?''? ? daf yomi summary parashat 5781 ?? - ?? ??????? EDITIO N: 38

that Beis Shamai view ???? as a form of two-way transaction THE LO MDUS O F ?BITTUL RESHUS? whereby the non-participants give over their ?authority? over the courtyard to the participants, effectively leaving the courtyard owned THANKS TO YO NI ISAACSO N in its entirety by the participants and making the eruv effective. YO NIISAACSO N.CO M Seeing as such transactions are forbidden on shabbos, it may not be The main theme of this daf relates to the concept of ??? ? ???? performed on shabbos. and how and when it applies. We have mentioned before that the In contrast, Beis Hillel view this as simply ???? (removing oneself mechanism of choice for multiple inhabitants of one courtyard is to from authority), a one-way mechanism that achieves the goal of make an ????? ?????, whereby food is set aside on behalf of making the courtyard owned solely by the participants due to his everyone in one of the houses, symbolically joining them all into share being irrelevant, rather than owned by them. Such an residents of the same domain. arrangement is permitted on Shabbos and, at first glance, it might This is, of course, a symbolic mechanism which does not in any appear to be a form of ???? - declaring one?s property to be way affect the actual ownership of the houses and shared ownerless: once his share of the courtyard is ownerless, the others courtyards, and serves merely as a reminder not to carry from a remain its sole owners and their eruv is valid. However, there are private domain to a public domain. were concerned enough limitations that apply to the rules of ???? that do not seem to apply about this issue that they prohibited carrying from one private here. For example: domain to another owned by different people in the absence of such i. Hefker needs to be declared in front of three people (Nedarim an eruv. This eruv can only be made before Shabbos, as doing it on 45a), yet one person can be ??? ? ???? to 2 people, and there is no Shabbos resembles ????? ??? (commercial activity). If one or more indication here that someone else needs to be present (Tosfos deals of the inhabitants did not participate in the eruv before shabbos, the with this issue in Pesachim 4b) eruv is essentially ineffective. ii. According to the view that one needs to be ??? ? ???? to each This is because although all those who participate in the eruv are one of the owners who were included in the eruv, simply making considered as if they share each other?s houses as well as their share one?s share ???? is clearly not enough in the common courtyard, the courtyard is also owned by those who iii. Hefker removes all legal connection between oneself and the did not participate and therefore subject to different ownership than object, to the point that anyone else can perform a ???? the houses of the participants. This means that no one can transfer (transactional act) on it and acquire it. In addition, the person who items between their houses and the common courtyard or vice versa. declared it ???? would need to perform an official ???? in order to One solution available is the mechanism of ??? ? ???? , also referred reaquire it - doing so in one?s mind would not do the trick. In this to in the M ishna as ??? ? ????? . The relationship between these two case, there does not appear to be any ability on the part of those phrases requires analysis in its own right - for one approach, see who benefit from this ???? to take legal ownership of the property, Rambam Pirush haM ishnayos Eruvin 6/1, 6/3 and 6/4 who seems to but the benefit is limited to symbolic permission to carry within the understand that ??? ? ????? sometimes refers to making the eruv, area ?as if? they owned it. Furthermore, it does not seem that a and sometimes refers to ??? ? ????. Whereas the phrase ??? ? ???? legally valid ???? needs to be made by the original owner in order to seems to indicate a one-way mechanism by which the owner cancel this ????. removes himself from ownership, control or some other connection to his share in the courtyard (or possibly also his house), the phrase iv. It is not at all clear that declaring something ???? on Shabbos is ??? ? ????? seems to indicate a two-way mechanism similar to a gift permitted, as the Ramban points out (Pesachim 4a) it could be where the owner ?gives over? one of the above, at least symbolically, included in the general prohibition of commerce. to the other inhabitants. The concept of ???? can be found in various other areas of There is a debate between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to halacha, for example: ? whether this may be done on Shabbos, and the Gemara explains 1. ??? ???? - one is required to declare any chametz left in one?s ? ? S ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 A ? ? 1 3 0 1 6 ? 0 3 ? 1 4 6 ? 5 6 7 2 7 ? ? 1 5 ? 1 2 ? 4 5 2 3 6 5 6 ? ? 0 0 4 ? 3 ? ? ? ? 1 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ? ?

? 1 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 ? 2 2 H ? ? ? 2 2

? ? 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? 2 ? ? 2 ? ?

0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? 2 2 0 0 0 ? 0 0 S ? 0 0 0 0 8 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? 2 ? ? ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 2 ? ? 2 2 2 ? ? ? A

? ? 2 2 ? 2 2 2

? ? ? 2 2

?

? 2 2 2 2

? ?

? ?

? ? 2 2

? ? ? ? ? ?

?

? 2

2

? ?

? ? ?

? ?

?

? ? ? ? 2 2

?

? ?

? ? ) ? 8 ? ) r

? 3 1

? 3 4 9

? ? ? 1 4 5 9 6

) ? H 6 0 1 4 0 3 0 1 7 ?

)

? ? ? ? ) ) ) 7 0

) 4 5 3

? 3 2 ?

) )

8 9 1 ) ? 4 )

) ) ) ) ? 2 3

?

?

) ) 7 )

5

)

) 1 a 1 6

)

2 3 ) ) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 )

5 ? 9 8 1 2

1 ? 2 2 1 1 ) ) 1 2 ) 7 )

1 9

2 2 2 9 1 2 ? 1

) )

9

9 3

5

8 3

4 0 ?

) r r r

y y 1 6

v 0 ? 0 1 4 5 3 3 6 l l )

3 6 ) M p p r r 2 1 1 8 y 7 t t 2 8

7 ) v v v 1 n r r c c c 1 n 8 0 g g 3 M 2 5 4 3 ) 0 2 ( a a a p p n 8 b b a a 1 ( 2 ( ) ( n n 9 o 3 n n n 3 1 1 6 ( 1 3 ( 8 ( 3 u u ( ( c c 5 a a e e 1

6 a 2 2 ( 1 8 1 e e e o o o a ( 8 ( 4 U u ( ( p p ( 1 ( ( ( u u J J 5 ( 1 1 a e e 1 e e ( ( 1 ( ( 4 J a a a ( ( J u u (

( 2

S S J 7 ( ( N 1 M M M

( M M 1 J J J

J J Y

O O A A ( F F S S 7 D D D A A 1 N N N M M (

M 3 I

( 1

( 1 (

(

( S

?''? ? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? 2 | DAF YOMI SUMMARY

possession before midday on erev Pesach is ?nullified like the dust of entire body would shake from Rav Hisda?s sharp analyses." Rav the earth.? According to Rashi (Pesachim 4b) this seems to be a way had a prodigious memory, perhaps due to his blindness. He of fulfilling the mitzva of ????? ? (removing chametz from one?s could answer any question by referring to a M ishna or a baraita. Rav possession), and Tosfos seem to understand that it is a form of ???? Hisda was known for his logical reasoning. Some read this passage as that creates a situation where that mitzva is simply not relevant saying the two scholars ?feared? each other?s Talmudic talents(see anymore ? Rashi on this passage). I prefer a different reading; they were in awe of each other. 2. ?"? ???? - an item of idolatry may become permitted if it is nullified by the idol-worshipper - this can done by breaking part of it, That the two scholars held each other in high regard is highlighted possibly a sign of its lack of importance to the owner (see A.Z. 52b.) in M egilla 28b. With reference to a public eulogy the text reads, ?Rav ? isda depicted a case: For example, a eulogy for a Torah scholar at Though all 3 usages of this phrase seem to share the idea that one which Rav Sheshet is present. Owing to his presence, many people is declaring or showing that the item is no longer of importance to will come. Rav Sheshet himself depicted another case: For example, a him, there is no need to assume that the ?lomdus? (logical eulogy at which Rav ? isda is present.? This relationship brings the mechanism) in all three is similar. It is very possible that ??? ???? is a opening of Psalm 133 to mind: ?How good it is when brothers sit in real form of ???? which ??? ????? ???? is certainly not, and that togetherness.? ??? ? ???? is something completely different. After all, the phrase ???? is also used regarding ???? ???? (wasting time when Torah Would that all of us - in our study and in our daily encounters - have could have been studied) and ?? ? ???? (avoiding performing a such awe and respect for each other. So that we merit the closing positive mitzva), and none of them have anything to do with ???? or words of that same psalm ? that HaShem will command for us ownership. M ore specifically, whereas ??? ???? and ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? - blessing and everlasting life. seem to work on a biblical level to avoid the prohibitions of owning chametz on Pesach or an item of idolatry, ??? ? ???? is a rabbinical FRIDAY 16 O CTO BER ?? ??????? measure which might simply be meant to have a similar symbolic THANKS TO SHULIE MISHKIN effect to that of the eruv.

However, there are views in the , principally that of the .????? ? ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? :?? ?? ?? ??? Ramban (Pesachim 4b), who seem (at least at first glance) to assume ??? ???? ?? ,????? ?????? ??? ! ??? ????? ?? :???? ?? ??? ??? that all three work on a similar mechanism and thus attempt to leave ! ??????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????,????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? out of the discussion altogether. Although a thorough analysis of the various views as to how these different instances of ???? work ! ?? ????? '???'? '????' ! ?????? ???? :?? ?? ?? ??? is still required, it is clear that whatever explanation is offered will ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ,?????? ????? :??? ????? ? need to pass the test of the different rules Chazal prescribed for each .??????? of them, in the absence of some other ?external? explanation for the rule in question. The topic is vast - I have barely scratched the surface ?Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi teaches that if there were of the many sugyas and mefarshim that relate to the topic. three they are prohibited from carrying without an eiruv. Rav Beivai said to the Sages: Do not listen to him, as he is mistaken. I told it to In loving memory of Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva College, South Africa, him, and I told it to him in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava, not M oreinu haRav Avraham Tanzer of blessed memory. These posts are Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but due to his illness, Rav Yosef forgot this intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion detail. When he heard this, Rav Yosef said in astonishment: M aster of on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as Abraham! I mistook the word Rabbi for the word many [rabbim].? psak halacha. (Eruvin 75)

On this page of Eruvin we have a story that seems commonplace THURSDAY 15 O CTO BER ?? ??????? enough. Rav Yosef presents a law in the name of Rabbi Judah the THANKS TO ART GO ULD - HADRAN Prince: Rebbe, but it seems he has misheard and it is not Rebbe but rabbim, many. M ishearing something or even misremembering it is a Our daf is full of detailed eruv cases; inner/outer courtyards, common occurrence and we would not have thought much of it changed circumstances on , auxiliary entrances, rocks in the except that Rashi explains: sea, spilled bris-water on Shabbat and lastly an important general rule. In situations involving Torah law, questions are resolved before ???? ???? ????? ? ? ?When I forgot the matter in my illness? action is taken. Regarding rabbinic laws, action precedes resolution of It seems Rav Yosef had been sick and due to his illness, he forgot questions. much of what he had taught. The story gets sadder but before we For me, this introduction to two of our cases is the most compelling dive into it, let us understand who was Rav Yosef. passage in the daf. Rav Yosef bar Hiyya was a third-generation Amora in Babylonia (late ???????? ????? ??? ? ?? ? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ??? ??? ? ?? 3rd ? early 4th century CE). His main teacher was Rav Yehuda, the founder of the yeshiva in Pumbedita. ??? ? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ? ??? ?? ? ??? ???????? When Rav Yehuda died, Rav Yosef was meant to be his successor. Rav Hisda and Rav Sheshet ? when they would meet. Rav Hisda?s However, his contemporary Rabba bar Nahmani ??? was also a lips would tremble from Rav Sheshet?s teachings, and Rav Sheshet?s worthy candidate. Rav Yosef was known as Sinai, someone who

We have taken care not to use '? ?? or quote full ????? ?. Accordingly, this sheet does Daily Daf images kindly provided by Style·A·Daf. - Rabbi NTahtea n? ZFiacrhbreur .- RMeecmeiovrey SCtoyrlnee Ar ?D sauf mthmroauryg h aWsh kaitnsdAlyp pb e(enm apirlo svtidyeleda bdya fZ@icghmraui (l.c)o.m Fo) ro fru frrtohmer t heir not need to be placed in shaimos but should be disposed of in a respectful manner. website www.style-a-daf.com. Also icnhfoercmk ahttitopns :a/n/dw two wre.ycuetiovera dha.oilryg c/osnetaerncth /fr?otmea Zcihcehrr=u 8p3le2a1s6e R vaishiti Dwawf wfo.zri cehverury.c Roamshi on the daf! ?''? ? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? 3 | DAF YOMI SUMMARY contains within him all the Torah from M ount Sinai, and Rabba as powerful statement about memory and old age: Uprooter of M ountains ???? ????, a sharp and analytical mind. They ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? sent to the of Israel to ask which candidate is preferable and the answer was Sinai, Rav Yosef. Having all the Torah at your ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ? ??? ?????? fingertips is a more useful quality for the head of a yeshiva than an ?Rav Yosef teaches a baraita: This verse teaches that both the analytical bent, extraordinary as it may be. Despite this, Rav Yosef tablets of the Covenant and the pieces of the broken tablets are deferred to Rabba and made him become the Rosh Yeshiva. Only placed in the Ark. One should learn from here that with regard to a when Rabba died decades later did Rav Yosef become the head of Torah scholar who has forgotten his Torah knowledge due to Pumbedita. During that whole time, he treated Rabba with circumstances beyond his control, e.g., illness, one may not behave extraordinary respect. toward him in a degrading manner.? (M enachot 99a)

Rav Yosef?s main students were and ???. two of the M ay we all merit to honor the greatness in our midst, even when it most important and most quoted in the Babylonian Talmud. isn?t immediately obvious to us. They each treated him with great respect, Abaye even stood up when SHABBAT 17 O CTO BER he saw Rav Yosef?s donkey approaching, even before Rav Yosef ?? ??????? himself came into view. Rav Yosef was wealthy and owned fields and THANKS TO JO NATHAN PELZNER vineyards and gave much charity. Despite all this honor, Rav Yosef remained a very humble man and one who greatly respected other The Gemara on daf 69 discusses a case of whether a mumar has scholars. He understood that Torah learning had given him his high the ability to relinquish his property rights (bitul) on Shabbat in a position in society: mavoi. The Gemara brings a baraisa which states that in fact a ?Rav Yosef, on the day of Shavuot, would say: Prepare me a choice mumar is not allowed to use bitul to relinquish his rights in the third-born calf. He said: If not for this day on which the Torah was mavoi. given, how many Yosefs would there be in the market?? (Pesachim The Gemara states that this baraisa follows the view of Rebbi 68b)Besides being a repository for mishnayot and beraitot (he is Yehuda, who holds that a mumar who openly violates Shabbat does quoted numerous times as bringing a Tannaitic source ?? ?? ?? ???), not have the ability to relinquish his rights. The following story of R? Rav Yosef was also well versed in Tanakh and its meaning. All this Yehuda Nesiah is related to help determine the definition of a mumar knowledge made him a significant resource in the days when in this case: There was a person who went out publicly on Shabbat everything was oral. And then came the downfall. wearing a bag of spices, which was asur being neither a normal form Nedarim 41 has a long discussion about sickness and how it affects of clothing or jewelry. people. It is there that we hear the story of Rav Yosef: However, as soon as this person noticed R? Yehuda Nesiah ?Rav Yosef himself fell ill and his studies were forgotten. Abaye approaching, he covered it as he did not want the great Rabbi to see restored his studies by reviewing what he had learned from Rav Yosef that he was carrying on Shabbat. After seeing this, R? Yehuda Nesiah before him. This is the background for that which we say everywhere proclaimed that a person such as this is not considered a mumar for throughout the Talmud, that Rav Yosef said: I did not learn this relinquishing his rights on Shabbat, and would therefore be allowed halakha, and Abaye said to him in response: You said this to us and it to relinquish his rights even according to R? Yehuda. was from this baraita that you said it to us.? The type of person from the story is not considered a mumar for Some form of sickness affected Rav Yosef?s memory and he forgot this halacha because even though he violated Shabbat in public, he that huge store of learning. And indeed, eight times in the was ashamed to be seen doing so in front of a great rabbi and is Babylonian Talmud (interestingly, five times out of the eight are in therefore not considered a mumar for the halacha of relinquishing his Eruvin) we have a dialogue between Rav Yosef and Abaye, his pupil. rights. Rav Yosef says I don?t know this halacha and Abaye gently reminds him, no Rebbe, you are the one who taught it to us, here is what you SUNDAY 18 O CTO BER ? ??????? said. On our daf as well we do not have the dialogue with Abaye, THANKS TO MIKE GO RDO N only the embarrassment of Rav Yosef when he hears his error. Rav Yosef partly remembers the halacha, but he is confused. Then it "Once it is permitted, it is permitted - comes back to him and all is clear. ??? ? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??"

Rav Yosef?s illness was compounded by the fact that at some point The Gemara on Daf 70 tells us that once something (in our case, an he became blind. Imagine this brilliant man, who contained so much eruv) is permitted for a part of Shabbat, it remains permitted for all of Torah inside him, reduced to blindness and to having his own Shabbat. This principle is brought down as halacha in the Beiur teachings explained to him by his student. And yet, Rav Yosef is not a Halacha. tragic or pathetic figure in the Talmud. He is respected, even becomes Rosh Yeshiva at the end of his life, and continues to learn and to The Teshuvos Sha'ar Ephraim, Yoreh De'ah §67 shows that this teach. Perhaps his humility and his understanding that Torah was principle is also found in other places in Shas. For example, in much greater and all-encompassing than one person was a source of Yevamos 69a we learn of a Kohen who became engaged to a widow comfort to him. Or perhaps the fact that he had such patient and (erusin). Before he could complete the marriage (nesuin), he was loving students, who remembered his glory days and still respected appointed to be the Kohen Gadol. The Gemara rules that even him in his illness, was the reason. Either way, Rav Yosef tells us of this though a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to marry a widow, in this case he We have taken care not to use '? ?? or quote full ????? ?. Accordingly, this sheet does not need to be placed in shaimos but should be disposed of in a respectful manner. ?''? ? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ? ???? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?"? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ? ???? 4 | DAF YOMI SUMMARY may indeed complete the marriage. The reason is also based on the TUESDAY 20 O CTO BER ?? ??????? principle of ?once it is permitted, it is permitted.? THANKS TO DAVID GRO SS The Sha'ar Ephraim then employs this principle in his ruling in a very interesting teshuva. The case was one in which a certain The main sugya of the daf deals with a situation where five groups community appointed a Rabbi in perpetuity. After the Rabbi had occupy a palace or, as Rashi explains, a large sprawling mansion been in town for only a few weeks, his son was married to an orphan which is built around a single courtyard. The question arises whether of a good family. At that point, some members of the community the groups have to create an eruv so that they can carry into the started to demand the Rabbi's dismissal, based on the fact that he single courtyard. had violated (knowingly or unknowingly) a cherem, enacted by the The initial distinction and dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit community in the year 1655, that forbade the community from hiring Hillel seems to be whether the dividing partitions are more or less any rabbi who was related to a member of the community. than ten tefachim: if they were less then the groups could be Now the Rabbi had become the father-in-law of one of the considered one unit, and should even one group decide to create an community's members! The Sha'ar Ephraim rejected their demand on eruv it would hold for the other groups (Beit Hillel?s position), the basis of our Gemara?s principle - once it is permitted it remains whereas Beit Shammai?s position seems to be that a partition of any permitted. Since at the time of appointment the Rabbi had no description would require all the groups to independently create their relatives in the community and was thus ?permitted to serve?, then own eruv. even after the Rabbi became related to a person in the city he could The Gemara goes on to theorise that the dispute centers on still retain his position. whether the partitions reach the ceiling/roof or not, and that if they don?t, even if they are higher than ten tefachim, then there is no need MO NDAY 19 O CTO BER ?? ??????? to create an eruv. The Gemara then asks why we focus on a case THANKS RO NEN GO LDSMITH which ultimately we are not focusing on (i.e. walls which do reach the ceiling, for that surely constitutes a significant partition)? The ???? .?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ,??? ?????? ?????? answer given is that it is to teach us the strength of the argument of ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ? ??? ????? ???? ? ??? ??? ????? .??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? WEDNESDAY 21 O CTO BER ?? ??????? ???? ? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ,??? ,????? ???? ??? ? THANKS TO DR YARDAENA O SBAND - TALKING TALMUD ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ,???? .???? ?? - ??? PO DCAST ????? ???? - ??? ???? ??? ? ??????? :???? ??? ?? ??? ? .??? Beit Hillel and, ultimately, that the power of permission is preferable. ??? ??? ,???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ..??? ???? ?? The Gemara discusses different types of relationships, including .??????? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ?? ? ???? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ??? .????? father/son, husband/wife, and master/slave, and how they may or ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ,????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? may not impact an eruv. One relationship that is explored is that of ,???? ???? ,? ??? ??? ??? ? ??? ,?? ??? ????? ????? ????? the rebbe/talmid, and where a talmid's residence is established. "Rav Chiya asks Rav Sheshet: ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ? ??? ???? ????? .?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???( ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ? ?????? - ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? .)??? ?? ? ??? If a talmid eats in a field and then sleeps in his rebbe?s house (Beit ???? :? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? .???? ?? ?????? ????? M idrash), which location is the talmid?s residence and from where ?????? ??? ??? ? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ? .?? ???? ???? ????? does one count this student?s techum?" Rav Sheshet answers that the .?????? ???? ,????? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? techum is counted from where the talmid sleeps, which in this case is the Bei Rav. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is because - ??? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ,???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? the talmid would of course prefer to also eat in the Bei Rav but is .?????? ???? ??? ?? ? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? .??? ????? forced to eat elsewhere. ??????? ? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ? ???????? ???? Therefore where the talmid eats is not used as his residence. Later ,???? ? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? .?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? on the question is asked if a father and son, or a rebbe and talmid, ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? live in a chatzer by themselves are they counted as individuals or as a ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? .??? ????? ????? group? If they are a group of people then they would need to ???? ????? ? ?? ?? ??? ????? .???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? establish an eruv together. If they are an individual then no eruv is ??????( ????? ?? ?????? .?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ? ??? ? needed. It is interesting to see how the Gemara understands the ?????? .)????? ?? ???( ?????? ????? ??? )??? ??? ????? ? rebbe/talmid relationship to be the same as the father/son. This ?????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ? ,???? ?? ????? ???????? teaches that the relationship is not to do with being an actual relative but having a united purpose. ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? .???? ??? ,??? ?? ???? .?????? ??????? ??? ? ?? ???? ???? ?? .???? ?? ?????? This bond between the rebbe and talmid is viewed to be as strong ...?? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? as the one between father and son. The daf gives us a wonderful insight into the importance and strength of the rebbe/talmid relationship - that it is as strong as the bond of family. We have taken care not to use '? ?? or quote full ????? ?. Accordingly, this sheet does not need to be placed in shaimos but should be disposed of in a respectful manner.