story forgot to make an eruv, the residents –עירבו of the chatzeir may make use of a ledge that protrudes from the wall if it is below ten tefachim, and the residents in the upper story may make use of the ledge if it is above ten tefachim. This implies that if the ledge were in the middle and ten tefachim away from both, it would be restricted from use since it is equally accessible to both.

Here in the Baraisa we are discussing a –הכא בכותל תשעה עשר עסקינן וזיז יוצא ממנו ,Rav Nachman answered nineteen tefachim high wall from which a ledge projects. If the ledge is below ten tefachim from ground level it is accessible to the chatzeir as a pesach, which makes it exclusively theirs. If it is above ten tefachim from the ground it is accessible to the residents of the upper story as a pesach, making it exclusively theirs.

3. Two balconies who draw water from the higher balcony שתי גזוזטראות זו ,The Gemara brings a support for Rav’s position from a Mishnah on Daf 87b that states a ,מחיצה תלויה Two balconies where one is higher than the other, and the upper balcony has a –למעלה מזו four-by-four tefach hole with a ten tefach partition coming down from it in order to draw water from below. The Gemara later explains that this partition was built in partnership with the residents of the lower balcony, ,the right of passage to use the upper balcony to draw water. Therefore ,דריסת הרגל so that they will have and the שלשול neither balcony can use the hole without an eruv. Since the upper balcony uses the hole with and the Baraisa considers them equals, this seems to ,שלשול and with זריקה lower balcony uses it with support Rav’s position. The Gemara answers that the case is where the residents of the lower balcony go up and even Shmuel ,שלשול via steps to the upper balcony to get water, which means they also use it only with agrees it is forbidden for both. Abaye gives a second answer.

Siman – Launch pad The residents who lived on the same level as the mirpeses, used it as a launch pad for their fireworks, as neighbors below standing on a ledge sticking out from the nineteen tefach wall and the ones above who drew water in case a fire broke out, all eagerly watched. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פה – Daf 85

1. A water pit between two chatzeiros בור שבין שתי חצירות מופלגת מכותל זה ארבעה ומכותל זה ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel Regarding a water pit between two chatzeiros, if the edge of the pit is four tefachim away from – ארבעה each chatzeir can put out a slat of – זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא ,each wall אפילו ,any size from its wall and then fill their pails with water. Rav Yehuda himself, however, holds that even something less noticeable than a slat, like a reed can be used. Rashi explains that since the pit ,קניא is in a path that is separated from both chatzeiros by a wall, giving them no direct access to it, it does not require an eruv. Putting out a slat or reed to permit drawing water from it on Shabbos is to serve as a reminder that access to a jointly owned area is usually only permitted with an eruv.

אין אדם אוסר על חבירו ,Abaye said to Rav Yosef that Rav would not require any reminder, for Rav said A person cannot restrict his fellow in an area only used by him by way of air. In this case, the – דרך אויר residents do not have access to the pit by foot but must draw the water by way of throwing.

2. Placing an eruv in gatehouse, portico or gallery If one places his eruv in – הנותן את עירובו בבית שער אכסדרא ומרפסת אינו עירוב ,The next Mishnah states and one who lives in – והדר שם אינו אוסר עליו ,a gatehouse, a portico, or a gallery, it is not a valid eruv one of these does not restrict the other residents in the chatzeir from carrying. An eruvei chatzeiros must be deposited in one of the dwellings of the chatzeir, symbolizing the designation of that house as the common dwelling of all residents in the chatzeir. The Meiri explains that the portico and gallery are not considered dwellings because they have no walls, and that the gatehouse is not considered a dwelling since residents of the chatzeir are constantly passing through it. Rashi explains that someone living in any of the above places does not restrict use of the chatzeir, and does not need to contribute to the eruv.

3. A group of neighbors eating a meal as Shabbos began A group of neighbors who were – בני חבורה שהיו מסובין ,Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel eating a meal before Shabbos began, which Rashi clarifies to mean all of the neighbors of a chatzeir or and Shabbos came while they were sitting there, without having joined in an – וקדש עליהן היום ,mavoi they may rely on the bread that is on the table – פת שעל השלחן סומכין עליהן משום עירוב ,eruv or shituf and others say that they may rely on it for a shituf. Tosafos on Daf – ואמרי לה משום שיתוף ,for an eruv 73b explains that since the host served them bread to eat, it is as though it is theirs and it is therefore valid as a contribution to the eruv.

Rabbah said that there is no dispute between these two rulings. One was referring to when they were eating in the house and the other one was referring to where they were eating in the chatzeir.

Siman – Dentist (mouth) The neighborhood dentist, who saw patients in a path between two walled chatzeiros that contained a pit of water, was invited by the residents of the chatzeir as they were walking through the gatehouse to join them for a late erev Shabbos get-together meal. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פו – Daf 86

1. The wealthy deserve kavod both Rebbe and Rebbe Akiva would show – רבי מכבד עשירים, רבי עקיבא מכבד עשירים ,The Gemara relates ישב עולם לפני אלקים חסד ואמת מן ,respect to wealthy people, as Rava bar Mari expounded from the verse May he, referring to a king, sit forever before Hashem, appoint kindness and truth that they preserve – ינצרהו בזמן שחסד ואמת מן ינצרהו ?When is the world properly settled before Hashem – אמתי ישב עולם לפני אלקים .him – When there are kindness and ample provisions for the poor, this preserves the world. Rashi explains that the .means provisions. Since the rich provide for the poor and sustain the world, they deserve kavod ,מן word

2. One who goes away for Shabbos One who left his house and went to spend – המניח ביתו והלך לשבות בעיר אחרת ,The next Mishnah states Shabbos in another town: ▪ Rebbe Meir says whether he is a nochri that did not rent out his rights or a Jew who did not join in the eruv, a residence – דירה בלא בעלים שמה דירה ,he restricts use of the chatzeir. Rashi explains that Rebbe Meir holds without owners present on Shabbos is considered a residence. Rebbe Yose holds that .דירה בלא בעלים לא שמה דירה Rebbe Yehuda says he does not restrict, since he holds ▪ a nochri does restrict ,and a Jew does not. Rashi explains that Rebbe Yose holds like Rebbe Yehudah except that there is concern that the nochri will return on Shabbos. It is unlikely however, that a Jew will return on Shabbos. ▪ Rebbe Shimon says that even if the Jew went to spend Shabbos with his daughter in the same town, he is he has already dismissed returning, from his mind. Rav said that – שכבר הסיע מלבו ,unlikely to return because the halachah is like Rebbe Shimon when he visits his daughter, but not for one who visits his son. Rashi explains that he has in mind that he might need to return home if he gets into a fight with his daughter in law. A fight with a son-in-law, however, can be endured.

3. A cistern between two chatzeiros a cistern between two chatzeiros, partially in one and ,בור שבין שתי חצירות In the next Mishnah regarding A mechitzah should not be – לא תהא מחיצה גדולה מן הכותל שביניהם ,partially in the other, Rebbe Yehudah says more effective than the wall which is already between the chatzeiros. Rashi explains that Rebbe Yehudah holds that a wall passing over the cistern is sufficient to legally divide the water, even if it does not enter the cistern’s cavity.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan that Rebbe Yehudah’s ruling is in accordance with a suspended partition permits - ,מחיצה תלויה מתרת אפילה ביבשה ,the opinion of Rebbe Yose who holds carrying over dry land, such as in the case of a sukkah wall that is woven from the top that is three tefachim from the ground, where Rebbe Yose holds it extends downwards and is valid. The Gemara rejects this suggestion pointing out that perhaps Rebbe Yehudah would only apply the principle to a d’Rabbanon such as eruvin, but not to a d’Oraysa such as a sukkah, and perhaps Rebbe Yose would only apply it to a sukkah which .איסור סקילה but not to a matter of Shabbos which is an איסור עשה is an

Siman – Police The police were called in to resolve a domestic dispute between the wealthy man, who usually got respect, and his daughter in law, whose house he was staying in for Shabbos, over the question whether a wall passing over a cistern legally divides the water between them.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פז – Daf 87

1. Drawing water from a four-by-four tefach hole גזוזטרא שיש בה ארבע אמות על ארבע ,It was learned in a Baraisa that Rebbe Chananya ben Akavya says חוקק בה ארבעה על ארבעה ,A balcony which is four by four amos in size, and extends over water - אמות one cuts a square hole of four tefachim by four tefachim in the center of it and he may then – וממלא draw water through this opening. Rashi explains that the solid segments that remain on each side of the hole are viewed conceptually as having been bent down, forming a ten tefach high enclosure below the hole. These partitions are then projected downwards to enclose the surface of the water, using the principle of gud achis.

Rabbah suggested that Rebbe Chananya and Rebbe Yehudah held identical things since Rebbe Yehudah also held gud achis works, such as in the case of a wall over the cistern. Abaye said that this is not necessarily so. Perhaps Rebbe Yehudah holds gud achis works to extend walls downward but would not go as far as to say that one may conceptually “bend” the segments of the balcony to form suspended partitions. And perhaps Rebbe Chananya was lenient only with regards to the Sea of Teverya, because it has high banks, cities and karpafs which surround it, but gud achis would not work with other bodies of water.

2. A water canal passing through a chatzeir If a water canal passes through a chatzeir one – אמת המים שהיא עוברת בחצר ,The next Mishnah states may not draw water from it on Shabbos unless they erected a mechitzah ten tefachim high, within the canal at its entrance to the chatzeir and at its exit from it. Rashi explains that although a suspended mechitzah is valid over water, it must be evident that the partition was erected for the water. Therefore, the water’s mechitzah must be within the banks of the canal, and the walls of the chatzeir The – כותל שעל גבה תידון משום מחיצה ,that pass over the canal do not permit it. Rebbe Yehudah says chatzeir wall which passes over the canal at each end may be considered a partition.

טומנין בעצה .3 A Baraisa is brought that teaches three lenient rulings issued by Chananya ben Akavya for the people of Teverya. The first was regarding drawing water from a balcony on Shabbos via the conceptual bending he permitted them to store fruit in bean ,טומנין בעצה of walls mentioned above. The second one was stalks wet with dew. He held that the people of Teverya would collect the extra stalks from the crop early in the morning, so that they would not miss work later in the day, not because they were and the fruit מכשיר לקבל טומאה interested in the stalks being wet with dew. Therefore, the dew is not can be stored in these wet stalks without becoming susceptible to tumah.

Siman – Gold The man panning for gold who cut a square four by four tefach hole in his balcony to draw water, installed mechitzos at either end of the water canal passing through his chatzeir, while chomping on fruit he stored in bean stalks wet with dew.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פח – Daf 88

1. Pouring sewage out לא שנו ,Regarding permitting drawing water from a balcony with hanging mechitzos, Rabbah bar Rav Huna said They only taught that drawing water is permitted but pouring out sewage through a – אלא למלאות אבל לשפוך אסור hole is prohibited. Rashi explains that the flowing river will take the sewage beyond the mechitzos of the balcony.

Rav Shizbi challenged this ruling and asked what is the difference between this case and the case of a cesspool in a chatzeir into which water may be poured even when it is full and it will run off into a neighboring reshus harabim? These waters of the cesspool cease, meaning they generally become – הני תיימי The Gemara answered that absorbed in the ground before flowing into the reshus harabim. Rashi explains that even if the sewage does overflow and run out of the chatzeir, it was the person’s intention that they be absorbed in their place, and the ,However, these waters from the balcony do not cease ,והני לא תיימי .transfer to reshus harabim is unintended meaning they are never absorbed in their place. Therefore, the person knows that they will certainly flow beyond the mechitzos. The Gemara presents another version of this discussion.

יש גזל בשבת .2 ,there is ,יש גזל בשבת ,Rabbah said in the name of Rebbe Chiyah, and Rav Yosef said in the name of Rebbe Oshaya and a ruin restores possession – וחורבה מחזיר לבעלים ,figuratively, theft of another person’s property on Shabbos to its owner on Shabbos. This refers to a case where someone makes use of a neighbor’s ruined property that is next to his property during the week without the owner’s expressed consent. Rashi explains that his unauthorized use of the ruin does not have any bearing on its eruv status. The dominion over the churvah is forcibly returned to its owner requiring an eruv. The thief, referring to the neighbor, may not carry there without joining in an eruv with the owner.

3. Pouring into a covered drainage conduit If a drainage - ,ביב שהוא קמור ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים ,The next Mishnah stated, Rebbe Eliezer ben Yaakov says conduit from a chatzeir through the reshus harabim is covered for its first four amos in the reshus harabim, people may pour wastewater into it on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the covered portion must be four by four amos in area which is capable of absorbing two se’ah of water that a person uses daily. Therefore, the water poured into it on Shabbos will generally be absorbed before it reaches the reshus harabim. Even if the water does reach reshus harabim, it is considered an unintended transfer and he has not transgressed a d’Oraysa. The Chochomim hold that one may not pour directly into a conduit even if it is very long since it exits with some intensity. Rashi explains that he might be accused of intending to get rid of it from his chatzeir. They do permit pouring it onto the roof and letting the water descend into the conduit, where the water will not leave with such intensity.

The Gemara notes that the Chochomim do not reflect the opinion of Chananya who holds that one may not pour onto a roof that is even one hundred amos long because a roof is not constructed to absorb but rather to cause the water to flow away from the house. Therefore, he considers it the same as pouring it directly into the conduit.

Siman – Garbage can The person who improperly poured his sewage from his garbage can through his balcony into the water below, accidently dumped it on a thief using his neighbors ruin, who also got splashed by another neighbor pouring his water out with great intensity into a covered drainage pipe.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף פט – Daf 89

1. Rebbe Meir – All roofs are one reshus The opening Mishnah of the ninth perek introduces a machlokes regarding which areas require making an eruv All adjoining roofs of the town are one domain, even – כל גגות העיר רשות אחת ,chatzeiros. Rebbe Meir says though they are owned by different people. Therefore, carrying from one roof to the other is permitted even if roofs are not used - אין תשמישן תדיר the residents below did not join in an eruv. Rashi explains that since they are not considered separate domains. This, the Mishnah adds, is provided - אין בהם חילוק רשות ,regularly גזירה that one roof is not ten tefachim higher or lower than another roof. The Gemara explains that this a a decree due to a four-by-four elevation, such as a post, that is ten tefachim high – משום תל ברשות הרבים which is a reshus hayachid, that is located in reshus harabim. One might come to adjust his load on the post, which is an issur d’Oraysa.

2. Chochomim – Each roof is its own reshus each roof is a domain unto – כל אחד ואחד רשות בפני עצמו ,The Chochomim disagree with Rebbe Meir and say itself. Therefore, if the residents below did not join in an eruv, then carrying from one roof to another is forbidden. There is a machlokes Rav and Shmuel regarding carrying on each individual roof. We may not carry on a roof except within four amos. Rashi explains – אין מטלטלין בו אלא ארבע אמות ,Rav says נפרץ במלואו ,that since each roof is entirely open to the other and they do not share an eruv, it is considered .entirely open to an area which is forbidden to it – למקום האסור .It is permitted to carry on the entire roof – מותר לטלטלו בכולו ,Shmuel says when the walls are visible to a ,במחיצות ניכרות The Gemara clarifies that while Rav and Shmuel agree that person standing on the roof and looking down, then each person can carry in the entire roof based on the the wall extending upward. They disagree when the walls are not visible. Rav says we do ,גוד אסיק principle of .in such a case, whereas Shmuel says we do גוד אסיק not apply

3. Rebbe Shimon – All roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs are one reshus אחד ,Continuing in the Mishnah, Rebbe Shimon disagrees with Rebbe Meir and the Chochomim and holds are one – רשות אחת הן לכלים ששבתו לתוכן ,Adjoining roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs – גגות וחצרות ואחד קרפיפות but not in – ולא לכלים ששבתו בתוך הבית ,domain in regard to keilim that began Shabbos in one of those areas regard to keilim that began Shabbos in the house. This means that even if a kli that began Shabbos in the house and was lawfully brought out to an outdoor area, it may not be moved to another outdoor area. This is because the kli retains the status of the reshus in which it began Shabbos.

Rashi explains that Rebbe Shimon is the most lenient opinion in that he holds that all outdoor areas are they are not used regularly and – אין תשמישן תדיר אין בהם חילוק רשות considered one reshus because therefore are not considered separate domains.

Siman – Pot The bochurim who discovered the hidden cholent pot on top of the adjoining roof but were machmir not to carry even dalet amos on their own roof, were overjoyed when they saw their meikel friend pick up the long ladle in the karpaf, run through the chatzeir and up to the roof.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צ – Daf 90 אדכסדרא Walking on a roof and an .1 Rami bar Chama asked a question, but due to his quick mind, he did not formulate it properly. The Gemara What is the halachah regarding – שתי אמות בגג ושתי אמות באכסדרה מהו ,clarifies that his question was carrying an object two amos on the roof and then another two amos on the roof of a portico belonging to someone else? Rashi explains that the portico in question is a karmelis because the roof area which has not חזי been enclosed for residential purposes is greater than two beis se’ah. Do we say that since neither are fit for residence, they are considered one reshus, even though they are owned by different people, or -לדירה do we say that since carrying from one roof to another roof is forbidden according to the Chochomim, because each roof is independently owned, so too here since the roof and the portico are independently .תיקו owned? The Gemara leaves the question as a

2. Rav applies gud asik to the walls surrounding the roof The Gemara brings a machlokes Rav and Shmuel and reconciles it with an earlier machlokes brought on Daf 89a that seems to contradict their opinions here. In a case of adjoining roofs on the same level according to it is mutar to – מותר לטלטל בכולו ,Rebbe Meir, or on a single roof according to the Chochomim, Rav says we may only carry within an area – אין מטלטלין בו אלא בארבע ,carry on the entire roof area, and Shmuel says of four amos.

Rav says it is permitted to carry on the entire roof, which seems to contradict his previous ruling that we do not apply the rule of gud asik to the walls that separate the roofs underneath. Since each roof is completely open to the other roof, he forbids carrying on each roof beyond four amos. The Gemara answers that in the previous case, the wall between one roof and the other was not visible to a person standing on the roof, therefore he does not apply gud asik to that wall. Here, the walls surrounding the roof are visible to a person standing on the roof, therefore gud asik applies to that wall and the roof is considered a single reshus. The Gemara continues with resolving the seemingly contradictory rulings of Shmuel.

3. Carrying in and on a ship In the case of a ship whose area exceeds two beis se’ah, Rav says it is permitted to carry throughout the entire ship and Shmuel says that one may only carry within four amos. The Gemara explains that according there are valid walls enclosing the ship – מחיצתא דהא איכא ,to Rav who permits carrying throughout the ship and these walls are considered to have been made for the use of dwelling within the ship. According to the walls of the ship are – מחיצות להבריח מים עשויות ,Shmuel, one may only carry within four amos because made primarily to keep water out rather than make the ship a suitable place for dwelling.

Rav Gidal said in the name of Rav Chiya bar Yosef that Rav concedes that if the ship were turned upside down on land so that the bottom of its hull is now the roof, he would be restricted to carrying within four amos. The Gemara clarifies that this is referring to a case where the boat was turned upside for tarring. The walls are therefore not for residential use, and the hull is like a karpaf exceeding two beis se’ah. Therefore, it is a karmelis and carrying more than four amos is forbidden.

Siman – Tzedaka Box ,אכסדרא The culprit who stole the tzedakah box and carried it two amos on a roof and then two amos on an and then jumped onto a roof surrounded by invisible walls, got caught when he tripped and fell over onto the top of the hull of a massive upside-down boat that was just in the middle of its annual tarring. The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צא – Daf 91 1. Roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs are each an individual reshus The Mishnah on Daf 89a introduced the three opinions of Rebbe Meir, the Chochomim and Rebbe Shimon regarding carrying on roofs, and in chatzeiros and karpafs. Rav Yehudah said, that upon careful גגין רשות לעצמן חצרות רשות לעצמן קרפיפות רשות ,analysis you will find that according to Rebbe Meir carrying between roofs, or between chatzeiros or between karpafs is permitted when they – לעצמן are owned by different people who did not make an eruv. It is not permitted to carry from one category of reshus to another.

Rashi explains that roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs are not constantly in use and are each considered one reshus. The reason why one may not carry between them is that they are each considered a different .each has a different use and a different name –חלוק תשמיש ושינוי שם הרשות reshus because of

2. Karpafs are different than roofs and chatzeiros Rav Yehudah said that according the Chochomim of our Mishnah, who prohibit carrying between roofs roofs and chatzeiros are one reshus, meaning –גגין וחצירות רשות אחד ,belonging to different owners קרפיפות רשות אחת ,one may carry between roofs and chatzeiros that are owned by different people and karpafs are one reshus, and one may carry from one karpaf to another even if they are - הן owned by different people. But carrying between a karpaf and a chatzeir or roof is forbidden, even if owned by the same person. Rashi explains that one may carry between roofs and chatzeiros because their uses are similar, but one may not carry from a roof or a chatzeir to a karpaf, or vice ,תשמישן שוה .their uses are not similar – שאין תשמישן שוה ,versa

3. The halachah is like Rebbe Shimon In the Mishnah on Daf 89a, Rebbe Shimon stated that roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs are all one reshus והוא in regard to items that began Shabbos in one of them. Rav said the halachah is like Rebbe Shimon provided that the residents of each chatzeir have not joined in an eruv with the residents - שלא עירבו but if they, residents of the chatzeiros have joined in an eruv with –אבל עירבו לא ,of their own chatzeir residents of their own chatzeir, but not with residents of the other chatzeiros then even Rebbe Shimon for–דגזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר ,did not permit carrying from one chatzeir to another we decree this is prohibited for fear that one may come to carry out utensils that began Shabbos in the בין ,house from one chatzeir into another chatzeir. Shmuel and Rebbe Yochanan disagree and say the halachah is like Rebbe Shimon whether or not the residents of each chatzeir–עירבו בין שלא עירבו have joined in an eruv. They were not concerned that people will also carry items that were inside. The Gemara brings several Baraisos which seem to support Rav or Shmuel and Rebbe Yochanan and refutes them all.

(יציאה) Siman – Exit sign The exit sign enthusiast who posted “Do not carry beyond this point” signs between roofs, chatzeiros and karpafs, with bigger signs at karpafs, was dismayed when news broke that the halachah is like Rebbe Shimon, even if the residents of each chatzeir made an eruv.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צב – Daf 92

1. A churvah between two chatzeiros two chatzeiros and a destroyed building - שתי חצרות וחורבה אחת ביניהם ,The Gemara discusses a case of in between, and the members of one chatzeir made an eruv for itself to carry in and out of their houses, and one did not. Rav Huna says that we give the rights to use the churvah on Shabbos to the one which did not make an eruv. The reason that we don’t give it to the ones that made an eruv is because the people who live there might bring things out from their houses to their chatzeir and from there bring them into the churvah.

Chiya bar Rav, on the other hand, says that both chatzeiros are assur to carry to and from the churvah. Rashi explains that because of the concern that the ones who made an eruv will bring things into the chatzeir and then from there into the churvah, we forbid even the people who did not make an eruv to carry into the churvah.

2. A big roof next to a small roof הגדול מותר והקטן אסור ,if a big roof is next to a small roof - גג גדול סמוך לקטן The next Mishnah states that - then the big roof is permitted to carry items onto it from inside the house, and the small one is forbidden to do so. In general, two roofs that are next to each other would forbid each other from carrying onto with an ,גוד אסיק them. However, in this case, the big roof is completely surrounded by a walls based on opening less than ten amos into the small roof. Therefore, the opening is not considered a breach which would thereby connect the two roofs, but rather it is considered a doorway. On the other hand, one is נפרץ forbidden to carry from inside the house onto the small roof, because it only has three walls and is completely open on the fourth side to an area that is forbidden to it, that being the – למקום האסור לה larger roof.

3. Nine people in a large chatzeir making a minyan with one person in a small chatzeir The Gemara mentions other cases that are similar to the Mishnah’s case of large chatzeir that was דיורי גדולה בקטנה ואין דיורי קטנה ,breached into a small one. In all of the cases the Gemara mentions the big chatzeir has power over the small chatzeir and pulls the small chatzeir towards it, whereas - בגדולה the small chatzeir has no power over the big chatzeir, and cannot pull the big chatzeir towards it. For example, if there are nine people in a big chatzeir and one person in an adjacent small one, then since the small chatzeir is “pulled toward” the big one, they combine for a minyan. However, if there are nine people in the small one and one person in the big one, they do not combine since we cannot say that the nine, who are the majority, will be “pulled toward” the one person.

(צב) Siman – Turtle The turtle infestation in the churvah between two chatzeiros where only one made an eruv, caused such concern that the residents carried their meals out on the big roof next to the small roof, while nine residents in the big chatzeir made a minyan with the tenth resident in the small chatzeir next to it.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צג – Daf 93

לא מצינו מחיצה לאיסור .1 On Daf 92b Abaye said that we never find a case where adding mechitzos creates an issur that did not exist when the mechitzah was not there. The Gemara already challenged Abaye’s premise twice on Daf 92b and Do we– ולא מצינו מחיצה לאיסור ,continues to challenge him on this Daf. Rabbah bar Rav Chanan said to Abaye בית ,not find examples of a mechitzah that causes an issur? But it was taught in a Baraisa regarding Kilayim if – גפנים כאן מותר לזרוע כאן ,In a house that is half roofed and half unroofed – שחציו מקורה וחציו אינו מקורה there are vines growing here (i.e. under the roofed part), it is permitted to plant grain or greens here (i.e. under the unroofed part), even without leaving the normally required distance of four amos between the vineyard the edge of the roof - פי תקרה יורד וסותם and the plantings. Rashi explains that we apply the principle of extends downwards and seals, partitioning the vineyard from the plantings.

Rabba bar Rav Chanan concludes his question, that if they had extended the roof so that it covers the entire house, it would be prohibited to plant grain or greens within four amos of the vines. We see from this that In – התם סילוק מחיצות הוא ,adding a roof, which is a form of mechitzah, can cause an issur. Abaye responded this case, one is removing the partition. Meaning, the addition of the second half of the roof is not considered adding a mechitzah, but rather eliminating the mechitzah that had previously covered until the middle of the house and separated the vines from the plantings.

2. A five tefach high chatzeir with a five tefach high wall a chatzeir that is five tefachim higher than a neighboring – גידוד חמשה ומחיצה חמשה Rav Chisda says that chatzeir, and also has a wall that is five tefachim high, is not considered to have a ten tefach high wall, unless the partition consists entirely of elevation or of mechitzah. The Gemara questions this from a Baraisa which states that in the above case, the two adjoining chatzeiros may not have one eruv for both of them. We see do indeed combine to create a ten tefach wall, thereby not גידוד חמשה ומחיצה חמשה from this that the allowing the two chatzeiros to join in one eruv. The Gemara answers that when Rav Chisda said that we do not look at this case as there being a ten tefach wall, he meant this only regarding the top chatzeir, being that one in the top chatzeir only sees the five tefachim of wall, however, regarding the bottom chatzeir, from which ten tefachim of ground and wall can be seen, it is indeed considered a wall. Therefore, the Baraisa states that the two chatzeiros may not have one single eruv.

3. A wall in between chatzeiros that falls on Shabbos residents arriving on Shabbos. Rashi explains that – דיורין הבאין בשבת Rav Hoshaya asks what the law is about the case is that there is a wall in between two chatzeiros which fell on Shabbos. Each chatzeir had its own eruv, but now that the wall fell the two chatzeiros are one large chatzeir containing the residents of both. Rav Hoshaya’s question is if the residents of both chatzeiros are now forbidden to carry being that people who had not joined in their eruv (meaning the residents of the other chatzeir) have now joined them on Shabbos. The Gemara suggests a proof but then refutes it.

Siman – Train chugging along The scenic train tour that passed by the must-see half roofed homes with vines in them, in the chatzeir five tefachim higher than the neighbors with a five-tefach wall, came to a screeching halt when the wall between two chatzeiros suddenly collapsed.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צד – Daf 94

1. A chatzeir which is opened into a reshus harabim a chatzeir- חצר שנפרצה לרשות הרבים The first Mishnah on the Daf states that Rebbe Eliezer holds that which was completely breached into a reshus harabim, or Rashi adds, an area breached more than ten amos wide, then the chatzeir has the halacha of a reshus harabim, and therefore one would be forbidden mid’Oraysa to carry something from his chatzier into a reshus hayachid or from a reshus hayachid into his chatzeir. The Chachomim disagree and hold that his chatzeir has the halacha of a karmelis, and therefore carrying from his chatzeir into a reshus harabim or from a reshus harabim into his chatzeir, is forbidden mi’deRabbanon. The Gemara asks why Rebbe Eliezer would consider the chatzeir a reshus harabim if it is still privately owned and the owner has the right to restrict access and concludes that the machlokes between Rebbe Eliezer and the site of the collapsed wall. Rebbe Eliezer considers the area now ,מקום מחיצה the Chochomim was on the used by the public as a reshus harabim. 2. A chatzeir which two of its walls break open on Shabbos a chatzeir which two of its sides broke - חצר שנפרצה לרה"ר משתי רוחותיה The next Mishnah discusses a case of open into a reshus harabim on Shabbos. Rebbe Yehuda says that it is permitted to carry there throughout that Shabbos, but not on the coming Shabbosim. Rebbe Yose disagrees and says that if it is permitted to carry on that Shabbos then it would be permitted to carry on future Shabbosim, and if it would be forbidden to carry on future Shabbosim then it would be forbidden to carry on this Shabbos as well. (The Gemara explains the words of Rebbe Yose on Daf 95a.)

The Gemara asks why the Mishnah discusses a case of two breached walls, as seemingly the halacha would be the same if only one wall was breached and concludes that the Mishnah is discussing a case where the opening it is opened in the corner of the chatzeir, and the two walls joining - שנפרצה בקרן זוית is ten amos or less, and at the corner are breached. If there was only one opening then we would say that the opening is considered a pesach and the chatzeir is not considered to be opened into the reshus harabim, but if the opening is in the people do not make - דפיתחא בקרן זוית לא עבדי אינשי corner, it cannot be considered a pesach being that doorways in the corner of their chatzeir.

3. An achsadra in a valley a roofed structure with four beams and no walls, standing in – אכסדרה בבקעה The Gemara discusses a case of פי תקרה יורד a valley. Rav holds that it is permitted to carry within the achsadra being that we look at it as if four walls extend downwards from the top ends of the roof, thereby enclosing the area with a - וסותם פי mechitzah. Shmuel holds that one may only carry four amos within this area. He holds that we do not say The Gemara earlier qualified that Shmuel does not hold of this rule only when all four walls) .תקרה יורד וסותם are missing, but he agrees when only three walls are missing that we look at the area as if three walls are extending downwards and creating a mechitzah).

Siman – Hunter The exasperated hunter who missed when the deer ran out through the breached chatzeir and again when it escaped through another chatzeir breached in the corner, ran out of ammunition just as the deer stopped to eat under the achasdra in the valley.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צה – Daf 95 1. Carrying under an upper story if one builds a second story over two –הבונה עלייה על גבי שני בתים ,The last Mishnah in the perek states houses that are on opposite sides of a reshus harabim, one is permitted to carry underneath this upper floor according to Rebbe Yehuda. The Chachomim disagree and say that it is assur to carry there.

Rabbah explains that the reason Rebbe Yehuda permits it is not because he holds that two walls, meaning the פי תקרה יורד וסותם side of each building, are a proper mechitzah mid’Oraysa, but rather because he holds that – we look at the ends of the upper floor as if walls are extending downwards from it. Therefore, there are actually four walls.

Rabbah explained to Abaye that while it is true that it is known from a Baraisa that Rebbe Yehuda holds that two walls create a mechitzah mid’Oraysa, when he had said this is not the reasoning of Rebbe Yehuda, he meant to say that you cannot positively see that from our Mishnah, as Rebbe Yehuda's reasoning in our .פי תקרה יורד וסותם Mishnah may be because he holds that

2. Bringing lost tefillin inside ,one who finds tefillin on Shabbos in a field -המוצא תפילין ,The opening Mishnah of the tenth perek states he - ,מכניסין זוג זוג ,where one is not permitted to carry and where the tefillin are in danger of being destroyed should bring them in pair by pair. Rashi explains that he should put them on as if he is doing the mitzvah one at a time and continue this process until he has brought in all the pairs of tefillin. Rabban Gamliel disagrees and on his arm and bring them into his של יד on his head and two of the של ראש says that one must put two of the house in that manner. The Mishnah adds that one does this on Shabbos if it is clear that these tefillin were real. If they appear to be just kameyas, then one may not carry them on Shabbos in order to save them from desecration.

3. The mitzvah of tefillin on Shabbos The Gemara asks that if Rabban Gamliel holds the reason one is allowed to bring in tefillin by wearing them is then he should only permit wearing one pair of tefillin at a time, and if he holds that ,שבת זמן תפילין הוא that and it is only for the purpose of saving the tefillin that the Rabbanon permitted שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא transporting them in the form of attire, then he should be allowed to wear and transport even more than two however the reason he ,שבת לאו זמן תפילין הוא pair at a time. The Gemara answers that Rabban Gamliel holds cannot wear more than two pairs is that the Rabbanon permitted wearing tefillin in the manner of attire for in the place where tefillin is supposed to be worn. The Gemara concludes that ,במקום תפילין ,saving them there is place on the head for two pairs of tefillin and place on the arm for two pairs to be worn.

Siman – Tzahal tank commander The tank commander parked his tank under the second story over two houses on opposite sides of reshus harabim, when he noticed some tefillin and kameyos in a field and had his crew wear two pairs of the tefillin each to bring back into the houses.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צו – Daf 96

1. Wearing tefillin on Shabbos one is obligated to put – שבת זמן תפילין The Gemara tries to determine who the Tanna is who holds that on tefillin on Shabbos and suggests that is Rebbe Akiva. This is rejected based on a Baraisa that taught, One might think that a person must put on –יכול יניח אדם תפילין בשבתות וימים טובים ,Rebbe Akiva says and it shall be a sign to you - תלמוד לומר "והיה לך לאות על ידך" ,tefillin on Shabbosim and Yomim Tovim יצאו אלו שהן גופן ,On those days that need a sign, tefillin must be worn - מי שצריכין אות .upon your arm and since Yom ,אות but excluded are those days which themselves are a sign. Shabbos is called an –אות .אות Tov is called a Shabbos, it is likewise considered an

2. Women wearing tefillin ,Michal, the daughter of Kushi – מיכל בת כושי היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים .A Baraisa states who Rashi explains is Shaul, would wear tefillin, and the Sages did not protest. The Gemara infers from positive mitzvos that are not –מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא here that since women are only obligated in time bound, and are not obligated in positive mitzvos which are time bound, by the fact that Michal wore tefillin and the Chachamim did not protest, which Rashi explains to mean that they did not see this as if she is adding a mitzvah to the Torah, we see that the mitzvah of tefillin applies at all times. This means that the Tanna of this Baraisa holds that the mitzvah of tefillin also applies at night and on Shabbos, as otherwise it would be a mitzvah with a set time. The Gemara concludes that there is no proof for this, because there is a Tanna, Rebbe Yose, who holds that although women are not obligated to do time-bound mitzvos, they are also not prohibited from doing them. So it may be that the Tanna of this Baraisa holds that tefillin are not worn at night or on Shabbos, and it is therefore a time-bound mitzvah, however Michal was still permitted to wear tefillin if she so chose. 3. Finding Techeilis לשונות פסולות חוטין ,if one finds techeilis in a marketplace – המוצא תכלת מן השוק ,Rebbe Elazar said if the techeilis he finds are strips of wool which is combed and colored, it is passul, and if it is just – כשרין strings then it is kosher. Rashi explains that the reason that coloured wool is passul is because we are it was not colored with the intention of it being for tzitzis, and the – לא צבע לשם ציצית concerned that lack of this intention makes the tzitzis passul. The Gemara asks that in the case where he finds wool strings they too should be passul being that maybe the strings were spun with the intention to make them into clothing. The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Elazar was discussing a case of strings that cut into pieces. People would never go to the bother of reattaching –במופסקין twined and – שזורין were short threads and then weave them onto the border of a garment.

(of the king צווי Siman – Town Crier (A town crier reads the The Town Crier, who proudly proclaimed “Shabbos is an Os, No Tefillin Today”, was shocked when he saw the King’s daughter walk by wearing tefillin, carrying twined threads of techeiles that were cut into pieces that she found in the marketplace.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צז – Daf 97

1. Purchasing tefillin from someone who is not an expert One who purchases many pairs of tefillin –הלוקח תפילין ממי שאינו מומחה ,Rav Chisda said in the name of Rav from someone who is not an expert in the laws of tefillin, which Rashi explains to mean a middleman who He must examine two arm tefillin and –בודק שתים של יד ואחת של ראש ,purchased them from someone else or two head tefillin and one arm tefillin, to determine their –או שתים של ראש ואחת של יד ,one head tefillin validity. The Gemara clarifies that the middleman bought the tefillin from one person and we must establish that the sofer who wrote them is expert in both arm and head tefillin.

Rav Kahana brought a Baraisa that one need only check two tefillin, one arm and one head, and the Gemara a chazakah is established upon the –בתרי זימני הוי חזקה ,answers that the Baraisa follows Rebbe who said occurrence of an act two times. Rebbe concedes that if someone bought several bundles that come from different sofrim, then a chazakah needs to be established for each one.

2. How to transport tefillin from the field The Gemara clarified that according to the Tanna Kamma of the Mishna on Daf 95b regarding finding tefillin then one –מוליכין פחות פחות מארבע אמות ,highwaymen ,סכנת ליסטים in the field, if the danger is posed by נותנן לחבירו ,should transport all the tefillin by walking less than four amos at a time. Rebbe Shimon says one should pass the tefillin from person to person until one reaches the city. The Gemara –וחבירו לחבירו explains that the Tanna Kamma holds walking less than four amos is preferable since with the method of the matter of disrespect for Shabbos is needlessly –אוושא מלתא דשבת ,passing from one person to another publicized. Rebbe Shimon holds it is preferable to pass from one person to the next since there is concern with the method of walking less than four amos, that one might not realize and come to carry four amos in reshus harabim.

3. Transporting a barrel of water beyond the techum a person may give a–נותן אדם חבית ,It was stated in the Mishnah on Daf 95b, that Rebbe Yehudah said barrel containing water to his friend, and his friend to his friend, even if the barrel is transported beyond the owner’s techum. The Gemara asked if Rebbe Yehudah does not accept what was learned in a Mishnah in Animals and keilim are as the feet of their owners, meaning they may –הבהמה והכלים כרגלי הבעלים ,Beitzah not be carried beyond where their owners may go? After the first answer was rejected, Rava answered that the Mishnah was dealing with a barrel that acquired its makom shevisa and techum of the owner, but the water had not since it was drawn from a spring or river on Shabbos or Yomtov. Transporting the barrel since the legal significance of the barrel is –דבטלה חבית לגבי המים ,beyond the techum is not problematic negated vis-à-vis the water. The barrel is tafel to the water. A third answer is also provided.

Siman – Chess master The confused chess master who had just purchased tefillin from a non-expert, was told to take three steps at a time and keep stopping, and to ignore the long line of people passing a barrel of freshly drawn water.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צח – Daf 98

1. Reading a scroll on a threshold If one was – היה קורא בספר על האיסקופה ונתגלגל הספר מידו ,The Mishnah on the bottom of 97b stated reading a scroll on a threshold, and one end of the scroll rolled from his hand and landed in reshus harabim What is the case of – האי אוסקופה היכי דמי ,he may roll it in to himself. The Gemara asks – גוללו אצלו ,below the threshold?

The Gemara suggests the threshold is a reshus hayachid, it is four by four tefachim wide and ten tefachim high, and the sefer rolled into the reshus harabim in front of it. Even though there is concern that the scroll might fall out of his hands into the reshus harabim and he might come to bring it from the reshus harabim back onto the threshold, we are not gozier a d’Rabbanon, because Rav Yehudah says the reisha of the כל דבר שהוא משום שבות אינו עומד בפני כתבי הקדש ,Mishnah reflects the opinion of Rebbe Shimon who holds – no law which is only of Rabbinic origin stands in the way of treating kisvei hakodesh with their due respect. The Gemara brings two more approaches.

2. Reading a scroll on a roof If one was reading a scroll on a – היה קורא בראש הגג ונתגלגל הספר מידו ,The next case in the Mishnah stated if it reached to within משהגיע לעשרה טפחים הופכו על הכתב – ,roof and it rolled into reshus harabim below ten tefachim of the ground, he may not roll it in; rather he should turn it over on its written side so that the lettering is not exposed and leave it there until after Shabbos.

The Gemara asks if it is permitted to turn Kisvei HaKodesh over on their written side based on a Baraisa that Those who write sifrei Torah, tefillin and mezuzos are not allowed to turn – כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ,taught but rather one should – אלא פורס עליה את הבגד ,the parchment face down to protect the lettering from dust spread a garment over it. The Gemara answers that the Baraisa is talking about where it is possible to cover the written side with a garment but in the Mishna’s case it is not possible since it would require a very large there will be greater – איכא בזיון כבתי הקדש טפי ,garment, and if he does not turn it over on its written side disgrace to the kisvei hakodesh than if he were to turn it over and conceal the writing.

3. Putting things on a ledge If there were a ledge four tefachim – זיז שלפני חלון נותנין עליו ונוטלין ממנו בשבת ,The next Mishnah states wide and ten tefachim off the ground, in front of a window, one who is in the building may put things on it was extending into. If it זיז and remove things from it on Shabbos. The Gemara asks what type of reshus the was a reshus harabim, there should be a concern that something might fall off the ledge and someone might come to bring it back into the reshus hayachid. Abaye answers that ledge is extending into reshus harabim breakable utensils, such as earthenware or glass. Since – כלים הנשברים and the Mishnah was referring to they will break if they fall off, there is no concern that someone will retrieve them.

(צחוק) Siman – Clowns and the other read up איסקופא The circus clowns did their silly unravelling scroll routine while one sat on an on the roof, as the third clown kept dropping his glass utensils that he put out on the window ledge.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף צט – Daf 99

1. Urinating or spitting from one reshus to another A person – לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד וישתין ברשות הרבים ,The Mishnah on the bottom of 98b stated ברשות הרבים וישתין ברשות היחיד ,may not stand in a reshus hayachid and urinate into a reshus harabim and similarly, one may – וכן לא ירוק ,or stand in a reshus harabim and urinate into a reshus hayachid – not spit from one reshus to another.

One who did urinate or spit from one reshus to – השתין ורק חייב חטאת ,On this Daf Rav Yosef said והא בעינן עקירה והנחה מעל גבי ,another is chayav a chatas. The Gemara challenged Rav Yosef’s ruling But in regards to hotza’ah we require that akirah and hanachah be performed on an – מקום ארבעה וליכא area that is four tefachim square, which is a significant area and therefore in this case where it is not מחשבתו משויא ,coming from a place that is four tefachim, there is no act of akirah. The Gemara answers His intent makes it a significant area. Meaning, that since he intended that this object leave – ליה מקום this particular place, this place becomes significant, and therefore his action of akirah is considered a halachic act of akira. 2. A talmid who coughs up phlegm in the presence of his Rebbe One who coughs up phlegm in the presence of his Rebbe is – כיח בפני רבו חייב מיתה ,Reish Lakish said [All those who hate me [the Torah – כל משנאי אהבו מות ,liable to death at the hands of Heaven, as it says ,rather – אלא למשניאי ,Do not read it as it is written, those who hate me – אל תקרי למשנאי .love death those who cause others to hate me. If a talmid acts in such a vulgar manner, he will cause people to hate Hashem. The Gemara clarifies that we are discussing someone who coughed up phlegm and spat it out in front of his teacher when he could have turned aside or coughed up the phlegm into a cloth.

3. Drinking from a gutter that is less than three tefachim from the roof of the building apersonstanding in a reshus harabim- קולט אדם מן המזחילה למטה מי' טפחים ,The next Mishnah states may hold up a vessel in the air and catch water that is falling from a gutter which is lower than ten catching – קולט אין אבל מצרף לא ,tefachim from the ground. The Gemara says that the Mishnah implies the water in mid-air as it falls from the gutter is permitted but pressing one’s mouth or a vessel to the הכא במזחילה ,gutter is not. The Gemara asks why the latter is forbidden and Rav Nachman answers We are dealing here with a gutter that is less than three tefachim from - פחות משלשה סמוך לגג עסקינן and anything less than three tefachim from – דכל פחות משלשה סמוך לגג כגג דמי ,the roof of the building the roof has the status of the roof itself, based on lavud. Therefore, anyone who takes directly from the gutter while standing in reshus harabim is chayav for transferring from a reshus hayachid to reshus harabim.

Siman – Cheetah While one cheetah chased an unseemly talmid who spat from reshus hayachid into reshus harabim right in front of his Rebbe, a second one pursued his friend who drank water directly from the gutter less than three tefachim from the roof.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף ק – Daf 100

1. Making use of a root that protrudes upwards then bends downwards שרשיו גבוהים מן הארץ ,It was stated in the Mishnah on the bottom of Daf 99b pertaining to a tree If its roots protrude upwards out of the ground to a height of three – שלשה טפחים לא ישב עליהן tefachim above the ground one may not sit on them.

On this Daf there is a machlokes in a case of roots of a tree that protrude upwards and then bend downwards from above three to within tree tefachim of the ground, whether one can make use of the מותר להשתמש בהם ,part of each root which drops to within three tefachim of the ground. Rabbah says because anything less than – דכל פחות משלשה דארעא ארעא היא ,It is permitted to make use of them – אסור ,three tefachim above the ground is halachically regarded as ground. Rav Sheishess says since they emanate – דכיון דמכח איסור קאתי אסורין ,It is forbidden to make use of them – להשמתמש בהן from a prohibited section, meaning the part of the root which is above three tefachim, they too are prohibited.

2. Chava was cursed with ten curses As part of a larger discussion whether it is meritorious for a woman to petition her husband and עשר ,request marital relations, the Gemara brings a statement from Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi who said Chava was cursed with ten curses, but he only mentions seven. When Rav Dimi – קללות נתקללה חוה she is wrapped – עטופה כאבל ,came from Eretz Yisroel to Bavel he said that the other three curses were up like a mourner, which Rashi explains that she is embarrassed to go out with her head exposed. She is cut off from all people, which the Gemara explains to mean that she is – מנודה מכל אדם וחבושה בבית .prohibited from marrying two men, whereas a man is permitted to marry two women The entire – כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ,and she is confined to a prison. Rashi cites the passuk – האסורין honor of a king’s daughter is inside. A princess does not go out and mingle with the common folk. Even though this is her dignity, it still constitutes a limitation on her freedom.

3. What we learn from cats, ants, doves and roosters Had the Torah not been given – אילמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול ,Rebbe Yochanan said ועריות ,and not to commit theft from an ant – וגזל מנמלה ,we would have learned modesty from a cat and the proper – דרך ארץ מתרנגול שמפייס ואחר כך בועל ,not to commit adultery from a dove – מיונה conduct for marital relations from a rooster, which first appeases its mate and then has relations with it. Rashi explains that a cat does not defecate in the presence of people and it covers its excrement, ants store in the summer what they will require in the winter and no ant steals the food of another, and a dove has relations only with its partner.

Siman – Monkey The curious monkey sitting on the roots of a tree protruding upward then bending downwards, wrapped his head like a mourner and performed his antics in front of a modest cat, an honest ant, a dove and a rooster.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף קא – Daf 101

1. Closing irregular doors and a bundle of thorns – וחדקים שבפרצה ,The door to a backyard – הדלת שבמוקצה ,The next Mishnah states and reed mats, even if these irregular doors are tied to the – ומחצלות ,that is placed in a gap in the wall אלא אם כן גבוהים מן הארץ ,one may not close the entranceway with them on Shabbos – אין נועלין בהן ,doorway – unless they are suspended above the ground. Rashi explains that it is prohibited to place them in position because of the melocho of boneh and adds that even if they are hanging, if they are touching the floor it is still .it appears like boneh – מחזי כבונה forbidden mid’Rabbanon because of

2. The din of Yerushalayim before and after the walls were breached In the next Mishnah, Rebbe Meir prohibited a person standing in reshus harabim from picking up a key in a reshus hayachid to unlock a door in a reshus hayachid, unless he made a mechitzah ten tefachim high to convert the area in which he stands to a reshus hayachid. The Chochomim challenged Rebbe Meir with an incident in the butcher’s market in Yerushalayim where people would lock their stores while they were standing in the street and leave the key on a windowsill above the door, and the windowsill had the dimensions of a reshus hayachid. This proves that it is permissible to handle a key in a reshus hayachid while standing in the reshus harabim.

The Gemara asks on the question that the Chochomim asked Rebbe Eliezer, that their proof is irrelevant to Rebbe Meir’s position since Yerushalayim has the din of a karmelis, as Rabbah bar bar Chanah said in the name Yerushalayim, if it – ירושלים אלמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים ,of Rebbe Yochanan were not that its doors were closed at night one would be liable for carrying in a reshus harabim. Rav Pappa Rebbe Yochanan’s statement – כאן קודם שנפרצו בה פרצות כאן לאחר שנפרצו בה פרצות ,answered and explained was referring to the status of Yerushalayim before breaches were made in its walls, whereas the Mishnah was referring to an incident that took place after breaches were made in its walls, giving Yerushalayim the status of a reshus harabim.

3. A bolt with a knob at its end A bolt that is pushed into a hole on the bottom of a – נגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא ,The next Mishnah states doorway in order to be able to close the door, that has a knob on its end, and can now be used as an instrument to crush pepper, Rebbe Eliezer prohibits its use, and Rebbe Yose permits it. The Gemara explains, If the bolt is attached and hanging by a cord, everyone agrees that it is permitted to use it – בניטל באגדו because it is clear that it is being used as a bolt and does not give the appearance of boneh. If it cannot be lifted by its cord because the cord will break, Rebbe Yose holds that it can still be used because since there is a .the status of a kli and will not be misconstrued as an act of boneh – תורת כלי עליו ,knob on the end of it, it has Rebbe Eliezer holds that since the bolt cannot be picked up by the cord, it is viewed as unattached and therefore can be construed as an act of boneh.

Siman – Bird caller going caw caw The bird caller who appeared from behind the hanging reed mat door dragging on the floor, put his key to his bird shop on his windowsill next to the butcher shop, and used a bolt with a knob on its end to keep the door shut.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף קב – Daf 102

1. How to create shade for rams on Shabbos הנהו דכרי דהוו .The Gemara brings several teachings of the d’Rabbanon issur of building a temporary ohel Rav Huna had some rams that required shade from the sun in the daytime and required – ליה לרב הונא fresh air at night. During the week, mats were spread over their pen by day to provide shade and were removed at night to provide ventilation. Rav Huna came before Rav and asked him how he should give the rams shade on Shabbos day without creating an ohel. Rav answered that when he wants to expose go and roll up the mat but leave one – זיל כרוך בודייא ושייר בה טפח ,the pen before dusk erev Shabbos then the following day, on Shabbos, unroll it. He explained that since the – למחר פשטה ,tefach spread out מוסיף על ,mat was already spread out a tefach before Shabbos, one who unrolls the rest of it on Shabbos .is only adding to an already existing temporary structure, and that is permitted – אהל עראי הוא ושפיר דמי

2. Reinserting pivots מחזירין ציר התחתון במקדש אבל לא ,The second Mishnah on the Daf states according to the Tanna Kamma One may reinsert a bottom pivot in the Beis Hamikdash but not in the provinces, and the top – במדינה pivot may not be reinserted neither in the provinces nor in the Beis Hamikdash. The Gemara clarifies that replacing the lower pivot is an issur d’Rabbanon out of concern that one will hammer it in. There is a rule The Rabbanon suspended their decrees when they interfere with the avodah in - אין שבות במקדש that the Beis Hamikdash. Replacing the upper pivot, however, which makes the door functional, is an issur ,Building with keilim is the melocho of boneh – יש בנין בכלים ,d’Oraysa since the Tanna Kamma holds therefore, it is assur even in the Beis Hamikdash.

Rebbe Yehuda says that even the top pivot may be reinserted in the Beis Hamidkash since he holds that it is only an issur d’Rabbanon, and therefore it is permitted in the Beis Hamikdash, and he אין בנין בכלים holds that the lower pivot is mutar even outside the Beis Hamikdosh.

3. A Kohen replacing a bandage with dressing after doing the avodah The next Mishnah deals with a Kohen with a wound who deliberately removed a bandage with the dressing to perform the avodah so that it would not constitute a chatzitzah, and now he wishes to replace One may replace a dressing in the Beis Hamikdosh for the sake of avodah, but – מחזירין רטיה במקדש .it not in the provinces as that would be an issur d’Rabbanon. Rashi explains that the Rabbanon were concerned that one may commit the melachah of smoothing out the dressing. Even though replacing the dressing is normally forbidden even in the Beis Hamikdosh, the Rabbanon granted a special dispensation. They were concerned that if the Kohen would not be allowed to replace the dressing after doing the avodah, he would choose to keep the bandage on and refrain from doing the avodah.

Siman – Caveman The careless caveman herding rams into a covered pen, knocked the door off its bottom pivot, injuring the Kohen shepherd who needed to be bandaged up the day before he was scheduled to do the avodah.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף קג – Daf 103

1. Cutting off warts from an animal – חותכין יבלת במקדש אבל לא במדינה ,The Gemara notes a contradiction between the next Mishnah which states One may sever a wart from an animal with one’s hand in the Beis Hamikdash but not in the provinces, and the Tanna Kamma of a Mishnah in Pesachim regarding a korban Pesach on erev Pesach that falls on Shabbos that says, ,carrying it to the Beis Hamikdash via a reshus harabim –הרכיבתו והבאתו מחוץ לתחום וחתיכת יבלתו אין דוחין bringing it from outside the techum, and cutting off its wart, do not override Shabbos.

Rebbe Elazar and Rebbe Yose b’Rebbe Chanina presented two different answers. One said that both Mishnayos are referring to a moist wart, but in our Mishnah it was removed by hand, which is permitted in the Beis Hamikdash since it is an unusual method and therefore only a d’Rabbanon, whereas in the Mishnah in Pesachim it was removed by a kli which is assur mid’Oraysa. The other one answered that both Mishnayos were referring to a case where the wart was removed by hand, but in the Mishnah from Pesachim the wart was moist and, in the Mishnah here the wart was dry. A dry wart is no longer a part of a living animal and even removal with a kli is not assur mid’Oraysa. Our Mishnah forbids doing so because it bears a strong relationship to a melachah and therefore was treated more stringently than other d’Rabbanons in the Beis Hamikdash.

שבות במקדש התירו שבות דמקדש במדינה לא התירו .2 Rav Yosef suggested that the two Mishnayos refer to the removal of a moist wart by hand, which is a d’Rabbanon, and Rabbinic prohibitions that stand in the way of Beis Hamikdash procedures, were – ושבות מקדש במקדש התירו rabbinic prohibitions that stand in – שבות דמקדש במדינה לא התירו permitted only inside the Beis Hamikdash, but the way of Beis Hamikdash procedures, were not permitted in the provinces. Therefore, the removal of the wart of the korban Pesach that was examined outside the Beis Hamikdash was not permitted.

Rav Safra rejected this answer because in a Mishnah in Pesachim in which we allow putting a korban Pesach in the an issur– שבות מקדש במדינה even though it is a ,שהייה oven erev Shabbos in violation of the issur d’Rabbanonof d’Rabbanon that is for the purpose of a korban that is performed outside the Beis Hamikdash.

3. Wrapping reed-grass on a wounded finger כורך עליה גמי במקדש אבל ,A Kohen who was wounded in his finger – כהן שלקה באצבעו ,The next Mishnah states may wrap reed-grass over it in the Beis Hamikdash but not in the provinces. Rashi explains that placing – לא במדינה the reed-grass on the wound has a healing effect and is therefore included in the d’Rabbanon prohibition of medical procedures.

a – צלצול קטן Rav Yehudah brei d’Rebbe Chiya explained the Mishnah that only reed-grass is mutar, but using a an addition to the bigdei kehunah. Rebbe Yochanan said – יתור בגדים ,small belt, is forbidden because it constitutes in the place of bigadim, but since - במקום בגדים that additional bigadim only invalidate the avodah when they are this is worn on the finger it does not constitute an addition.

Siman – Yerushalmi Kugel The famed Yerushalmi Kugel slicer who was also known to cut moist warts and dry warts by hand off a korban in the Beis Hamikdash but never outside, cut his finger one time and needed to bandage it with reed-grass.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף קד – Daf 104 1. Scattering salt on the ramp of the mizbeyach One may break up salt and scatter it – בוזקין מלח על גבי כבש בשביל שלא יחליקו ,The next Mishnah states on the ramp of the mizbeyach, so that the Kohanim do not slip on it when it is wet from the rain. Rav If the – אי דמבטליה קא מוסיף אבנין ?Acha brei d’Rava said to Rav Ashi, in what way was the salt scattered one who scatters it intends to abandon it there permanently, he is adding to the construction of the It, referring to – הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל ,mizbeyach, and this is forbidden as Dovid Hamelech stated the specifications within the Beis Hamikdash, is all in writing, as it was elucidated to me from the hand of Hashem. And if he does not intend to abandon the salt permanently, it will constitute a chatzitzah between the feet of the Kohanim and the mizbeyach which will invalidate the avodah? בהולכת עצים למערכה ,After an initial answer is rejected, the Gemara explains that the salt was scattered for the purpose of bringing wood up the ramp of the mizbeyach, which is not an – דלאו עבודה היא avodah.

2. Banning sounds of a musical nature Ulla went to the home of Rav Menasheh on Shabbos and when someone knocked on the door Ulla said the person knocking should have his body desecrated because he was mechallel Shabbos. He was of the opinion that it is forbidden to produce any type of sound on Shabbos, even of a non-musical nature. The Rabbanon did not ban every type of sound, only – לא אסרו אלא קול של שיר ,Rabbah said to Ulla sounds of a musical nature. The Gemara brings several challenges to Rabbah’s opinion but each one is refuted.

3. How to remove a sheretz from the Beis Hamikdosh שרץ שנמצא ,The last Mishnah of the Masechta states that according to Rebbe Yochanan ben Berokah a – כהן מוציאו בהמיינו שלא לשהות את הטומאה ,If a sheretz was found in the Beis Hamikdash – במקדש Kohen must remove it with his sash so as not to prolong the presence of tumah in the Beis Hamikdosh. Rashi explains that it is better to remove the tumah quickly even though this will make the sash, which is He must remove it with – בצבת של עץ שלא לרבות את הטומאה ,kadosh, tamei. Rebbe Yehudah says wooden tongs, so as not to increase the tumah. Rashi explains that Rebbe Yehudah holds that the main consideration is to contain the tumah, therefore, it is better to take time to find wooden tongs to remove the sheretz, because a wooden utensil without a receptacle is not mekabel tumah.

Siman – Code The Kohen who figured out the code in the sprinkled salt on the ramp of the mizbeyach, ran to a special door, knocked three times, and was handed a pair of wooden tongs to remove a dead sheretz from the Beis Hamikdash.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program Eruvin - Simanim דף קה – Daf 105

Who takes precedence to build, make repairs and remove tumah? Anyone may enter the Heichal to – הכל נכנסין בהיכל לבנות לתקן ולהוציא את הטומאה ,It was taught in a Baraisa ,but preferably Kohanim should do these tasks – ומצוה בכהנים ,build, to make repairs, and to remove tumah אין שם לוים נכנסין ישראלים ,if there are no Kohanim then even Leviim may enter – אם אין שם כהנים נכנסין לוים tahor people – טהורין אין טמאין לא ,if there are no Leviim then even Yisroelim may enter. The Gemara infers – may enter, but tamei people should not. Therefore, a tahor Yisroel is better than a tamei Kohen.

Rav Huna said that Rav Kahana “helped” the Kohanim, for he had a Baraisa, that taught that a tamei Kohen is It is preferable that unblemished Kohanim enter to perform – מצוה בתמימים .better than a tahor Yisroel if there are no unblemished Kohanim then even blemished Kohanim – אין שם תמימים נכנסין בעלי מומין ,repairs אין שם טהורין נכנסין טמאין ,It is a mitzvah that tahor Kohanim enter to do repairs – מצוה בטהורין ,should enter – if there are no tahor Kohanim then even tamei Kohanim may enter. The Gemara infers that since the Baraisa .Kohanim may enter but Yisroelim may not – כהנים אין ישראלים לא ,did not mention Yisroelim

טמא או בעל מום .2 If only a tamei Kohen and a blemished Kohen are – טמא ובעל מום איזו מהן נכנס ,The Gemara inquired available, which one should enter the Heichal to do repairs? The tamei Kohen – טמא נכנס דהא אישתרי בעבודת ציבור ,Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav - should enter since he is permitted to perform community karbonos when the majority of Kohanim are .may never bring a korban בעל מום tamei, whereas a should enter for he can eat בעל מום the – בעל מום נכנס דהא אישתרי באכילת קדשים ,Rebbe Elazar said - from korbanos, whereas a tamei Kohen may not eat from them.

משלך נתנו לך .3 Where the – מקום שהתירו לך חכמים משלך נתנו לך ,In the Mishnah on Daf 104b, Rebbe Shimon said Chochomim granted you a dispensation, they merely gave you what is rightfully yours. The Gemara asks what Rebbe Shimon was referring to and answers, that he was referring back to the ruling he gave in the Mishnah on Daf 52b regarding one who is overtaken by darkness while he is still outside the techum of even if he is fifteen amos away from – אפילו חמש עשרה אמה יכנס ,his destination. Rebbe Shimon said for the – לפי שאין המשוחות ממצעין את המדות מפני הטועים ,the city’s techum boundary, he may enter surveyors who place the markers to delineate the city’s techum do not give full measure because of those who err. Rebbe Shimon is clarifying that this is not a leniency in the restriction of techum, but rather we are allowing him to use what is rightfully his anyway, since those extra fifteen amos are actually within 2,000 amos of the city.

Siman – Russian Hacker The Russian hacker trying to break into the Temple software to figure out who gets precedence in and ,בעל מום making repairs, was stumped when it came to the question of a tamei Kohen vs. a Kohen then it suddenly became dark as he sat fifteen amos away from the city’s techum.

The Zichru Masechta Eruvin Program