Commentary page

Eruvin 26b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Eruvin 26b

Eruvin 26b. The full printed text of this folio side — 20 numbered segments, about 317 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָא רַבָּנַן.

This, the mishna here, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while that, the other mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Segment 2

כְּשֶׁתִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ — רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ בִּיטֵּל. לְרַבָּנַן: הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ — רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ לֹא בִּיטֵּל.

Rav Sheshet adds: When you examine the matter closely, you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard also renounces his authority over his own house. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, one who renounces his authority over his share in the courtyard to the other residents does not renounce his authority over his own house to them.

Segment 3

פְּשִׁיטָא!

The Gemara expresses surprise at this comment: But it is obvious that this is the point over which the tanna’im disagree.

Segment 4

אָמַר רַחֲבָה: אֲנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא תַּרְגֵּימְנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לַחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁשְּׁרוּיִן בְּחָצֵר אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב.

The Gemara answers: Raḥava said: Both Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and I explained: Rav Sheshet’s explanation was necessary only with regard to the case of five people who lived in the same courtyard, one of whom forgot to join in an eiruv with the others.

Segment 5

לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce it to each and every one of the residents, as we already know that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who renounces authority does so in a generous manner, renouncing authority not only of his share in the courtyard, but also of his own house. Consequently, if he is required to renounce authority to many people, we assume that he does so even if this is not explicitly stated.

Segment 6

לְרַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ, צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

In contrast, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, when he renounces his authority, it does not suffice that he renounces it in favor of one person; rather, he must explicitly renounce it to each and every one, as we cannot presume that he renounces authority in a generous manner.

Segment 7

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁשְּׁרוּיִן בְּחָצֵר אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב, כְּשֶׁהוּא מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ, אֵין צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

The Gemara continues: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita ? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce his authority to each and every one of the residents. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, as explained above.

Segment 8

רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי. רַב טַבְיוֹמֵי מַתְנֵי הָכִי: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁשְּׁרוּיִם בְּחָצֵר אֶחָד וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב, כְּשֶׁהוּא מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

Rav Kahana taught the passage this way, as cited above, that it was Raḥava and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana who applied Rav Sheshet’s explanation to the case of the five people living in the same courtyard. Rav Tavyomei, on the other hand, taught it as follows, that it was Rav Sheshet himself who applied it to that case: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita ? If five people lived in the same courtyard, and one of them forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents, when he renounces his authority, he need not renounce 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.

Segment 9

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִי אָמַר: לָא מְבַטֵּילְנָא, וּלְרַבָּנַן, אִי אָמַר: מְבַטֵּילְנָא — מַאי?

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, which presumes that one renounces his authority over his house as well, if one who forgot to join in an eiruv with the other 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?

Segment 10

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ, רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ בִּיטֵּל. וְהַאי אָמַר: אֲנָא לָא מְבַטֵּילְנָא.

The Gemara clarifies: Is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason because he maintains in general that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents presumably also renounces to them authority over his own house, but that since this person explicitly stated: I am not renouncing authority of my house, he therefore maintains his authority?

Segment 11

אוֹ דִילְמָא, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם דְּבַיִת בְּלָא חָצֵר לָא עֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּדָיְירִי. וְכִי קָאָמַר לָא מְבַטֵּילְנָא — לָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר דָּיַירְנָא — לָאו כְּלוּם קָאָמַר.

Or perhaps Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is because people do not generally live in a house without a courtyard, and therefore anyone who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard automatically renounces authority over his own house regardless of what he says. Therefore, when he says: I am not renouncing authority over my house, it is not in his power to do so, as even though he says: I will continue to live in and retain authority over my house, he has said nothing.

Segment 12

וּלְרַבָּנַן, אִי אָמַר: מְבַטֵּילְנָא. מַאי טַעְמָא דְרַבָּנַן? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבְרִי: הַמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת חֲצֵירוֹ — רְשׁוּת בֵּיתוֹ לֹא בִּיטֵּל, וְהַאי אֲמַר מְבַטֵּילְנָא.

And the question likewise arises according to the opinion of the Rabbis. If one explicitly stated: I am renouncing authority of my house as well, what is the halakha ? Is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis because they maintain that one who renounces authority over his share in a courtyard to the other residents 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?

Segment 13

אוֹ דִילְמָא, טַעְמָא דְרַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דִּמְסַלֵּק נַפְשֵׁיהּ לִגְמָרֵי מִבַּיִת וְחָצֵר, וְהָוֵי כִּי אוֹרֵחַ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ. וְהַאי כִּי אָמַר מְבַטֵּילְנָא — לָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ קָאָמַר.

Or perhaps the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis is because one does not usually remove himself entirely from a house and courtyard, making himself like a guest among his neighbors. 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 disregarded.

Segment 14

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן בֵּין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, כֵּיוָן דְּגַלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ — גַּלִּי.

Abaye said to Rav Pappa in answer to his question: Both according to the Rabbis and according to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has revealed his wishes, he has revealed them, and everything follows his express wishes.

Segment 15

וְכֵן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיּוֹצְאִים בְּעַרְקַבָּלִין בְּפֶסַח. מַאי עַרְקַבָּלִין? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַצְווֹתָא חָרוּזְיָאתָא.

The mishna records yet another teaching handed down by Rabbi Elai: And I also heard from Rabbi Eliezer another halakha , that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin , a certain bitter herb. The Gemara asks: What is arkablin ? Reish Lakish said: It is Atzvata ḥaruziyata , a type of fiber that wraps itself around a date palm.

Segment 16

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין

MISHNA: One may establish a joining of houses in courtyards [ eiruv ḥatzerot ] in order to permit carrying on Shabbat in a courtyard shared by two or more houses, and one may establish a joining of Shabbat borders [ eiruv teḥumin ] in order to extend the distance one is permitted to walk on Shabbat; and similarly, one may merge courtyards in order to permit carrying in an alleyway shared by two or more courtyards. This may be done with all kinds of food except for water and salt, as they are not considered foods and therefore may not be used for these purposes.

Segment 17

מַתְנִי׳ בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח.

The mishna continues with two similar principles: All types of food may be bought with second- tithe money, which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food (Deuteronomy 14:26), except for water and salt. Similarly, one who vows that nourishment is prohibited to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered sources of nourishment.

Segment 18

וְהַכֹּל נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן — מוּתָּר בְּמֶלַח וּבְמַיִם.

It was further stated with regard to the laws of joining courtyards that one may establish an eiruv teḥumin for a nazirite with wine, even though he is prohibited to drink it, because it is permitted to others. And similarly, one may establish an eiruv teḥumin for an Israelite with teruma , even though he may not eat it, because it is permitted to a priest. The food used for an eiruv teḥumin 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. Summakhos, however, says: One may only establish an eiruv teḥumin for an Israelite with unconsecrated food.

Segment 19

מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: בְּחוּלִּין.

It was additionally stated that one may establish an eiruv teḥumin for a priest in a beit haperas , a field containing a grave that was plowed over. There is doubt as to the location of bone fragments in the entire area. A priest is prohibited to come into contact with a corpse, and therefore may not enter a beit haperas . Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv teḥumin may be established for a priest even between the graves in a graveyard, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law,

Segment 20

וְלַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בֵּין הַקְּבָרוֹת.

Eruvin 26b

Eruvin 26b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text