Perek II Daf 26 Amud a

NOTES -and removed the reeds, as he maintained that they were unneces שַׁלְפִינְהוּ. אֲזַל רַ ב ַּפּפָא וְרַ ב הוּנָא According to : אֵ י תִ י בֵ י ּה רָ בִ י ָ נ א – sary; he regarded the entire orchard as having been enclosed for the Ravina raised an objection Rabbeinu Ĥananel’s reading of the text, Ravina’s argument ְבּ רֵ י ּה ּ רַד ְ ב י ה ְ ֹו שׁ ֻ עַ ָנ ְ קטִ י ְ נ ה ּו מִ ַבּ תְ רֵ י ּה . purpose of residence, owing to the banqueting pavilion. Rav Pappa constitutes an objection against Rava, rather than support, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went after him and collected as claimed by Rashi in his first explanation. Rav Pappa and the reeds, so as to prevent Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana from restoring the Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, attempt to answer the . כו .partitions, as they were Rava’s students and wanted to enforce his objection מְ חִ י ּצָה הָ עֲ שׂ וּיָה – [ruling. A partition made for resting [naĥat Some commentaries explain that a partition made for : לְ נַ חַ ת N On the following day, on Shabbat, Ravina raised an objection to resting is referring to a partition on which people generally לְמָחָ ר אֵ יתִ ּיבֵיה רָבִינָא לְרָבָ א: עִיר Rava’s opinion from a baraita which states: In the case of a new town, walk; its status as a partition is then nullified (Ra’avad). Other ָ החֲדָשׁ מֹודְדִ ין לָ ּה מִ ישׁ ִ יבָתָ ּה, וִ ישׁ ָ נָה we measure the Shabbat limit from its settledarea, from where it is authorities read: A partition that is not made for naĥat, and ח מֵ ֹו מָ תָ ּה . actually inhabited; and in the case of an old town, we measure the state that it is referring to a partition that was intended to H be moved, rather than one made to be fixed in one spot Shabbat limit from its wall, even if it is not inhabited up to its wall. (Rambam and others). The Arukh explains that this : ּ ִ פירָ א ְ ּ ד בֵ י ּת ֹו רֵ י – What is a new town, and what is an old town? A new town is one Cattle ditches אֵ יזֹו הִ יא חֲדָשָׁ ה וְאֵ יזֹו הִ יא יְשָׁנָה? that was first surrounded by a wall, and only afterward settled, is a pit in which oxen rest. According to the explanation that a partition made for naĥat is referring to a partition on חֲדָשָׁ ה – שֶׁ הוּ ְּק ָהפ וּלְבַסּ ֹוף יָשְׁבָ ה, meaning that the town’s residents arrived after the wall had already which people walk, the reference in this context is to a pit ָ יְשׁ נָה – יָשׁ הְבָ וּלְבַסּ ֹוף הוּ ְּק ָ פה. וְהַ אי been erected; an old town is one that was first settled, and only af- that does not have real partitions. Rather, it is partitioned off נַמִ י, ְ ּכהוּ ְּק ָ הפ וּלְבַסּ ֹוף יָשׁ ְבָ ה דָּמֵ י. terward surrounded by a wall. Ravina raised his objection: And this by being lower than its surroundings. However, the people orchard should also be considered like a town that was first sur- tending the animals continually walk on this partition and rounded by a wall and only afterward settled, as it had not been trample it down (see Me’iri). enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. Even if a dwelling was later erected there, this should not turn it into a place HALAKHA In the case of a : ִ ע י ר ֲ ח דָ שׁ ָ ה ִ ו י שׁ ָ ָ נ ה – that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence. New and old towns new town, one that was first surrounded by a wall and only Seeing that an additional objection could be raised against his teach- afterward settled, the Shabbat limit is measured from its אָמַ ר לֵ ּיה רַ ב ַּפ ָּ פא לְרָבָ א; וְהָאָמַ ר רַ ב er’s position, Rav Pappa said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Asi say that the settled area, rather than from its wall. However, in the case of an old town, which was first settled and only afterward אַסִי: ּמְחִיצֹות אַדְרְכָלִין לֹא שְׁמָ ּה temporary screens erected by architectsH to serve as protection ,surrounded by a wall, the limit is measured from the wall מְחִ ָ ּיצה. אַלְמָ א: ּכֵיוָ ן דְּ לִצְנִיעוּתָ א against the sun and the like are not deemed valid partitions? Ap- as stated in the baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 398:11). parently, since it was erected only for privacy, and not for the עֲבִ ידָ א לָ ּה – לָ א הָ וְ יָא מְחִ ָ ּיצה. הָכָ א A partition that : מְ חִ י ּצ ֹו ת אַ דְ רְ כָ לִ י ן – purpose of permanent dwelling, it is not considered a valid parti- Screens of architects נַמִ י, ּכֵיוָן דְּלִצְנִיעוּתָ א עֲבִ ידָ א – לָא was constructed for a purpose other than to establish an tion. Here too, then, with regard to the fence around the orchard, enclosure for residence, such as a partition erected by a הָ וְ ָ י א מְ חִ י ָ ּצה . since it was erected only for privacy, it should not be considered builder to rest objects against it, serves as a partition to a valid partition. permit one to carry, but does not render a place enclosed for the purpose of residence (based on the Rosh; Shulĥan .(And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 362:1 וְאָמַ ר רַ ב הוּנָא בְּרֵ ּ יה בדְּרַ יְהֹושֻׁעַ N Huna say that a partition made for resting objects alongside it and לְרָבָא, וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ּמְחִיצָה thereby providing them with protection is not considered a valid BACKGROUND הָעֲשׂ וּיָה לְ נַחַ ת – לֹא שׁ ְמָ ּה מְחִ ָ ּיצה, -Rows of houses sepa :עֵ ירוּב מְ חֹוזָא – partition? The eiruv of Meĥoza rated by cattle ditches require a separate joining of court- .This is as Rabba bar Avuh did, when he constructed an eiruv sepa- yards [eiruv] for each row דְּ הָ א רַ בָּ ה בַּ ר אֲ ּבוּה מְעָרֵ ב לָ ּה לְ ָ ּכוּל ּה rately for each row of houses in the whole town of Meĥoza, due to ח מְ ֹו ָ ז א עַ רְ סִ ָ י י תָ א עַ רְ סִ ָ י י תָ א מִ ׁ ּש ּ ו ם the ditches from which the cattlewould feed that separated the rows ִּ פירָ א דְּבֵ י ּתֹורֵ י; וְהָ א ִּ פירָ א דְּבֵ י ּתֹורֵ י of houses from one another.B Shouldn’t such cattle ditchesN be ?considered like a partition made for resting objects alongside it ּכִמְחִ ָ ּיצה הָעֲשׂ וּיָה לְנַחַ ת דָּמְ יָא! Such a partition is invalid. All these proofs indicate that Rava was wrong to remove the reed fences erected by Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana, for those fences were indeed necessary.

With regard to the resolution of this incident, the Exilarch recited קָרֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ רֵישׁ ּגָלוּתָא: ״חֲכָמִים ,the following verse about these Rabbis: “They are wise to do evil הֵ ָּ מה לְהָרַ ע וּלְהֵ יטִ יב לֹא יָדָ עוּ״. but to do good they have no knowledge” (Jeremiah 4:22), as on Friday they ruined the arrangement that Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana had made to permit carrying from the house to the pavilion, and the next day all they could do was prove that they had acted improperly the day before and that it was prohibited to carry in the orchard.

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Rows of houses separated by cattle ditches אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעַאי: ּשָׁמַעְתִי מֵרַבִּי Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if אֱלִיעֶ זֶר וַאֲ ִ פ ּילוּ בֵּ ית ּכֹור״. מַתְ נִיתִ ין the garden is the size of a beit kor, thirty times larger than a beit se’a. דְּ לָ א ַ ּכחֲ נַ נְ יָ ה . דְּ תַ נְ יָ א , חֲ נַ נְ יָ ה The Gemara notes that all agree that what the mishna taught wasnot in accordance with the opinion of Ĥananya, as it was taught in a אֹומֵ ר: וַאֲ פ ִּילוּ הִ יא אַרְבָּעִים סְאָ ה baraita that Ĥananya says: One is permitted to carryeven if it is the ְ ּכאִ סְ טְ רַ טִ יָ א שׁ ֶ ל מֶ לֶ ךְ . size of of forty beit se’a, like the court of a king. Perek II . 26a 137 . ׳ב קרפ .וכ ףד Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Both Rabbi Elai and Ĥananya derived their ראָמַ ירַבִּ יֹוחָ נָן: וּשׁ ְ נֵיהֶ ם מִ קְרָ א אֶחָ ד N ,opinion from the same verse, as it is stated: “And it came to pass דָּרְשׁ וּ, שׁ ֶ ּנֶאֱמַ ר: ״וַ יְהִ י יְשׁ ַ עְ יָהוּ לֹא יָצָ א Rows of houses separated by cattle :עֵ ירוּב מְ חֹוזָא – how it is read. In addition, the way the word is read does not come The eiruv of Meĥoza to correct the way it is written; both the written version and the way ditches require a separate joining of courtyards [eiruv] for each row. before Isaiah was gone out into the middle courtyard, that the אֶ ל חָצֵר הַ ִ ּתיכֹונָה״, ּכְתִ יב ״הָעִיר״ NOTES the word is read teach a particular idea, and each teaches something word of the Lord came to him, saying” (ii Kings 20:4). In the bibli- וְ קָרֵ ינַן ״חָ צֵ ר״ מִ ָ ּכאן לְאִ סְטְרַ טִ יָא שׁ ֶ ל .According to Rabbeinu about the other : אֵ י תִ י בֵ י ּה רָ בִ י ָ נ א – Ravina raised an objection Ĥananel’s reading of the text, Ravina’s argument constitutes an objec- cal text, it is written: “The city [ha’ir],” and we read it as: “The N middle courtyard [ĥatzer],” as there is a difference in this verse מֶלֶךְ , שׁ ֶהָ יוּ ַּעֲ כיָירֹות בֵּ ינֹונִּיֹות. אָ תֵ י לְ אִ י גְ ר ּו ֵ י י ֵבּ י ּה – tion against Rava, rather than support, as claimed by Rashi in his first They might come to provoke Satan against him According to a number of commentators, including Rashi, it is between the written word and how it is spoken. From here it is : ָ שׂ טָ ן explanation. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, attempt to answer the objection. inappropriate to establish a Torah academy near the residence of a sick derived that royal courts were as large as intermediate-sized cities. person, because in the course of their studies, Torah scholars engage Consequently, there is no contradiction, as the central courtyard of ,Some in heated arguments about the meaning of the Torah. Consequently : מְ חִ י ּצָה הָ עֲ שׂוּיָה לְ נַחַ ת – [A partition made for resting [naĥat commentaries explain that a partition made for resting is referring to there is a concern that Satan, who is most active in times of danger, the royal palace was itself like a small town. a partition on which people generally walk; its status as a partition is will provoke the scholars and will cause them to come to erroneous The Gemara explains:With regard to what principle do Rabbi Elai בְּמַ אי קָמִ י ּפַלְגִ י? רמָ סָבַ ר: עֲ יָירֹות then nullified (Ra’avad). Other authorities read: A partition that is not conclusions as a result of their arguments, even though they are for made for naĥat, and state that it is referring to a partition that was -and Ĥananya disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Elai, maintains: Interme בֵּינֹונִּיֹות הָוְיָין בֵּית ּכֹור, וּמָר סָבַר .(the sake of Heaven (Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto intended to be moved, rather than one made to be fixed in one spot diate-sized towns are the size of a field that had an area ofa beit kor; אַ רְ ָבּ עִ י ם סְ אָ ה הָ וְ ָ י י ן . .(Rambam and others) and one Sage, Ĥananya, maintains: They are the size of forty se’a. The Arukh explains that this is a pit in HALAKHA : ּ ִ פירָ א ְ ּ ד בֵ י ּת ֹו רֵ י – Cattle ditches The Gemara asks about the Biblical narrative cited above:What did וִ ישַׁעְיָהוּ מַ אי בָּעֵ י הָתָ ם? אָמַ ר רַבָּ ה In the case of a new town, one : ִ ע י ר ֲ ח דָ שׁ ָ ה ִ ו י שׁ ָ ָ נ ה – which oxen rest. According to the explanation that a partition made New and old towns for naĥat is referring to a partition on which people walk, the reference that was first surrounded by a wall and only afterward settled, the ?Isaiah need to do there in the middle court, i.e., why was he there רבַּ רבַּ חָנָה, ראָמַ רַבִּי יֹוחָנָן: ֵּ מְלַמד in this context is to a pit that does not have real partitions. Rather, it Shabbat limit is measured from its settled area, rather than from its wall. The Gemara answers:Rabba bar bar Ĥana said that Rabbi Yoĥanan שׁ ֶחָלָ ה חִ זְ ִ קּיָה, וְהָ לַךְ יְשׁ ַעְ יָהוּוְ הֹושׁ ִ יב is partitioned off by being lower than its surroundings. However, the However, in the case of an old town, which was first settled and only said: This teaches that Hezekiah took ill, and Isaiah went and יְשׁ ִ יבָ ה עַ ל ּפִתְ חֹו. people tending the animals continually walk on this partition and afterward surrounded by a wall, the limit is measured from the wall, as trample it down (see Me’iri). stated in the baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 398:11). established a Torah academy at his door, so that Torah scholars would sit and occupy themselves with Torah outside his room, the Both derived their opinion from the same verse – .A partition that was con- merit of which would help Hezekiah survive : מְ חִ י ּצ ֹו ת אַ דְ רְ כָ לִ י ן – Screens of architects ּ ו שׁ ְ ֵ נ י ֶ ה ם ִמ ְ ק ָ ר א -Both Sages agree that a large courtyard can be the size of structed for a purpose other than to establish an enclosure for resi : ֶ א ָ ח ד ָ ּ ד ְ ר שׁ ּו a medium-sized town. This idea is based on the substitution of the dence, such as a partition erected by a builder to rest objects against it, Based on this, it is derived, with regard to a Torah scholar who מִ ָ ּכא ן לְ תַ לְ מִ י ד חָ כָ ם שׁ ֶ חָ לָ ה word courtyard for the word town. They teach that both descriptions serves as a partition to permit one to carry, but does not render a place took ill, that one establishes an academy at the entrance to his שֶׁ ּמֹושִׁיבִ ין יְשִׁיבָ ה עַל ּפִתְ חֹו. וְלָאו are correct: Utilized as a courtyard and the size of a town. enclosed for the purpose of residence (based on the Rosh; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 362:1). home. The Gemara comments: This, however, is not a proper מִ ּילְתָ א הִ יא, דִּ ילְמָ א אָתֵ י לְאִ יגְרוּיֵי In the method applied in this : ְ ּכתִ י ב ְו ָ קרֵ י ַ נ ן – It is written…but we read context, which is also utilized by the Radak in his commentary on the Rows of houses separated by cattle ditches course of action, as perhaps they will come to provoke Satan N ֵבּ י ּה ָ שׂ טָ ן . Bible, there is no contradiction between how the word is written and against him. Challenging Satan might worsen the health of a sick BACKGROUND person rather than improve it.

The mishna cites another statement made by Rabbi Elai in the name ״וְכֵן ּשָׁמַעְתִי ּהֵימֶנוּ: אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר of Rabbi Eliezer: And I also heard from him another halakha: If ּשֶׁשָׁכַח אֶחָד וְלֹא עֵירֵב – בֵּיתֹו one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an אָ ס ּ ו ר ״ . eiruv with the other residents, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his share in the courtyard to the other residents, it is prohibited for him, the one who forgot to establish an eiruv, to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard; but it is permitted to the other residents to bring objects from their houses to that other person’s house via the courtyard, and vice versa.

The Gemara raises an objection: Didn’t we learn in a mishna: It is וְהָתְ נַן: בֵּ יתֹו אָ סוּר לְ הֹוצִ יא וּלְהַכְ נִיס prohibited for the one who forgot to establish an eiruv to bring in לֹו וְלָהֶ ן! objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard, and for the other residents who did make an eiruv, to take out objects from the house to the courtyard or to bring them into the house from the courtyard.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: This אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵ ּ יה בדְּרַ יְהֹושֻׁעַ, .is not difficult אָמַ ר רַ ב שׁ ֵשׁ ֶ ת: לָ א קַשׁ ְ יָא;

NOTES is read teach a particular idea, and each teaches something ּ ו שׁ ְ ֵ נ י ֶ ה ם – Both derived their opinion from the same verse .Both Sages agree that a large courtyard can about the other :מִ קְרָ א אֶחָ ד דָּרְשׁ וּ be the size of a medium-sized town. This idea is based on the They might come to provoke Satan against him – אָ תֵ י לְ אִ י גְ ר ּ ו ֵ י י substitution of the word courtyard for the word town. They : According to a number of commentators, including ֵבּ י ּה ָ שׂ טָ ן teach that both descriptions are correct: Utilized as a courtyard Rashi, it is inappropriate to establish a Torah academy near the and the size of a town. residence of a sick person, because in the course of their studies, In the method ap- Torah scholars engage in heated arguments about the meaning : ְ ּכתִ י ב ְו ָ קרֵ י ַ נ ן – It is written…but we read plied in this context, which is also utilized by the Radak in of the Torah. Consequently, there is a concern that Satan, who his commentary on the Bible, there is no contradiction be- is most active in times of danger, will provoke the scholars and tween how the word is written and how it is read. In addition, will cause them to come to erroneous conclusions as a result of the way the word is read does not come to correct the way their arguments, even though they are for the sake of Heaven it is written; both the written version and the way the word (Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto).

׳ב קרפ .וכ ףד . Perek II . 26a 138 Perek II Daf 26 Amud b

NOTES This,the mishna here, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi הָ א – רַבִּ י אֱלִ יעֶזֶר, וְהָ א – רַבָּנַן. ְ ּ כשׁ ֶ ּ ִ תי ְ מ ֵ צ י – [Eliezer, while that, the other mishna, is in accordance with the When you examine [keshetimtzei lomar -This is a talmudic expression meaning: If you ex :לֹומַ ר opinion of the Rabbis. amine the matter and investigate its roots. It is gener- ally used when the Gemara seeks to clarify the basis Rav Sheshet adds: When you examine the matter closely,N you : of a dispute or to present a certain opinion in a more ּכְשׁ ֶ ִּ תימְ יצֵ לֹומַ ר, לְדִבְרֵ י רַ בִּ י אֱ לִ יעֶ זֶ ר הַמְבַ ֵּ טל כו .will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, one complete and inclusive manner רְשׁ וּתחֲצֵירֹו – רְשׁ וּת בֵּיתֹו ֵּ בִּיטל. לְרַבָּנַן, who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyardNH -Some commentaries explain the expression kes הַמְבַ ֵלּ טרְשׁ וּתחֲצֵירֹו – רְשׁ וּת בֵּיתֹו לֹא to the other residents of the courtyard also renounces his author- hetimtzei lomar literally, based on the word metzia, -ity over his own house. However, according to the opinion of which means a found object: If you examine and in בִּ ֵּ יטל. the Rabbis, one who renounces his authority over his share vestigate, you will find a clear result (Rashi). Other au- in the courtyard to the other residents does not renounce his thorities explain the phrase as meaning, If you exhaust [keshetematzeh] the issue to its depths, you will arrive at authority over his own house to them. the following conclusion (Shita Mekubbetzet). -The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: But it isobvious Renouncing authority over one’s share in a court ּפְשׁ ִיטָ א! In the Jerusalem Talmud the :בִּ יטוּל רְשׁ וּת חֲצֵ ירֹו – that this is the point over which the tanna’im disagree. yard converse is stated: According to the Rabbis, one who The Gemara answers:Raĥava said: Both Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana renounces authority over his own house does not cede אָמַר רַחֲבָה: אֲנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר ּחִינָנָא ownership of his share in the courtyard. Due to that and I explained: Rav Sheshet’s explanation was necessary only ּתַרְ ֵ ּגימְ נָא: לֹא נִצְרְ כָ א אֶ ָ ּלא לַחֲמִ ׁ ָּ שה שׁ ֶ ׁ ְּ שרוּיִ ן with regard to the case of five people who lived in the same resident’s share in the courtyard, all are prohibited to .carry from his house to the courtyard בְּחָצֵ ר אֶחָ ד, וְשׁ ָכַ ח אֶחָ ד מֵהֶ ן וְ לֹא עֵ ירֵ ב. courtyard, one of whom forgot to join in an eiruv with the others. בִּ יטוּל – Renouncing authority in a generous manner According to Raĥava’s explanation, the dispute :בְּ עַ יִ ן יָ ָ פה -According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, when he renounc לְדִבְרֵ י רַ בִּ י אֱ לִ יעֶ זֶ ר, ּכְשׁ ֶ הוּא מְבַ ּלֵ ט רְשׁ וּתֹו – es his authority, he need not renounce it to each and every one between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is based on the אֵ ין צָרִ יךְ לְבַ ֵּ טל לְכָ ל אֶחָ ד וְאֶחָ ד. of the residents, as we already know that Rabbi Eliezer holds that question of whether one who renounces authority one who renounces authority does so in a generous manner,N re- does so entirely willingly and includes everyone, or whether, as the Rabbis assume, one does not re- nouncing authority not only of his share in the courtyard, but also nounce more than the absolute minimum and con- of his own house. Consequently, if he is required to renounce sequently must demonstrate his intention if he wishes authority to many people, we assume that he does so even if this to renounce more. Rav Pappa subsequently raises the is not explicitly stated. question of whether the dispute is in fact based on the manner of renouncing authority, or if it is based .In contrast, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, when he on other matters לְרַ בָּ נַן, ּכְשׁ ֶ הוּא מְבַ ּלֵ ט רְשׁ וּתֹו – צָרִ יךְ לְבַ ֵּ טל renounces his authority, it does not suffice that he renounces it לְ כָ ל אֶ חָ ד וְ אֶ חָ ד . in favor of one person; rather, he must explicitly renounce it to HALAKHA each and every one, as we cannot presume that he renounces One who renounces authority over his share in the H -One who renounces au : ַ ה ְ מ ַ ב ּ ֵ טל ְ ר שׁ ּו ת – authority in a generous manner. courtyard thority over his part in a courtyard does not renounce The Gemara continues: In accordance with which tanna is the authority over his own house, in accordance with the ּכְמַ אן אָזְלָא הָ א דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִ ָּׁ שה שֶׁ ְּׁ שרוּיִן ruling that was taught in the following baraita? If fivepeople lived opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim בְּחָצֵר אֶחָ ד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָ ד מֵהֶ ן וְלֹא עֵירֵ ב, in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join 380:1). ּכְשֶׁ הוּא מְבַ ֵ ּלט רְשׁ וּתֹו – אֵ ין צָרִ יךְ לְבַ ּטֵל in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his au- Renouncing authority to many people – בִּ יטוּ ל רְשׁ וּ ת רְשׁוּת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. ּכְמַאן – ּכְרַבִּי If one resides with several people in the same : לְ רַ ִבּ י ם thority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. The Gemara asks:In accordance with whose courtyard, but did not participate in the joining of אֱלִיעֶ זֶר. opinion is it? It is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, as explained courtyards [eiruv] with them and consequently needs above. to renounce his authority over his share in the court- yard, he must renounce it to each and every one of Rav Kahana taught the passage this way, as cited above, that it them. According to Rambam, one must say to each of the neighbors that he is renouncing his authority to רַ ב ּכָהֲנָא מַתְ נִי הָכִ י . ברַ טַבְ יֹומֵ י מַתְ נִי הָכִ י: was Raĥava and Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana who applied Rav Sheshet’s that neighbor. Other authorities rule that it is sufficient ּכְמַ אן אָזְלָא הָ א דְּתַנְיָא חֲמִ ָּׁ שה שֶׁ ְּׁ שרוּיִם explanation to the case of the five people living in the same court- ;for him to say: I renounce my authority to all of you (Tur בְּחָצֵר אֶחָ ד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָ ד מֵהֶ ן וְלֹא עֵירֵ ב, yard. Rav Tavyomei, on the other hand, taught it as follows, that Maggid Mishne). Some later commentaries teach that כְשֶׁ הוּא מְבַ ֵלּ טרְשׁ וּתֹו – אֵ ינֹו צָרִ יךְ לְבַ ֵּ טל it was Rav Sheshet himself who applied it to that case: In accor- the Rambam does not dispute this, and that his ruling ּ .(dance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the fol- should not be read that narrowly (Arukh HaShulĥan רְשׁ וּת לְכָל אֶחָ ד וְאֶחָ ד. ּכְמַ אן? אָמַ ר רַ ב lowing baraita? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and The Shulĥan Arukh HaRav rules in accordance with the הוּנָא בַּ ר יְהוּדָ ה, אָמַ ר רַ ב שֵׁשֶׁ ת: ּכְמַ אן – latter approach (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 380:1). one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other ּכְרַבִּ י אֱלִיעֶ זֶר. residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not re- nounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. This statement is in accordance with whose opinion? Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to the opinion of Rabbi אָמַ ר ּלֵיה רַ ב ַּפּפָא לְאַבַּיֵי: לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, Eliezer, which presumes that one renounces his authority over his אִ י אָמַ ר ״לָא מְבַ ֵּ טילְנָא״, וּלְרַבָּנַן אִ י אָמַ ר house as well, if one who forgot to join in an eiruv with the other ״מְבַ ֵּ טילְ נָא״, מַ אי? residents of the courtyard explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, and likewise, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if he explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house, what is the halakha in such cases? Perek II . 26b 139 . ׳ב קרפ :וכ ףד One who renounces authority over his share in the courtyard – The leaves of several similar species were used for the extraction of vari- .One who renounces authority over his part in a courtyard ous medicines, and they are also apparently mentioned in the Talmud : ַ ה ְ מ ַ ב ּ ֵ טל ְ ר שׁ ּו ת NOTES does not renounce authority over his own house, in accordance with .(This is a the opinion of the Rabbis (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 380:1 : ְ ּכשׁ ֶ ּ ִי תמְ י צֵ ל ֹו מַ ר – [When you examine [keshetimtzei lomar talmudic expression meaning: If you examine the matter and investi- -If one re : בִּ י ט ּו ל רְ שׁ ּו ת לְ רַ ִבּ י ם – gate its roots. It is generally used when the Gemara seeks to clarify the Renouncing authority to many people basis of a dispute or to present a certain opinion in a more complete sides with several people in the same courtyard, but did not participate and inclusive manner. in the joining of courtyards [eiruv] with them and consequently needs Some commentaries explain the expression keshetimtzei lomar to renounce his authority over his share in the courtyard, he must re- literally, based on the word metzia, which means a found object: If you nounce it to each and every one of them. According to Rambam, one examine and investigate, you will find a clear result (Rashi). Other au- must say to each of the neighbors that he is renouncing his authority thorities explain the phrase as meaning, If you exhaust [keshetematzeh] to that neighbor. Other authorities rule that it is sufficient for him to HALAKHA -The Gemara clarifies: IsRabbi Eliezer’s reason because he main טַ עְמָ א דְּרַ בִּ י אֱ לִ יעֶ זֶ ר – מִ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָ קסָבַ ר: the issue to its depths, you will arrive at the following conclusion (Shita say: I renounce my authority to all of you (Tur; Maggid Mishne). Some Once one reveals his wishes, he has revealed them – tains in general that one who renounces authority over his share ּכֵיוָן ּדְּגַלֵי Mekubbetzet). later commentaries teach that the Rambam does not dispute this, and ֵּלהַמְבַט רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירֹו – רְשׁוּת If one explicitly says that he is renouncing authority : in a courtyard to the other residents presumably also renounces ַ ּ ד עֲ תֵ י ּה ַ ּג ֵ ּלי .(that his ruling should not be read that narrowly (Arukh HaShulĥan בֵּיתֹו ּבִּיטֵל, וְהַאי אֲמַר ״אֲנָא לָא The Shulĥan Arukh HaRav rules in accordance with the latter approach over his own house as well, it is considered renounced (Shulĥan בִּ יטוּ ל רְשׁ וּ ת – Renouncing authority over one’s share in a courtyard : In the Jerusalem Talmud the converse is stated: According to the to them authority over his own house, but that since this person ּ .(Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 380:1). Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 380:2) חֲ י צֵ ר ֹו explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, he מְ בַ ֵ טי לְ נָ א ״ . Rabbis, one who renounces authority over his own house does not ֵ ּכיוָ ן דְּ גַ ֵ ּלי דַּ עֲ תֵ י ּה – cede ownership of his share in the courtyard. Due to that resident’s Once one reveals his wishes, he has revealed them BACKGROUND therefore maintains his authority? If one explicitly says that he is renouncing authority over his own :ּגַּלֵי share in the courtyard, all are prohibited to carry from his house to Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is because people do not אֹו דִּילְמָא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר -A wide range of identities have been sug : עַ רְ ַ ק ְבּ לִ י ן – the courtyard. house as well, it is considered renounced (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim Arkablin 380:2). gested for the plant called arkablin or akrablin. Indeed, it is generally live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore מִ ׁ ּשוּם דְּבַיִת בְּלָא חָצֵר לָא עֲבִידִ י -Renouncing authority in a generous manner – : Ac doubtful whether all of the references to it in the Talmud are anyone who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard בִ ּ יטוּ ל בְּ עַ יִ ן יָ ָ פה אֱינָשֵׁי דְּדָיְירֵי וְכִי קָאָמַר לָא cording to Raĥava’s explanation, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and referring to the same plant. One proposed identity is a plant automatically renounces authority over his own house regardless מְבַ ֵּ טילְנָא – לָ או ָ ּכל ּכְמִ ּינֵיה, אַ ף עַ ל the Rabbis is based on the question of whether one who renounces BACKGROUND Hairy scorpion’s tail [akrav] from the family of the scorpion’s tail, Heliotropium. These are authority does so entirely willingly and includes everyone, or whether, annual or perennial plants, whose flowers have the appearance of what he says. Therefore, when he says: I am not renouncing Arkablin – : A wide range of identities have been suggested authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, as even ַ ּגב דַּאֲמַ ר דָּ יֵירְ נָא, לָ או ְ ּכלוּם קָאָמַ ר. .One tradition with regard to of a scorpion’s tail :אַ צְוָותָ א חֲ רוּזִיָאתָ א – Atzvata ĥaruziyata עַ רְ ַ ק ְבּ לִ י ן as the Rabbis assume, one does not renounce more than the absolute for the plant called arkablin or akrablin. Indeed, it is doubtful whether minimum and consequently must demonstrate his intention if he atzvata ĥaruziyata identifies the arkablin with a prickly climber, a spe- These plants grow wild in various parts of Eretz Yisrael. Some all of the references to it in the Talmud are referring to the same plant. though he says: I will continue to live in and retain authority over wishes to renounce more. Rav Pappa subsequently raises the question cies of spurge, possibly Euphorbia officinalis. species are cultivated for decorative purposes, due to their One proposed identity is a plant from the family of the scorpion’s tail, my house, he has said nothing. of whether the dispute is in fact based on the manner of renouncing shape and scent. The leaves of several similar species were Heliotropium. These are annual or perennial plants, whose flowers have And the question likewise arises according to the opinion of the וּלְרַבָּנַן, אִ י אֲמַ ר ״מְבַ ֵּ טילְנָא״ מַ אי? authority, or if it is based on other matters. used for the extraction of various medicines, and they are also the appearance of a scorpion’s tail. apparently mentioned in the Talmud. Rabbis. If one explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of טַעְמָ א דְּרַ בָּ נַן מִ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָ קסָבְרִ י הַמְבַ ֵּ טל These plants grow wild in various parts of Eretz Yisrael. Some species my house as well, what is the halakha? Is the reason for the opin- רְשׁ וּת חֲ צֵ ירֹו רְשׁ וּת בֵּ יתֹו לֹא בִּ ֵּ יטל – .are cultivated for decorative purposes, due to their shape and scent HALAKHA ion of the Rabbis because they maintain that one who renounc- es authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents וְ הַ א י אֲ מַ ר ״ מְ בַ ּ ֵ טי לְ נָ א ״ . presumably does not renounce authority over his own house to them, but since this person explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority over my house, the other residents should be permitted to carry? Or perhaps the for the opinion of the Rabbis is because one אֹו דִּ ילְמָ א: טַעְמָ א דְּרַ בָּ נַן מִ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ לָ א does not usually remove himself entirely from a house and עָבֵיד אִ ינִישׁ דִּמְסַ ֵּלק נַפְשֵׁ ּיה לְגַמְרֵ י courtyard, making himself like a guest among his neighbors. מִבַּיִת וְחָצֵ ר, וְהָוֵ י ִ יּכ אֹורֵחַ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ. And therefore, when he states: I am renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, and his statement is וְהַ אי ּכִי אֲמַ ר מְבַ ֵּ טילְנָא – לָאו ּכָל .disregarded ְ ּכמִ י נֵ י ּה ָ קאָ מַ ר . -Abaye said to Rav Pappa in answer to his question: Both accord אָ מַ ר לֵ ּיה: בֵּ ין לְרַ בָּ נַן בֵּ ין לְרַ בִּ י אֱ לִ יעֶ זֶ ר, ing to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has ּ ּ ּ H ֵ ּכיוָ ן דְּ ֵ גַלי דַּעֲתֵ ּיה – ג ֵ ַלי. Hairy scorpion’s tail revealed his wishes, he has revealed them, and everything fol- lows his express wishes. One tradition with :אַ צְוָ ותָ א חֲ רוּזִיָאתָ א – Atzvata ĥaruziyata The mishna records yet another teaching handed down by Rabbi ״וְכֵן ּשָׁמַעְתִי ּ וּמִמֶּנ שֶּׁיֹוצְאִים regard to atzvata ĥaruziyata identifies thearkablin with a prickly climber, a species of spurge, possibly Euphorbia officinalis. Elai: And I also heard from Rabbi Eliezer another halakha, that בְּעַרְ קַבְּלִ ין בַּ ּפֶסַ ח״. מַ אי עַרְ קַבְּלִ ין? one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover אָמַ ר רֵ ישׁ לָ ִ קישׁ : אַצְוָ ותָ א with arkablin,B a certain bitter herb. The Gemara asks: What is arkablin? Reish Lakish said: It is Atzvata ĥaruziyata,B a type of חֲ רוּזִיָאתָ א. fiber that wraps itself around a date palm. הדרן עלך עושין פסין

׳ב קרפ :וכ ףד . Perek II . 26b 140 Perek III the people forgot its exact location. Other Sages maintained that the Daf 26 Amud b phrase is referring to a field in which a grave was plowed over, and it NOTES is therefore likely that bones are scattered over a wide area. There are LANGUAGE Various explanations have been suggested : בֵ ּ י ת הַ ּ ְ פרָ ס – HALAKHA One may establish a joining of courtyards with all types of food… also other explanations. Nevertheless, all agree that the ritual impurity Beit haperas One may establish a joining of houses except for water and salt – : The for this phrase. Some authorities explain that it comes from the word .of a beit haperas is rabbinic in origin and not a Torah law בַּ ּכֹל מְעָרְבִ ין…חוּץ מִ ן הַ ּמַיִם וּמִ ן הַ ּמֶלַ ח One may establish a joining of houses and one may merge מתני׳ בַּ ּכֹל מְעָרְבִ ין וּמִשׁ ְ ַּ ת ְּת ִ פין – חוּץ in courtyards [eiruv ĥatzerot] in order to Jerusalem Talmud suggests two reasons why one may not establish perisa, meaning spread out or widening, because the ritual impurity is mishna courtyards with all kinds of food – : One .(a joining of courtyards [eiruv] with water or salt: Firstly, water and salt spread throughout the field (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna ַבּ ּכ ֹ ל מְ עָ רְ בִ י ן ּו מִ שׁ ְ ּ ַ ת ּ ְת ִ פי ן מִ ן הַ ַּ מיִם וּמִ ן הַ ּמֶלַ ח. permit carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or may establish an eiruv with all types of food except for water are not nourishing. Secondly, they serve as symbols and reminders Rashi teaches that the impurity in the field isperusa , meaning broken. more houses, and one may establish a joining of Shabbat borders and salt. One may not create an eiruv even with both water HALAKHA of a curse. Water represents the generation of the Flood, and salt is a Tosafot explain that the word is referring to footsteps, parsot, because [eiruv teĥumin] in order to extend the distance one is permitted and salt, unless they are mixed together (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ : One may establish an eiruv and merge alleyways with all kinds of reminder of the destruction of Sodom (see Genesis 19). people refrain from treading there. food – : One may establish an eiruv with all types כו .(to walk on Shabbat; and similarly, one may merge courtyards Ĥayyim 386:5 Other commentaries explain that this term is related to the Latin ַבּ ּכ ֹ ל מְ עָ רְ בִ י ן ּו מִ שׁ ְ ּ ַ ת ּ ְת ִ פי ן Beit haperas – : All agree that a beit haperas is an area in which of food except for water and salt. One may not create an eiruv even word forum, meaning plaza or in this context a plaza in front of a בֵ ּ י ת הַ ּ ְ פרָ ס in order to permit carrying in an alleyway shared by two or more H there is doubt concerning the location of a grave. However, the Sages courtyards. This may be donewith all kinds of food except for NOTES with both water and salt, unless they are mixed together (Shulĥan cemetery, or to the Greek equivalent , foros (Rabbi Binyamin of the Talmud disagreed about the specific circumstance: Some Sages φόρος N One may establish a joining of houses…with all kinds of Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 386:5). Musafya). water and salt, as they are not considered foods and therefore held that it was known that there was a grave in the beit haperas, but בַּ ּכֹל מְעָרְבִ ין…חוּץ מִ ן הַ ַּ מיִם וּמִ ן – may not be used for these purposes. food except for water and salt Two reasons are suggested in the Jerusalem Talmud for : הַ ּ ֶ מלַ ח The mishna continues with two similar principles: All types of why one may not establish a joining of courtyards [eiruv] with ,water or salt: First, water and salt are not nourishing. Second ּוְהַכֹל נִי ּקָח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר – חוּץ מִן -food may be bought with second-tithe money, which must be they serve as symbols and reminders of a curse. Water repre הַ ּמַיִם וּמִ ן הַ ּמֶלַ ח. הַ ּנֹודֵ ר מִ ן הַ ָ ּמזֹון – taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy sents the generation of the Flood, and salt is a reminder of the מוּ ָּ תר בַּ ֶּ מלַ ח וּבַ ַּ מיִ ם. 14:26), except for water and salt. Similarly, one who vows that destruction of Sodom (see Genesis 19). nourishment is prohibited to him is permittedto eat water and All agree that a beit haperas is an area : בֵ ּ י ת הַ ּ ְ פרָ ס – Beit haperas salt, as they are not considered sources of nourishment. in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave. However, the Sages of the Talmud disagreed about the specific It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards circumstance: Some Sages held that it was known that there מְעָרְבִ ין לַ ּנָזִ יר בַּ ּיַיִ ן, וּלְ יִשְׂרָאֵ ל בַּ ְּ תרוּמָ ה. that one may establish an eiruv teĥumin for a nazirite with wine, was a grave in the beit haperas, but the people forgot its exact סוּמָ כֹוס אֹומֵ ר: בְּ ִ ּחוּלין. even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted location. Other Sages maintained that the phrase is referring to others. And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teĥumin for to a field in which a grave was plowed over, and it is therefore likely that bones are scattered over a wide area. There are also an Israelite with teruma, even though he may not eat it, because other explanations. Nevertheless, all agree that the ritual im- it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an eiruv teĥumin purity of a beit haperas is rabbinic in origin and not a Torah law. must be fit for human consumption, but it is not essential that it be fit for the consumption of the one for whom it is being used. LANGUAGE Summakhos, however, says: One may only establish an eiruv Various explanations have been : בֵ ּ י ת הַ ּ ְ פרָ ס – Beit haperas teĥumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food. suggested for this phrase. Some authorities explain that it comes from the word perisa, meaning spread out or widen- It was additionally stated that one may establish an eiruv teĥumin ing, because the ritual impurity is spread throughout the field וּלְ כֹהֵ ן בְּבֵ ית הַ ּפְרָ ס, ירַבִּ היְהוּדָ אֹומֵ ר: NL (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna). Rashi teaches that for a priest in a beit haperas, a field containing a grave that was אֲ ִ פ ּילוּ בֵּ ין הַ ּקְבָ רֹות, plowed over. There is doubt as to the location of bone fragments the impurity in the field is perusa, meaning broken. Tosafot explain that the word is referring to footsteps, parsot, because in the entire area. A priest is prohibited to come into contact people refrain from treading there. with a corpse, and therefore may not enter a beit haperas. Rabbi Other commentaries explain that this term is related to the Yehuda says: An eiruv teĥumin may be established for a priest Latin word forum, meaning plaza or in this context a plaza in even between the graves in a graveyard, an area which the priest front of a cemetery, or to the Greek equivalent φόρος, foros may not enter by Torah law, (Rabbi Binyamin Musafya).

Perek III Daf 27 Amud a

NOTES since he can interpose between himself and the graves and go מִ ּ ֶ ְנֵישׁ פּיָ כ ֹו ל לָ ח ֹו ץ וְ ילֵ לֵ ךְ וְ לֶ כ אֱ ֹו ל . אֵ י ן לְ מֵ י דִ י ן מִ ן – and eat the food that comprises the eiruv without contracting One may not learn from general statements ,Some say that this only applies to tannaitic statements : הַ ּכְ ל לָ ֹו ת ritual impurity. since the tanna’im speak in a terse style and occasionally fail to fully explain themselves. However, this principle is not appli- Rabbi Yoĥanan said: One may not cable to the statements of amora’im (see Rabbeinu Yehonatan). . N גמ׳ ראָמַ רַבִּי יֹוחָנָן: אֵ ין לְמֵ ידִ ין מִן כז learn from general statements, i.e., The Rashba, the Ritva, and other commentaries explained that gemara הַ ּכְלָלֹות וַאֲ פ ִּילוּ בְּמָ קֹום שֶׁ ּנ רֶאֱמַ בֹּו when a general statement is made in a mishna using the word all, this principle includes amoraic statements as well. In terms it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive, general statement of determining the practical halakha, some authorities state חוּ ץ. that this principle is not to be taken literally. Rather, if there without exceptions. This is true even in a place where it says is a proof from a mishna or a baraita that indicates a ruling the word except. Even in that case, there may be other excep- contrary to the general statement, the general statement is tions to the rule that are not listed. not considered to contradict it. However, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, one may in fact learn from general -The Gemara notes:From the fact that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even statements (Ramban). Others dispute this qualification (To מִ דְּ ָ קאָ מַ ר : “ אֲ ִ פי ּל ּ ו ְ בּ מָ ק ֹו ם שׁ ֶ אֱ ּנֶ מַ ר בּ ֹו safot; see Yad Malakhi). in a place where it says except, this proves by inference that חוּץ״, מִ ּכְלָ ל דְּ לָ או הָכָ א קָאֵ י, הֵיכָ א he was not relating to the general statement made here in the ָ קאֵ י ? mishna, which uses the word except. To which mishna, then, was he relating when he formulated his principle? Perek III . 26b 145 . ׳ג קרפ :וכ ףד