Commentary page

Eruvin 64a

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 64a

Eruvin 64a. The full printed text of this folio side — 12 numbered segments, about 269 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת עֵירוּב מֵאוֹתוֹ מָבוֹי!

If so, you have abolished the halakhic category of eiruv from that alleyway. Since from a halakhic perspective it is considered as though only one person lives in that alleyway, there is no need for an eiruv . Consequently, when the residents carry in it without an eiruv , observers will mistakenly think that it is permitted to carry in an alleyway even without an eiruv .

Segment 2

דִּמְעָרְבִי. יֹאמְרוּ עֵירוּב מוֹעִיל בִּמְקוֹם גּוֹי?! דְּמַכְרְזִינַן.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied: It is required that they establish an eiruv anyway, as a reminder of the laws of eiruvin , even though it serves no halakhic purpose. Rava retorted that this in turn results in a different problem: Observers will then say that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile, even if he does not rent out his domain, which is against the halakha . He replied: We make an announcement to the effect that they are not carrying because of the eiruv , and that it only serves as a reminder.

Segment 3

אַכְרָזְתָּא לְדַרְדְּקֵי?!

Rava rejected this option as well: Can we make an announcement for the children? Even if it is assured that all adults present will hear the announcement, how will the children, who do not hear or understand the announcement, know the halakha later in life? Recalling that their fathers established an eiruv in this alleyway, they will think that an eiruv is effective even in the place of a gentile. Therefore, one cannot rely on Abaye’s solution.

Segment 4

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֵיזִיל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, לִיקְרַב לֵיהּ, וְלִשְׁאוֹל מִינֵּיהּ דּוּכְתָּא וְלַינַּח בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּשְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ — נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ.

Rather, Rava said that the gentile’s Jewish neighbors should proceed as follows: Let one of them go and become friendly with the gentile, and ask him for permission to make use of a place in his domain, and set something down there, thus becoming like the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester. And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Not only can the gentile himself rent out his domain for the purpose of an eiruv , but even his hired laborer, and even his harvester, if he is a Jew, may rent out the space and contribute to the eiruv on his behalf, and this is enough.

Segment 5

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָיוּ שָׁם חֲמִשָּׁה שְׂכִירוֹ וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְקִיטוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אָמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהָקֵל, יֹאמְרוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וּלְקִיטוֹ לְהַחֲמִיר?

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If there were five hired laborers or five harvesters there, what is the halakha ? Does the presence of more than one of these, if they are all Jews, entail a stringency, such that they are all required to join in the eiruv or that they are all required to rent out his domain? Rav Yosef said to him: If the Sages said that the gentile’s hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a leniency, would they say that his hired laborer or harvester stands in his place as a stringency? This law was stated only as a leniency with regard to the laws of renting for the purpose of an eiruv , not in order to introduce more stringencies.

Segment 6

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂכִירוֹ וַאֲפִילּוּ לְקִיטוֹ, נוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ וְדַיּוֹ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כַּמָּה מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא.

The Gemara proceeds to examine the ruling cited in the course of the previous discussion. Returning to the matter itself, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even the gentile’s hired laborer, and even his harvester, may contribute to the eiruv in his stead, and this is enough. Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this halakha . Even Rav Naḥman agreed with this statement, and viewed it as correct and substantiated.

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן — אַל יוֹרֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, דְּהָא אֲנָא כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא רְבִיעֵתָא דְּחַמְרָא — לָא צִילָא דַּעְתַּאי.

However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter- log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter- log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings.

Segment 8

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא אָמַר מָר הָכִי? הָאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְרוֹעֶה זוֹנוֹת יְאַבֶּד הוֹן״ — כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר שְׁמוּעָה זוֹ נָאָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ נָאָה — מְאַבֵּד הוֹנָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַרִי בִּי.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes [ zonot ] wastes his fortune” (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [ zo na’a ] but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah.

Segment 9

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: שָׁתוּי אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תְּפִלָּה. שִׁיכּוֹר אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאִם הִתְפַּלֵּל — תְּפִלָּתוֹ תּוֹעֵבָה.

On the topic of drinking wine, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who has drunk wine must not pray, but if he nonetheless prayed, his prayer is a prayer, i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation. On the other hand, one who is intoxicated with wine must not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination.

Segment 10

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר שׁוּמְנִי וְרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר יִרְמְיָה מִגִּיפְתִּי הֲווֹ קָא מִפַּטְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי אַמַּעְבָּרָא דִּנְהַר יוֹפְטִי. אֲמַרוּ: כׇּל חַד מִינַּן לֵימָא מִילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר מָרִי בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לָא יִפָּטֵר אָדָם מֵחֲבֵירוֹ אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר הֲלָכָה, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ כָּךְ זוֹכְרוֹ.

The Gemara poses a question: What are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who has drunk wine; and what are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? The Gemara answers that one can learn this from the following event: As Rabbi Abba bar Shumni and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya from Gifti were taking leave of each other at the ford of the Yofti River, they said: Let each one of us say something that his fellow scholar has not yet heard, for Mari bar Rav Huna said: A person must take leave of his fellow only in the midst of a discussion of a matter of halakha , as due to this he will remember him.

Segment 11

פְּתַח חַד וַאֲמַר: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שָׁתוּי, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיכּוֹר? שָׁתוּי — כֹּל שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. שִׁיכּוֹר — כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְדַבֵּר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

One of them opened the discussion and said: What are the circumstances where a person is considered one who has drunk wine, and what are the circumstances where a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? One who has drunk wine refers to anyone who has drunk wine but whose mind remains clear enough that he is able to talk in the presence of a king. One who is intoxicated refers to anyone who is so disoriented by the wine he has drunk that he is not able to talk in the presence of a king.

Segment 12

פְּתַח אִידַּךְ וַאֲמַר: הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִתְקַיְּימוּ בְּיָדוֹ? יִקַּח בָּהֶן סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אֲפִילּוּ

The other one then opened a different discussion and said: With regard to one who took possession of a convert’s property, what should he do so that it remains in his hands? The property of a convert who died without children is regarded as ownerless, and is acquired by the first person to perform a valid act of acquisition upon it. Since in this case the one who took possession of the property did not acquire it through his own labor, his ownership is tenuous, and he is liable to lose it unless he uses it for the purpose of a mitzva. One in this situation should buy a Torah scroll with part of the revenue, and by the merit of this act, he will retain the rest. Rav Sheshet said: Even

Eruvin 64a

Eruvin 64a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Gilyon HaShas

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text