Daf Ditty Eruvin 73: Ius Vitae Necisque
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Daf Ditty Eruvin 73: Ius Vitae Necisque Vitae necisque potestas (vnp) has been aptly described as the core (Kernstfick) of patria potestas, denoting the widest extent of the power enjoyed by the paterfamilias R. YARON1 'But the lawgiver of the Romans gave virtually full power to the father over his son, even during his whole life, whether he thought proper to imprison him, to scourge him, to put him in chains and keep him at work in the fields, or to put him to death’ 1 file:///Users/julian/Desktop/_journals_lega_30_2_article-p243_3-preview.pdf 1 MISHNA: In the case of brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them. Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eiruv, he must renounce his rights in the courtyard in order to render carrying in the courtyard permitted to the rest of the courtyard’s residents. 2 When do they state this halakha? They state it when they take their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard, i.e., to the house of one of the other residents. But if the eiruv was coming to them, i.e., if it was placed in their father’s house, or if there are no other residents with the brothers and their father in the courtyard, they are not required to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard. GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the statement in the mishna that a separate contribution to the eiruv must be made by each of the brothers if they sleep in their own houses: Learn from it that one’s place of sleep determines the location of his residence. The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father. The mishna is not referring to brothers who actually eat at their father’s table, but rather to brothers whose father supplies them with food that they eat in their own homes. Orach Chayim 370:5 3 Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident with ben Nappaḥa, who had houses in five courtyards in Usha, only one of which served as his own residence. And the case came before the Sages to decide whether an eiruv must be made for all of them, and they said: Only a house of residence renders carrying prohibited. 4 The Gemara asks: What is considered one’s place of residence? Rav said: The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep. The determining factor of a person’s residence (cont.) Rav maintains that where a person eats is the determining factor of his residence, and Shmuel maintains that it is the place where he sleeps. Rav’s position is unsuccessfully challenged. A Baraisa records a dispute concerning wives and slaves who share a chatzer with their husband or master. The Gemara asks about the status of a student who shares a chatzer with his rebbi. The Gemara proves that a student who eats with his rebbi does not have to join the eruv. 5 The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has five wives who receive a portion from their husband while each living in her own quarters in the courtyard, and five slaves who receive a portion from their master while living in their own lodgings in the courtyard, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits in the case of the wives, i.e., they do not each have to contribute separately to the eiruv, as they are all considered to be residing with their husband. And he prohibits in the case of the slaves, meaning that he holds that as they live in separate houses, each is considered as residing on his own. 6 Orach Chayim 370:6 7 Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permits in the case of the slaves, as a slave necessarily follows his master, and he prohibits in the case of the wives, as each woman is significant in her own right, and is not totally dependent on her husband. Rav said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? As it is written: “But Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Daniel 2:49). The verse refers to Daniel’s function rather than to an actual location, indicating that wherever Daniel went, it was as though he was in the king’s gate. The same applies to any slave vis-à-vis his master. Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many 48 חמ ַיֱאד מןִ לאְכַּל ָ ָנְד ראליִּ ,ִיַבֵּ ְנַתּוּמ רןָ ָןְבְַרב ָןְבְַרב רןָ ְנַתּוּמ ,ִיַבֵּ ראליִּ ָנְד ָ לאְכַּל מןִ ַיֱאד great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province גַּשׂ יִא יןָ ַבְה - ֵל,והּ ל,כּהְּﬠְטַלְשׁה לֵ ַָ - יתנְמד ִַ יתנְמד of Babylon, and to be chief prefect over all the wise men ֶב;ל ְַברָבּו - ִיןְנִסג -- כּ,ַﬠל ָל - ֵביִימַחכּ ֶ.לָב ֵביִימַחכּ of Babylon. And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed 49 טמ ְָוִֵדיּנאל, ְָבּﬠאִןמ - לכּוּנַּמַמﬠל ִ,יְַא ָ ִ,יְַא לכּוּנַּמַמﬠל Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, over the affairs of the ֲﬠב אדְּתִּדי ִימָ ְד ַתבּנִי שׁ,ֶללָב ְ rמְרַד rיֵַשׁ ַ rיֵַשׁ rמְרַד ְ שׁ,ֶללָב ַתבּנִי ְד ִימָ אדְּתִּדי ֲﬠב province of Babylon; but Daniel was in the gate of the כּלמא. ובְַּתָרע ,ד ַנוֹנ;ל ֲִֵֵַוְְָיּאדגﬠִבְ }פ{ king. Dan 2:48-9 8 Rabbeinu Chananel ןמיסו נדו לאי ערתב אכלמ רמולכ נד לאי רעשב ךלמה לבקמ סרפ היה התיפו ילו הנ היתיבב הוה ביתכו היב נדו לאי ערתב ערתב לאי נדו היב ביתכו הוה היתיבב הנ ילו התיפו היה סרפ לבקמ ךלמה רעשב לאי נד רמולכ אכלמ רמולכ ולאכ וכש ותנ רעשב ךלמה איה ןמיסו אבב רעש ערתו רעש .אמ ן ינת ערת 'ר הדוהי ןב שמשאבב רעשו יכ יכ רעשו שמשאבב ןב הדוהי 'ר ערת ינת ן .אמ יכיה אלד קלחתת ימ אוה ריתמה םידבעב יב ן 'ר הדוהי ןב הריתב יבו ן 'ר הדוהי ןב בבא . ערת . מ י ומשש רעש ךמס לע ע מ רש מש .עת ב רעשה 'או לאינד ערתב .אכלמ יגוסו י ן יתעמשד ן ברכ יכו ןו אנמיקואד ןב לצא יבא ו יתינתמד[ ]ן לבקמב סרפ ]ונש[ ןנירמא נרא]נ[ספלקב] תנמ[ ב צ ן ניוד ויובכ תמד גס .כמעת אנ 'ורש דימלת לצא ובר י אצו בוריעב ובר וא אל אנקיסאו בר תיבב 'ר יח אי 'רו יח אי תיבב יבר אה ירמא יא ן יכירצ ן ברעל ירהשיה רל כר ןי ימ ה ב יבא ח ר יי ' יבב ניא ל א ב ויבאוי ב צ יל : נא ו יכומס ן לע לש ח נ ונחל TOSAFOS תופסות ה"ד נדו לאי ערתב אכלמ ערתב לאי נדו ה"ד תופסות Tosfos brings from R. Chananel that this is a Siman. יפ ' 'ר ח' ךנמסוי אבב רעש ערת רעש יפ ' יבר הדוהי ןב אבב אוה ריתמ םידבעב אבבו ערתו לכה רעש לכה ערתו אבבו םידבעב ריתמ אוה אבב ןב הדוהי יבר ' יפ רעש ערת רעש אבב ךנמסוי (R. Chananel): The Siman is "Bava Sha'ar Tara Sha'ar." I.e. R. Yehudah ben Bava permits slaves. "Bava" and "Tara" both refer to a Sha'ar (gate). 1. NOTE2: Before this, R. Chananel wrote "why does R. Yehudah ben Bava permit slaves and forbid wives? Because [slaves] dwell at the doorway of their masters, and it is as if the place of their eating and sleeping is there." It seems that his text said so. הרנא ימד יתי ארק ןמיסל םעטלו ירבדל ויבלםטו מס ר ייידהנ Explanation: [R. Chananel explains that Rav] brings the verse for a Siman and reason for his words. The RA’AVAD explains that slaves are the property of their master and therefore cannot establish a separate place of residence, which is not the case with regard to women. However, the legal status of the wives of one man can be viewed as that of a single person, because in certain areas of halakha, e.g., levirate marriage, anything done to one affects all of them. Most early commentaries rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, since Rav, who clarifies his opinion, presumably agrees with him. Although the Rambam followed the lenient ruling of both Sages, he is not to be understood as having accepted two mutually exclusive opinions. Rather, he accepts the arguments of both Sages that for different reasons, the status of wives and slaves is equivalent to that of their husband and master respectively (Rosh). 2 Rav Mordechai Kornfeld: https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/tosfos/ev-ts-073.htm 9 Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3 If brothers are living in a courtyard together with their father, and each has a separate house where they sleep but their father supplies them with food, they do not need an eiruv. The Mishna states that this is the case as long as there are no other inhabitants in the yard. They are all considered like one dweller, who would not have to make an eiruv in his own private yard. If there are other inhabitants in the yard, they may or may not have to join in the eiruv. The Mishna explains that this depends on how the eiruv is being made. If it is being placed in the home of one of the other inhabitants, each brother must be part of the eiruv. However, if the eiruv of the entire yard is being placed in their father’s home, they do not have to join in the eiruv.