Commentary page

Eruvin 73a

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 73a

Eruvin 73a. The full printed text of this folio side — 18 numbered segments, about 425 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

מְקוֹם פִּיתָּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מְקוֹם לִינָה.

The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.

Segment 2

מֵיתִיבִי: הָרוֹעִים, וְהַקַּיָּיצִין וְהַבּוּרְגָּנִין וְשׁוֹמְרֵי פֵירוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָלִין בָּעִיר — הֲרֵי הֵן כְּאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר. בִּזְמַן שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָלִין בַּשָּׂדֶה — יֵשׁ לָהֶם אַלְפַּיִם לְכׇל רוּחַ!

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita : With regard to shepherds; fig watchmen, who guard figs spread out in the field; guardsmen who sit in small guardhouses; and produce watchmen; when they customarily sleep in the city in addition to eating there, they are like the residents of the city with regard to their Shabbat limit, even though they were in the field when Shabbat began. However, when they customarily sleep in the field, even though they eat in the town, they have only two thousand cubits in each direction from the places where they sleep. This seems to contradict the opinion of Rav, who maintains that a person’s place of dwelling is determined by where he eats, not by where he sleeps.

Segment 3

הָתָם אֲנַן סָהֲדִי דְּאִי מַמְטוּ לְהוּ רִיפְתָּא הָתָם, טְפֵי נִיחָא לְהוּ.

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the people in the field, we are witnesses, i.e., it is clearly evident, that if people would bring them bread there, to the place where they sleep, it would be more convenient for them. Fundamentally, however, a person’s dwelling place is determined by where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

Segment 4

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן, וְאַהָא אֲמַרְתְּ נִיהֲלַן: הָאַחִין שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין עַל שֻׁלְחַן אֲבִיהֶן, וִישֵׁנִים בְּבָתֵּיהֶן — צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְקוֹם לִינָה גּוֹרֵם. וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּמְקַבְּלֵי פְרָס שָׁנוּ.

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha stated by Rav. An illness had caused Rav Yosef to forget his studies. His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was with regard to this that you said it to us: With regard to brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them. And we said to you: Can one learn from here that a person’s place of sleep determines the location of his Shabbat residence? And you said to us in this regard that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father and are therefore considered as though they eat at his table, whereas in actual fact they eat their meals in their own homes.

Segment 5

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים מְקַבְּלוֹת פְּרָס מִבַּעֲלֵיהֶן, וַחֲמִשָּׁה עֲבָדִים מְקַבְּלִין פְּרָס מֵרַבֵּיהֶן — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה מַתִּיר בַּנָּשִׁים, וְאוֹסֵר בָּעֲבָדִים.

The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to one who has five wives who receive a portion from their husband while each living in her own quarters in the courtyard, and five slaves who receive a portion from their master while living in their own lodgings in the courtyard, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits in the case of the wives, i.e., they do not each have to contribute separately to the eiruv , as they are all considered to be residing with their husband. And he prohibits in the case of the slaves, meaning that he holds that as they live in separate houses, each is considered as residing on his own.

Segment 6

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא מַתִּיר בָּעֲבָדִים, וְאוֹסֵר בַּנָּשִׁים.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permits in the case of the slaves, as a slave necessarily follows his master, and he prohibits in the case of the wives, as each woman is significant in her own right, and is not totally dependent on her husband.

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְדָנִיֵּאל בִּתְרַע מַלְכָּא״.

Rav said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? As it is written: “But Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Daniel 2:49). The verse refers to Daniel’s function rather than to an actual location, indicating that wherever Daniel went, it was as though he was in the king’s gate. The same applies to any slave vis-à-vis his master.

Segment 8

פְּשִׁיטָא, בֵּן אֵצֶל אָבִיו, כְּדַאֲמַרַן. אִשָּׁה אֵצֶל בַּעְלָהּ וְעֶבֶד אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ, פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא. תַּלְמִיד אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ, מַאי?

The Gemara proceeds to clarify various aspects of this issue, starting with a summary of what has already been stated. The halakha is obvious in the case of a son with his father, as we stated it above the mishna. A wife with her husband and a slave with his master are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. With regard to a student who lives with his master in the same courtyard and receives his sustenance from him, what is his status with regard to eiruv ?

Segment 9

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּרַב בֵּי רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר: אֵין אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ סוֹמְכִין עַל שׁוּלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּיא. וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בֵּי רַבִּי אָמַר: אֵין אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָנוּ סוֹמְכִין עַל שׁוּלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי.

Come and hear a resolution to this question: As Rav, when he was in the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv , as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Ḥiyya. And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya himself, when he was in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv , as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Segment 10

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּבוּ אֶת עֵירוּבָן, כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן, אוֹ צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֵירוּב אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן.

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv , when they take their eiruv elsewhere in order to merge their courtyard with a different one, is one contribution to the eiruv sufficient for all of them, or do they need a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every one of them? Rabba said to him: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.

Segment 11

וְהָא אַחִין, דְּכִי גָּבוּ דָּמוּ, וְקָתָנֵי: צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא דָּיוֹרִין בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. דְּמִגּוֹ דְּהָנֵי אָסְרִי, הָנֵי נָמֵי אָסְרִי.

Abaye asked: But in the case of brothers, who are comparable to people who collected their eiruv , the mishna nonetheless teaches: They require a separate eiruv for each and every one of them. Rabba responded: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where there are other residents, in addition to the father and his sons, living with them. In that case, since these additional residents render carrying in the same courtyard prohibited unless they join in an eiruv , those brothers also render it prohibited for one another to carry in the other courtyard unless each of them contributes to the eiruv .

Segment 12

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת עֵירוּבָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עֵירוּבָן בָּא אֶצְלָם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין דָּיוֹרִין עִמָּהֶן בֶּחָצֵר — אֵין צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand, as the mishna teaches: When do they state this halakha ? When they bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard. But if their eiruv was coming to them, or if there are no other residents with them in the courtyard, they do not need to establish an eiruv , as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard. Learn from this that the preceding ruling refers to a situation where they shared the courtyard with other residents.

Segment 13

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: בְּנֵי בֵי רַב, דְּאָכְלִי נַהֲמָא בְּבָאגָא, וְאָתוּ וּבָיְיתִי בְּבֵי רַב, כִּי מָשְׁחִינַן לְהוּ תְּחוּמָא, מִבֵּי רַב מָשְׁחִינַן לְהוּ אוֹ מִבָּאגָא מָשְׁחִינַן לְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָשְׁחִינַן מִבֵּי רַב.

The Gemara addresses a similar issue with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries: Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to students in their master’s house who eat their bread in their houses in the field [ baga ] and then come and sleep in their master’s house, when we measure their Shabbat limit for them, do we measure it for them from their master’s house, where they sleep, or do we measure it for them from the field, where they eat? He said to him: We measure it from their master’s house.

Segment 14

וַהֲרֵי נוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּתוֹךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וְאָתֵי וּבָיֵית בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, דְּמָשְׁחִינַן לֵיהּ תְּחוּמָא מֵעֵירוּבֵיהּ!

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked: But in the case of one who deposits his eiruv , which establishes the location of his meal, within two thousand cubits, and then goes back and sleeps in his house, we measure his Shabbat limit from his eiruv . This implies that the determining factor is where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.

Segment 15

בְּהָהוּא — אֲנַן סָהֲדִי, וּבְהָדָא — אֲנַן סָהֲדִי. בְּהָהוּא אֲנַן סָהֲדִי — דְּאִי מִיתְּדַר לֵיהּ הָתָם נִיחָא לֵיהּ, וּבַהֲדָא אֲנַן סָהֲדִי — דְּאִי מַיְיתוּ לְהוּ רִיפְתָּא לְבֵי רַב, נִיחָא לְהוּ טְפֵי.

The Gemara answers: In that case we are witnesses, and in this case we are witnesses, i.e., in both cases the person’s intentions regarding his place of residence are clearly evident. In that case, where the person deposits his eiruv , we are witnesses that if he could reside there, at the site of his eiruv , it would be better for him, i.e., if he could spend the night there he would do so, since he wishes to continue from that place onward on the following day. And in this case of the students in their master’s house, we are witnesses that if people would bring them bread in their master’s house, enabling them to eat there, it would be better for them. Consequently, it is considered their place of residence.

Segment 16

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: אָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ, כְּרַבִּים דָּמוּ אוֹ כִּיחִידִים דָּמוּ? צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין עֵירוּב? מָבוֹי שֶׁלָּהֶן נִיתָּר בְּלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, אוֹ אֵין נִיתָּר בְּלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה?

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: With regard to a father and his son, or a master and his student, are they considered as many people or as individuals? The practical import of the question is as follows: If they lived together in a courtyard that was within another courtyard, are they considered as many people, who require an eiruv in order to render it permitted to carry in the outer courtyard, or do they not require an eiruv , as they are treated as an individual, who does not render carrying in the outer courtyard prohibited? Is their alleyway rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam, like one that has multiple residents, or is it not rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam?

Segment 17

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: אָב וּבְנוֹ, הָרַב וְתַלְמִידוֹ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהֶן דָּיוֹרִין הֲרֵי הֵן כִּיחִידִים, וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב, וּמָבוֹי שֶׁלָּהֶן נִיתָּר בְּלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה.

Rav Ḥisda said to him: You have already learned this in the following baraita : With regard to a father and his son or a master and his student, when there are no other residents with them, they are considered like individuals, and they do not need to establish an eiruv , and their alleyway becomes permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam without a merging of alleyways.

Segment 18

מַתְנִי׳ חָמֵשׁ חֲצֵירוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ וּפְתוּחוֹת לְמָבוֹי, עֵירְבוּ בַּחֲצֵירוֹת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַּמָּבוֹי — מוּתָּרִין בַּחֲצֵירוֹת וַאֲסוּרִין בְּמָבוֹי.

MISHNA: If five courtyards open into one another and also open into an alleyway, the following distinctions apply: If the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv in the courtyards and did not merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and they are prohibited to carry in the alleyway. The eiruv they established cannot also serve as a merging of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.

Eruvin 73a

Eruvin 73a

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