Commentary page

Eruvin 31b

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 31b

Eruvin 31b. The full printed text of this folio side — 20 numbered segments, about 371 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.

and one may also feed soldiers demai .

Segment 2

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי.

Rav Huna said: It was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai . And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai . The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

Segment 3

וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כּוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.

We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has been taken. The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem. Why is it necessary to state it may be used for an eiruv ? The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, i.e., the Levite took his tithe before the grain was threshed and before the priest took the teruma ; and the teruma of the tithes was taken from it but teruma gedola was not taken from it. Therefore, since the teruma is generally separated first, a portion of the first tithe that the Levite took should have been separated as teruma .

Segment 4

וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe, in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, is exempt from teruma gedola , as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26), from which the following inference is made: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I told you, the Levite, to separate. And I did not tell you to separate teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.

Segment 5

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כׇּל תְּרוּמַת ה׳״.

With regard to this matter, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should still not have to separate teruma gedola . Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma ” (Numbers 18:29). The inclusive phrase “from all” indicates that teruma gedola must be separated even from the first tithe in the case where the Levite precedes the priest after the grain has been collected in a pile.

Segment 6

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי — אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי — לָא אִידְּגַן.

Rav Pappa asks: And what did you see that led you to expound one verse as exempting the Levite from separating teruma gedola from first tithe that has been separated while the grain was on the stalks, and to expound another verse as requiring teruma gedola to be separated when the Levite took his first tithe after the grain was collected in a pile? Abaye answers: This produce, which has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that produce, which remained on the stalks, did not yet become grain. The wording of the biblical verses indicates that the requirement to separate teruma applies only to grain, whereas the produce is not considered grain until it has been threshed.

Segment 7

וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

The mishna also stated that one may establish an eiruv with the second tithe and consecrated food that have been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these foods may be used to establish an eiruv . The Gemara answers: This ruling was only needed for a case where one redeemed the second tithe or consecrated food and paid the principle but did not pay the additional fifth of their value, which must be paid when they are redeemed. And the mishna teaches us that the failure to pay the additional fifth does not invalidate the redemption. Once the principle is paid, even if payment of the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is regarded as redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.

Segment 8

אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.

The mishna further states: But one may not establish an eiruv with tevel , produce from which the priestly dues and other tithes have not been separated. The Gemara asks: This too is obvious, as it is prohibited to eat or derive any benefit from tevel . The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed with regard to tevel that is considered tevel by rabbinic decree. What is included in this category? For example, if one planted seeds in an imperforated container, one is exempt by Torah law from separating teruma and tithes from the resulting produce because Torah law does not consider produce grown in such a container to have grown from the ground.

Segment 9

וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.

The mishna stated that one may not establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has not been taken. The Gemara asks: It is obvious, as such produce is tevel . The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where the Levite preceded the priest and took first tithe from the pile, and only teruma of the tithe was taken from it, but teruma gedola was not taken from it, and the produce is therefore still tevel .

Segment 10

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.

Lest you say the halakha in that case is as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and the Levite is exempt from separating teruma gedola , and therefore the food may be used for an eiruv , the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa: If the Levite takes grain after it had been gathered in a pile, he must separate teruma gedola . Until he does so the produce may not be eaten.

Segment 11

וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא!

We also learned in the mishna that one may not establish an eiruv with the second tithe or consecrated food that have not been redeemed. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these items may not be used.

Segment 12

לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁפְּדָאָן, וְלֹא פְּדָאָן כְּהִלְכָתָן: מַעֲשֵׂר — שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּב אֲסִימוֹן, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף״ — כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו צוּרָה.

The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where he redeemed them, but did not redeem them properly, e.g., in the case of second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ asimon ]. And the Torah says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: And bind up [ vetzarta ] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). This is expounded to mean that the second tithe may only be redeemed with money that has a form [ tzura ] engraved upon it; however, unminted coins are not considered money for the purpose of redeeming the second tithe.

Segment 13

הֶקְדֵּשׁ — שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל גַּב קַרְקַע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.

With regard to consecrated property, the reference is to a case where one redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Torah states: “He will give the money and it shall become his.” Since the verse speaks of giving money, it may be inferred that consecrated property cannot be redeemed by giving the Temple treasury land of equivalent value.

Segment 14

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב.

MISHNA: If one sends his eiruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv , it is not a valid eiruv . But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific location and set it down in that spot, it is a valid eiruv . The critical point in the establishment of an eiruv is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the eiruv arrives there.

Segment 15

גְּמָ׳ וְקָטָן לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קָטָן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָעֵירוּב! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין, כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is a minor not fit to set down an eiruv ? Didn’t Rav Huna say: A minor may collect the food for an eiruv from the residents of a courtyard and establish an eiruv on their behalf even ab initio ? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here, where the mishna invalidates an eiruv placed by a minor, it is referring to an eiruv of Shabbat borders. These laws are relatively stringent, as they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do. There, where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an eiruv , he was referring to an eiruv of courtyards. This type of eiruv is more lenient and may be established even by a minor, as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.

Segment 16

אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב. מַאן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כּוּתָאֵי.

We learned in the mishna: Or if one sends his eiruv in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv . The Gemara asks: Who is this? Rav Ḥisda said: A Samaritan [ Kuti ], who does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to eiruv .

Segment 17

וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.

The mishna also states: And if he told another person to receive the eiruv from him, it is a valid eiruv . The Gemara challenges this statement: Let us be concerned that perhaps the minor or other incompetent person will not bring the eiruv to the other person. The Gemara responds: This may be answered as Rav Ḥisda said with regard to a different statement, that it was referring to a case where he stands and watches him. Here, too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches him from afar until the eiruv reaches the person designated to receive it.

Segment 18

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי — חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, let us be concerned that perhaps the other person will not take the eiruv from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place. From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening. He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination. The Gemara answers this question as follows: Rav Yeḥiel said in a different context that there is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Here, too, there is a legal presumption that the agent appointed to accept the eiruv fulfills his agency.

Segment 19

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב יְחִיאֵל? אַהָא אִתְּמַר, דְּתַנְיָא: נְתָנוֹ לַפִּיל וְהוֹלִיכוֹ, לַקּוֹף וְהוֹלִיכוֹ, אֵין זֶה עֵירוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. וְדִילְמָא לָא מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ. וְדִילְמָא לָא מְקַבֵּל לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yeḥiel stated? The Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita : If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a valid eiruv . But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv . The Gemara asks: But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it? Rav Ḥisda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv . The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept it from the elephant or monkey. Rav Yeḥiel said: There is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.

Segment 20

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

Rav Naḥman said: With regard to Torah laws, we do not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency; rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission.

Eruvin 31b

Eruvin 31b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Gilyon HaShas

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Original text