Commentary page

Eruvin 46a

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 46a

Eruvin 46a. The full printed text of this folio side — 20 numbered segments, about 373 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהָווּ לְהוּ נוֹלָד, דַּאֲסִירִי!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the water was previously not in its current state, all the more so should it be considered as something that came into being [ nolad ] on the Festival, and consequently it is prohibited to carry it. Something that came into being or assumed its present form on Shabbat or Festivals is considered set-aside [ muktze ] and may not be handled on Shabbat or Festivals.

Segment 2

אֶלָּא: מַיָּא בְּעָבִים מֵינָד נָיְידִי. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אוֹקְיָינוֹס נָמֵי לָא לִיקְשׁוֹ לָךְ, מַיָּא בְּאוֹקְיָינוֹס נָמֵי מֵינָד נָיְידִי, וְתַנְיָא: נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין וּמַעְיָינוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי כׇּל אָדָם.

Rather, we should say: The water in clouds is in constant motion and therefore does not acquire residence there. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, the ocean should also not be difficult for you, as the water in the ocean is also in constant motion. And it was taught in a baraita : Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like the feet of all people, as their waters do not acquire residence in any particular place. The same law also applies to clouds and seas.

Segment 3

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ אוֹ מִכְּלָלָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thousand cubits in every direction. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi: Did you hear this halakha explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you understand it by inference from some other ruling that he issued? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: I heard it explicitly from him.

Segment 4

מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב.

The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv .

Segment 5

וְתַרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?!

The Gemara asks: Why do I need both? Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to state both the general ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv , and also the specific ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri on this issue?

Segment 6

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בֵּין לְקוּלָּא וּבֵין לְחוּמְרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב.

Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place. Consequently, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv , so that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only when it entails a leniency.

Segment 7

וְלֵימָא ״הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּעֵירוּב״. הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: Let him state only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv . Why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri?

Segment 8

אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד וְרַבִּים בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים, אֲבָל יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים — אֵימָא לָא.

The Gemara answers: This ruling was necessary as well, for had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv , it might have entered your mind to say that this statement applies only to disputes in which a single authority disagrees with another single authority, or several authorities disagree with several other authorities. But when a single authority maintains a lenient opinion against several authorities who maintain a more stringent position, you might have said that we do not rule in his favor. Hence, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri although he disputes the Rabbis.

Segment 9

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי: מִכְּדֵי עֵירוּבִין דְּרַבָּנַן, מָה לִי יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד, וּמָה לִי יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים!

Rava said to Abaye: Now, since the laws of eiruvin are rabbinic in origin, what reason is there for me to differentiate between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

Segment 10

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וּבִדְרַבָּנַן לָא שָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד לְיָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים!

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

Segment 11

וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלֶיהָ שָׁלֹשׁ עוֹנוֹת — דַּיָּיהּ שְׁעָתָהּ.

Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Rabbi Elazar says: Any woman who passed three expected menstrual cycles without experiencing bleeding is presumed not to be menstruating. If afterward she sees blood, it is enough that she be regarded as ritually impure due to menstruation from the time that she examined herself and saw that she had a discharge, rather than retroactively for up to twenty-four hours. The Rabbis, however, maintain that this halakha applies only to an older woman or to a woman after childbirth, for whom it is natural to stop menstruating, but not to a normal young woman for whom three periods have passed without bleeding.

Segment 12

וְתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וְעָשָׂה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק.

And it was taught in a baraita : It once happened that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. After he remembered that Rabbi Elazar’s colleagues disagree with him on this matter and that he had apparently ruled incorrectly, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances.

Segment 13

מַאי ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״? אִילֵּימָא: לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר דְּאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֶלָּא כְּרַבָּנַן — בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק הֵיכִי עָבֵיד כְּווֹתֵיהּ!

The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of: After he remembered? If you say that it means after he remembered that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar but rather in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then how could he rule in accordance with him even in exigent circumstances, given that the halakha had been decided against him?

Segment 14

אֶלָּא: דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְלָא כְּרַבָּנַן. ״לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּזְכַּר״ דְּלָאו יָחִיד פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ אֶלָּא רַבִּים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר: כְּדַי הוּא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לִסְמוֹךְ עָלָיו בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק.

Rather, it must be that the halakha had not been stated on this matter, neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And after he remembered that it was not a single authority who disagreed with Rabbi Elazar, but rather several authorities who disagreed with him, he nonetheless said: Rabbi Elazar is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances. This demonstrates that even with a dispute that involves a rabbinic decree, such as whether a woman is declared ritually impure retroactively, there is room to distinguish between a disagreement of a single authority and a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority and several authorities.

Segment 15

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: וּבִדְרַבָּנַן לָא שָׁנֵי בֵּין יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד, בֵּין יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים?

Rav Mesharshiya said to Rava, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said to Rava: Is there no difference with regard to rabbinic laws between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority, and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities?

Segment 16

וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁמוּעָה קְרוֹבָה נוֹהֶגֶת שִׁבְעָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, רְחוֹקָה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד.

Wasn’t it was taught in a baraita : If a person receives a proximate report that one of his close relatives has died, he practices all the customs of the intense seven day mourning period as well as the customs of the thirty day mourning period. But if he receives a distant report, he practices only one day of mourning.

Segment 17

וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא קְרוֹבָה וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא רְחוֹקָה? בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים — קְרוֹבָה, לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים — רְחוֹקָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת שְׁמוּעָה קְרוֹבָה וְאַחַת שְׁמוּעָה רְחוֹקָה נוֹהֶגֶת שִׁבְעָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים.

What is considered a proximate report, and what is considered a distant report? If the report arrives within thirty days of the close relative’s passing, it is regarded as proximate, and if it arrives after thirty days it is considered distant; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. But the Rabbis say: Both in the case of a proximate report and in the case of a distant report, the grieving relative practices the seven- day mourning period and the thirty- day mourning period.

Segment 18

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא יָחִיד מֵיקֵל וְרַבִּים מֵחֲמִירִין, הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמַּחְמִירִין הַמְרוּבִּים, חוּץ מִזּוֹ, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵיקֵל וַחֲכָמִים מֵחֲמִירִין — הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever you find that a single authority is lenient with regard to a certain halakha and several other authorities are stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the words of the stringent authorities, who constitute the majority, except for here, where despite the fact that the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is lenient and the opinion of the Rabbis is more stringent, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Segment 19

וְסָבַר לַהּ כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan holds like Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to mourning practices, i.e., wherever there is a dispute with regard to mourning customs, the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion.

Segment 20

בַּאֲבֵילוּת הוּא דְּאַקִּילוּ בַּהּ רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא — אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן שָׁנֵי בֵּין יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד בֵּין יָחִיד בִּמְקוֹם רַבִּים.

From here the Gemara infers: It is only with regard to mourning practices that the Sages were lenient, but in general, with regard to other areas of halakha , even in the case of rabbinic laws there is a difference between a disagreement of a single authority with a single authority and a disagreement of a single authority with several authorities. This being the case, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did well to rule explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, even though he is a single authority who ruled leniently in dispute with the Rabbis.

Eruvin 46a

Eruvin 46a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text