Daf Ditty Eruvin 24:Pum Nahara
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Daf Ditty Eruvin 24:Pum Nahara 1 The Gemara relates: There was a certain yard in the town of Pum Nahara that was larger than two beit se’a and that had not been enclosed for the purpose of residence. One of its sides opened to an alleyway in the town, and the other opened to a walled path between the vineyards, and that vineyard path led to the bank of a river ten handbreadths high, which is considered a partition. 2 Abaye said: What shall we do to permit carrying in the yard, which is a karmelit, without having to make a breach in one of its walls wider than ten cubits and then fence it up again? Shall we construct a partition for it on the river bank, so that the vineyard path is surrounded by partitions on all sides? This is not a viable solution, as one cannot construct an effective partition on top of another partition that already exists, and the river bank is considered a partition relative to the river. 3 Shall we arrange a doorframe at the mouth of the vineyard path? That is also not an effective solution in this case, for the camels that walk down this path in order to drink water from the river will come and knock it over. Rather, Abaye said: We should arrange a side post at the opening of the vineyard path to the yard, since as it is effective for the vineyard path, to allow one to carry on the path, as it is no longer breached into a karmelit, it is also effective for the yard, and the side post will be considered an additional partition that renders it permitted to carry in the yard. 4 Therefore, in summary, it is permitted to carry within the town itself and to carry within the yard itself. However, with regard to carrying from the town to the yard or from the yard to the town, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: One prohibits doing so and the other permits it. The back lot of Pum Nahara. 5 In Pum Nahara the was a back lot the opened on one side to the mavoi that leads into town and on the other side opened to a path through the vineyards which itself ended by the bank of the river which had the status of a valid partition. Abaye suggested as a means to adjust the back lot to a karpeif enclosed for residential purposes, to erect a lechi by the entranceway to the path in the vineyards. Rava rejected that solution and instead suggested erecting a lechi by the entranceway to the mavoi that leads to town. Carrying in the back lot and the mavoi are certainly permitted. There is, however, a dispute whether it is permitted to carry from the mavoi to the back lot, or from the back lot to the mavoi. Rashba, in the name of Ra’avad, explains that this back lot is comprised of an area where four different neighbors each built a house, one to each direction of the lot. The back walls of each house then make up the four walls which surround this lot. In this case, because the walls were made to enclose the respective houses, rather than to enclose the lot, the lot itself is not considered adequately encircled. It therefore has the status of a karmelis, and one may not carry in it beyond a four amos limit. Rashba notes that it seems from the Ra’avad that it would be permitted to carry in a back lot of a single house, even though it has no entry, because the walls were built as its enclosure. Yet, the Rashba himself rejects this ruling, based upon the Gemara later (26a), where we learn that an area which is first enclosed and only later inhabited has the status of a karpeif. Even if it is owned by a single person, it is still prohibited to carry in such a domain. Rather, Rashba concludes that in order to carry in a back lot, it must be constructed such that the lot has to be in use before the walls were built. In this manner, we can then consider the walls to be as enclosures for this lot. Meiri holds that this back lot has the status of a karpeif even if it is less than two se’ah in area. Daf Notes:1 The Gemora issues a ruling: There was at Pum Nahara a certain back lot (which was larger than two se’ah, and therefore carrying was forbidden there) whose one side opened into a mavoi in the town and the other side opened into a path between vineyards that terminated at the river bank (which had a height of ten tefachim; since the mavoi and the path opened into the back lot, both of those areas become forbidden as well). 2 Abaye said: How are we to proceed? Should we erect for it a fence on the river bank, one partition cannot take effect upon another partition (for the river bank, being ten tefachim high, is itself regarded as a partition)!? 1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_24.pdf 2 Afterwards, they decided to use the Back lot for residential use, But they needed a way to re-enclose it for that purpose, for the back lot, which had around it a stone wall, could not easily Be Broken down and reBuilt to satisfy the requirements. 6 And should a tzuras hapesach (the shape of a doorway) be constructed for it at the entrance to the path between the vineyards (resulting in a separation between the path and the back lot; the tzuras hapesach will be effective to permit carrying in the path, and consequently, it will permit the back lot as well), the camels coming that way (to drink) would topple it (for the opening to the path from the back lot was extremely narrow, and the camels needed to squeeze through). Rather, the only procedure, said Abaye, is this: Let a lechi (which is very thin, and the camels will not topple it) be erected at the entrance to the path of the vineyards, so that this lechi, since it is effective in respect of the path of the vineyards, is also effective in respect of the (re-enclosing of the) back lot. Therefore, it is permitted to carry objects within the mavoi itself. It is also permitted to carry objects within the back lot itself. But regarding the carrying of objects from the mavoi of the town into the back lot, or from the back lot into the mavoi of the town, Rav Acha and Ravina disagree. One forbids this and the other permits it. One permits it because in the back lot, there are no residents (and therefore, an eiruv – joining the two areas, is not necessary), and the other forbids this, because sometimes it may happen that there would be residents there, and they would still be carrying objects from the one into the other. (23b – 25a) 7 was a Jewish Yeshiva academy in Babylon, during ( ישי תב םופ ארהנ :Pum-Nahara Academy (Hebrew the era of the Jewish Amora sages, in the town of Pum-Nahara, Babylonia, that was within the area of jurisdiction of Sura city, and was situated on the east bank of the "Sura" river, nearby the Sura river's estuary to the Tigris river, and thus it was granted its name (Pum = in Aramaic "mouth" or "lips" (i.e. "waterside"); Nahara = River; Hence, "The waterside of the River"). According to the Talmud, the Jewish community in Pum-Nahara city, were poor. The dean of the Yeshiva academy, that was third in the line of importance (after Pumbedita and Sura academies), out of four Yeshiva academies that existed at the time in Babylonia, was Rav Kahana III, who was the Rabbi teacher of Rav Ashi, and a disciple of Rabbah bar Nahmani ("Rabbah"). Rav Kahana III also resided at Pum-Nahara (and thus also known as Rav Kahana of Pum-Nahara). One may note some additional Jewish Amora sages that resided and were active at the time at Pum-Nahara, and among them: R. Aha b. Rab, who later became an Exilarch, as well as Rab b. Shaba ;from Old Persian, Tigra; Sumerian Idigna; Akk. Idiglat; Aramaic Diglat ; לֶקֶדִּח .TIGRIS (Heb Ar. Dijla), a major river of S.W. Asia (c. 1,150 mi. (1,850 km.) long). The Tigris is mentioned twice in the Bible, once in Genesis 2:14, as one of the four rivers flowing out of the Garden of Eden: "and the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Ashur"; and a second time in Daniel 10:4, as the scene of Daniel's major vision. In the Targum and the Talmud the Tigris is referred to as Diglat, the earlier form of the name, and Neubauer regards the name Ḥiddekel as compounded of ḥad and Dekel, i.e., "the swiftly flowing Diklah." Homiletically R. Ashi interprets it in the Talmud as compounded of ḥad and kal, "sharp and quick." The waters of the Tigris were regarded as healthy both for body and mind (Pes. 59a). Since it is mentioned with regard to creation, it was enjoined that on seeing it one had to recite the blessing "who hath made the work of creation" (Yev. 121a). The Tigris formed the boundary of Babylonia in Talmudic times from Baghdad to Apamea (Kid. 71b). Tigris-Euphrates river system Tigris-Euphrates river system, great river system of southwestern Asia.