Commentary page

Eruvin 30b

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 30b

Eruvin 30b. The full printed text of this folio side — 19 numbered segments, about 334 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין לְגָדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!

that one may establish an eiruv for an adult even on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that he may not eat on Yom Kippur? It must be because eating is permitted to a minor.

Segment 2

אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אֲבָל! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין לַגָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, כֵּן מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.

Beit Shammai said to them: Indeed [ aval ], it is so. Beit Hillel said to them: Just as one may establish an eiruv for an adult on Yom Kippur, so too, one may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma .

Segment 3

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי: הָתָם — אִיכָּא סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, הָכָא — לֵיכָּא סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

And how do Beit Shammai explain the difference between these cases? The Gemara explains: There, with regard to Yom Kippur, there is at least a meal that was fit to be eaten by that person while it was still day, on the eve of Yom Kippur. Here, in the cases of wine for a nazirite and teruma for an Israelite, there is no meal that was fit to be eaten by them while it was still day, on Friday.

Segment 4

כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָה. דְּתַנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עַצְמָן שֶׁל בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בְּעֵירוּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא מִטָּתוֹ וְכׇל כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישָׁיו לְשָׁם.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was that entire baraita stated? It was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in another baraita that Ḥananya says: The whole view of Beit Shammai, i.e., their fundamental position, was that they did not concede to the very possibility of joining Shabbat borders [ eiruv teḥumin ] by simply placing food in a particular location. Rather, they hold that one’s Shabbat residence remains the same until he literally moves his residence, such as if he carries out his bed and his utensils to there, to a new location.

Segment 5

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: עֵירַב בִּשְׁחוֹרִים לֹא יֵצֵא בִּלְבָנִים, בִּלְבָנִים לֹא יֵצֵא בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita : If one established an eiruv in black clothing, and Shabbat commenced while he was still dressed those clothes, he may not go out in white clothing. If one established the eiruv while dressed in white, he may not go out in black. According to whose opinion is this halakha ? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of Ḥananya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

Segment 6

וְלַחֲנַנְיָה, בִּשְׁחוֹרִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֵצֵא, הָא בִּלְבָנִים יֵצֵא? הָאָמַר עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא מִטָּתוֹ וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישָׁיו לְשָׁם! הָכִי קָאָמַר: עֵירַב בִּלְבָנִים וְהוּצְרַךְ לִשְׁחוֹרִים, אַף בִּלְבָנִים לֹא יֵצֵא. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ḥananya, is it with black clothing that he may not go out, but in white clothing he may go out? Didn’t Ḥananya say that according to Beit Shammai an eiruv is not effective at all until one carries out his bed and his utensils to the place he wishes to establish as his residence? The Gemara answers: The wording of the baraita must be emended and this is what it said: If one established an eiruv while dressed in white clothing, and he needed black clothing but did not have it with him, he may not go out even in white clothing. In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of Ḥananya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

Segment 7

סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר בְּחוּלִּין. וְאִילּוּ לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן לָא פְּלִיג, מַאי טַעְמָא — אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִתְּשִׁיל אַנְּזִירוּתֵיהּ.

We learned in the mishna: Summakhos disagrees and says: One may not establish an eiruv for an Israelite with teruma , but only with regular, non-sacred food items. The Gemara notes: But with regard to the mishna’s ruling that an eiruv may be established for a nazirite with wine, Summakhos does not appear to disagree. What is the reason for the distinction? The Gemara explains: A nazirite can ask a Sage to annul his vow and release him from his nazirite status, and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.

Segment 8

אִי הָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִיתְּשִׁיל עִילָּוָיהּ? אִי מִתְּשִׁיל עֲלַהּ — הָדְרָא לְטִיבְלָא.

The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma as well, one can ask a Sage to annul its status. Teruma is consecrated through a verbal declaration by the one separating it, and that declaration, like other consecrations and vows, can be nullified by a Sage. The Gemara answers: Such a course of action would not help. If one asks a Sage to annul his declaration that turned the produce into teruma , the produce will return to its status as tevel , produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated, and he will still be prohibited to consume it.

Segment 9

וְלַיפְרוֹשׁ עֲלַהּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר? לָא נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵירִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף.

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma for that produce from produce located somewhere else and thus permit it to be eaten. The Gemara answers: Ḥaverim , members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce it comes to exempt, as this is prohibited ab initio .

Segment 10

וְלַפְרוֹשׁ עֲלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ! דְּלֵית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּרָא.

The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma from the produce used for the eiruv itself and consequently permit the rest of the produce to be eaten. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a case where, after removing teruma , it would not contain the amount required for an eiruv , i.e., one would be left with less than the quantity of food sufficient for two meals.

Segment 11

וּמַאי פַּסְקָא? אֶלָּא, סוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

The Gemara asks: What makes it necessary to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case? Rather, we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: Summakhos agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [ shevut ], the Sages issued the decree to apply even during twilight. Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself. Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well. Therefore, during twilight, when the eiruv would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.

Segment 12

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן: יֵשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַכֹּל לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא אָדָם. מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ מִנְחָה, וּמְלֹא חׇפְנָיו קְטֹרֶת, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מְלֹא לוּגְמָיו בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וּבִמְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְעֵירוּב. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַאי דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ בָּעִינַן.

The Gemara now asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that we learned in the following mishna: There are halakhot with regard to which they stated that measures are all in accordance with the particular person involved, e.g., the handful of flour that a priest scoops out from a meal-offering, and the handfuls of incense the High Priest would offer on Yom Kippur, and one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the measure of two meals’ worth of nourishment for an eiruv . All these measures are determined by the particular individual involved. In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha ? Rabbi Zeira said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Summakhos, who said: We require that which is fit for him, the particular individual, and we do not follow a standard measure.

Segment 13

לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מְעָרְבִין לְחוֹלֶה וּלְזָקֵן כְּדֵי מְזוֹנוֹ, וּלְרַעַבְתָן בִּסְעוּדָה בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם!

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the aforementioned mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught in a baraita : Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals; and if he eats less than the average amount due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is sufficient. But for a glutton we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him; we measure on the basis of an average meal for the typical person.

Segment 14

תַּרְגּוּמָא, אַחוֹלֶה וְזָקֵן. אֲבָל רַעַבְתָן, בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

The Gemara answers: When the mishna says that the measure of food for two meals is determined by the particular person involved, interpret that as referring to an ill or elderly person. But with regard to a glutton, we do not determine the measure of food by his standard for a different reason, namely because his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. Therefore, there is no reason to be stringent with him and determine the measure according to his particular needs.

Segment 15

וְלַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ — טָהוֹר.

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a priest in a beit haperas , an area in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave or a corpse. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a time of need a person may blow on the dust in a beit haperas before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it, and he may thus walk across the area. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, as we assume that it no longer contains any bones as large as a kernel of barley. Both of these statements indicate that the ritual impurity of a beit haperas is a stringency decreed by the Sages. Therefore, since there is a way to avoid becoming ritually impure there, even a priest may place his eiruv in a beit haperas .

Segment 16

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לָחוֹץ וְלֵילֵךְ בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל. קָא סָבַר: אֹהֶל זָרוּק שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv may be established for a priest even in a cemetery, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law. It was taught: This is permitted because the priest can interpose and walk between the graves inside a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard. These containers do not contract impurity because of their large size, and anything found inside of them remains pure. From here we see that he holds the following: A moving tent is called a tent, and therefore the carriage, box, or cupboard are also considered tents. They shield a person carried in them from the impurity imparted by the graves in a cemetery.

Segment 17

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל — רַבִּי מְטַמֵּא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר.

The Gemara notes that this matter is the subject of a dispute between the following tanna’im , as it was taught in a baraita : With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside Eretz Yisrael, not on foot, but in a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, renders him pure.

Segment 18

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר אֹהֶל זָרוּק לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל, וּמָר סָבַר אֹהֶל זָרוּק שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל.

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent. The principle is that only something fixed can shield against ritual impurity, but if one is situated inside a portable vessel, the vessel contracts impurity and he becomes impure along with it. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent is called a tent, and it shields the person inside from contracting ritual impurity.

Segment 19

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר:

And with regard to that which was taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda says:

Eruvin 30b

Eruvin 30b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rav Nissim Gaon

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text