Eruvin 26aעירובין כ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 26a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26aכ״ו א

שלפינהו אזל רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע נקטינהו מבתריה

and removed the reeds, as he maintained that they were unnecessary; he regarded the entire orchard as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence, owing to the banqueting pavilion. Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, went after him and collected the reeds, so as to prevent Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana from restoring the partitions, as they were Rava’s students and wanted to enforce his ruling.

למחר איתיביה רבינא לרבא עיר חדשה מודדין לה מישיבתה וישנה מחומתה

On the following day, on Shabbat, Ravina raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from a baraita which states: In the case of a new town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its settled area, from where it is actually inhabited; and in the case of an old town, we measure the Shabbat limit from its wall, even if it is not inhabited up to its wall.

איזו היא חדשה ואיזו היא ישנה חדשה שהוקפה ולבסוף ישבה ישנה ישבה ולבסוף הוקפה והאי נמי כהוקפה ולבסוף ישבה דמי

What is a new town, and what is an old town? A new town is one that was first surrounded by a wall, and only afterward settled, meaning that the town’s residents arrived after the wall had already been erected; an old town is one that was first settled, and only afterward surrounded by a wall. Ravina raised his objection: And this orchard should also be considered like a town that was first surrounded by a wall and only afterward settled, as it had not been 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 that had been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והאמר רב אסי מחיצות אדרכלין לא שמה מחיצה אלמא כיון דלצניעותא עבידא לה לא הויא מחיצה הכא נמי כיון דלצניעותא עבידא לא הויא מחיצה

Seeing that an additional objection could be raised against his teacher’s position, Rav Pappa said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Asi say that the temporary screens erected by architects to serve as protection against the sun and the like are not deemed valid partitions? Apparently, since it was erected only for privacy, and not for the purpose of permanent dwelling, it is not considered a valid partition. Here too, then, with regard to the fence around the orchard, since it was erected only for privacy, it should not be considered a valid partition.

ואמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא והאמר רב הונא מחיצה העשויה לנחת לא שמה מחיצה

And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Didn’t Rav Huna say that a partition made for resting objects alongside it and thereby providing them with protection is not considered a valid partition?

דהא רבה בר אבוה מערב לה לכולה מחוזא ערסייתא ערסייתא משום פירא דבי תורי והא פירא דבי תורי כמחיצה העשויה לנחת דמיא

This is as Rabba bar Avuh did, when he constructed an eiruv separately for each row of houses in the whole town of Meḥoza, due to the ditches from which the cattle would feed that separated the rows of houses from one another. Shouldn’t such cattle ditches be considered like a partition made for resting objects alongside it? Such a partition is invalid. All these proofs indicate that Rava was wrong to remove the reed fences erected by Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana, for those fences were indeed necessary.

קרי עלייהו ריש גלותא חכמים המה להרע ולהיטיב לא ידעו:

With regard to the resolution of this incident, the Exilarch recited the following verse about these Rabbis: “They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge” (Jeremiah 4:22), as on Friday they ruined the arrangement that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana 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.

אמר רבי אלעאי שמעתי מרבי אליעזר ואפילו בית כור: מתניתין דלא כחנניה דתניא חנניה אומר ואפילו היא ארבעים סאה כאסטרטיא של מלך

We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is the size of a beit kor, thirty times larger than a beit se’a. The Gemara notes that all agree that what the mishna taught was not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in a baraita that Ḥananya says: One is permitted to carry even if it is the size of of forty beit se’a, like the court of a king.

אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו שנאמר ויהי ישעיהו לא יצא אל חצר התיכונה כתיב העיר וקרינן חצר מכאן לאסטרטיא של מלך שהיו כעיירות בינוניות

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both Rabbi Elai and Ḥananya derived their opinion from the same verse, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out into the middle courtyard, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying” (ii Kings 20:4). In the biblical text, it is written: “The city [ha’ir],” and we read it as: “The middle courtyard [ḥatzer],” as there is a difference in this verse between the written word and how it is spoken. From here it is derived that royal courts were as large as intermediate-sized cities. Consequently, there is no contradiction, as the central courtyard of the royal palace was itself like a small town.

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר עיירות בינוניות הויין בית כור ומר סבר ארבעים סאה הויין

The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Elai and Ḥananya disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Elai, maintains: Intermediate-sized towns are the size of a field that had an area of a beit kor; and one Sage, Ḥananya, maintains: They are the size of forty se’a.

וישעיהו מאי בעי התם אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מלמד שחלה חזקיה והלך ישעיהו והושיב ישיבה על פתחו

The Gemara asks about the Biblical narrative cited above: What did Isaiah need to do there in the middle court, i.e., why was he there? The Gemara answers: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This teaches that Hezekiah took ill, and Isaiah went and established a Torah academy at his door, so that Torah scholars would sit and occupy themselves with Torah outside his room, the merit of which would help Hezekiah survive.

מכאן לתלמיד חכם שחלה שמושיבין ישיבה על פתחו ולאו מילתא היא דילמא אתי לאיגרויי ביה שטן:

Based on this, it is derived, with regard to a Torah scholar who took ill, that one establishes an academy at the entrance to his home. The Gemara comments: This, however, is not a proper course of action, as perhaps they will come to provoke Satan against him. Challenging Satan might worsen the health of a sick person rather than improve it.

וכן שמעתי הימנו אנשי חצר ששכח אחד ולא עירב ביתו אסור:

The mishna cites another statement made by Rabbi Elai in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: And I also heard from him another halakha: If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an 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.

והתנן ביתו אסור להוציא ולהכניס לו ולהן

The Gemara raises an objection: Didn’t we learn in a mishna: It is prohibited for the one who forgot to establish an eiruv to bring in 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.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר רב ששת לא קשיא

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult.