Too much or too little bread is not good. So what is the correct amount? TB Eruvin 83

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 83 is another one made for math lovers. In the Mishnah on the preceding page Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Shimon disagree on the amount of bread constitutes two meals. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka holds that ½ kav equals 1/12 se’a. Two meals equals ½ kav or four meals per kav. Rabbi Shimon holds that 1 kav equals three meals. Two meals equals 2/3 loaves of bread or 2/9 kav. To complicate matters the size of a se’a changed. The se’a midbarit (dough of the wilderness- דְּמִדְבָּרִית), the measurement determined by Moses in the desert, equalled 144 egg bulks. The se’a yerushalmit (דִּירוּשַׁלְמִית), the measurement used when the Second Temple stood, equalled 6/5 se’a midbarit or 173 egg bulks. Se’a Tziporit (דְּצִיפּוֹרִית), the measurement used when the center of Rabbinical moved to Tzipori where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived, equalled 6/5 se’a yerushalmit or 207 egg bulks. Math lovers check out all their caculations!

With this introduction, we can better understand the laws of separating ḥalla from the dough. This ḥalla portion was given to the kohnim. The question arises what is the minimum amount of dough that requires a person to separate ḥalla.

“Our Sages taught a baraita: The verse states: “You shall set apart a cake of the first of your dough as a gift; like the gift of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart” (Numbers 15:20). What is the quantity of dough from which ḥalla must be separated? The amount of “your dough.” And how much is “your dough”? This amount is left unspecified by the verse. The Gemara answers: It is as the amount of the dough of the wilderness. The Gemara again asks: And how much is the dough of the wilderness? The Gemara responds: The Torah states that the manna, the dough of the wilderness, was “an omer a head” (Exodus 16:16). A later verse elaborates on that measure, as it is written: “And an omer is the tenth part of an eifa” (Exodus 16:36). An eifa is three se’a, which are eighteen kav or seventy-two log. An omer is one-tenth of this measure. From here, this calculation, Sages said that dough prepared from seven quarters of a kav of flour and more is obligated in ḥalla. This is equal to six quarter-kav of the Jerusalem measure, which is five quarter-kav of the Tzippori measure.

From here the Sages also said: One who eats roughly this amount each day, is healthy, as he is able to eat a proper meal; and he is also blessed, as he is not a glutton who requires more. One who eats more than this is a glutton, while one who eats less than this has damaged bowels and must see to his health.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We still separate ḥalla from our dough today. Because the Temple no longer stands and all the kohanim are ritually unready, they are not permitted to eat this gift of ḥalla. We may not eat it either since we are not kohanim, Consequently, we remove a symbolic piece of dough and burn it so it is no longer edible.

One needs to separate the ḥalla if the dough equals 3.86 lbs (1.75 kilo or more than 15 cups) with a blessing “Blessed are You, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has sanctified us with commandments, and commanded us to separate ḥalla.” Hold the piece of dough and say “harei zo cḥalla” (This is ḥalla). One still needs to separate the ḥalla from the dough is more than 2.76 lbs (1.25 kilo or 10-14 cups), but without a blessing. One does not need to separate ḥalla is less than 2.76 lbs. See Shulkhan Arukh, Yoeh deah, 324:1

There’s always room for Jell-O, cookies, or cake TB Eruvin 82

Today we finished the seventh chapter of massekhet Eruvin and with daf TB Eruvin 82 we begin the eighth chapter. This chapter continues the discussion concerning joint participation in an eruv. The first two Mishnahs begins to teach different halakhot concerning erev tekhumim.

“MISHNA: How does one participate in the joining of Shabbat boundaries (erev tekhumim)? One who wishes to establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries for himself and others places a barrel of food in the location he designates as their place of residence, and says: This is for all the residents of my town, for anyone who wishes to go on Shabbat to a house of mourning or to a house of a wedding feast situated beyond the Shabbat limit” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara understands the phrase “a house of mourning or to a house of a wedding feast” as limiting the permissibility of creating an erev tekhumim only for the purpose of a mitzvah. The Shulkhan Arukh expands what the definition of a mitzvah is by including going out to greet your Rav or good friend who is journeying or one fleeing persecution or bandits. The Rama adds taking a Shabbat walk in an orchard because of the joy this creates and to rejoice on Shabbat is a mitzvah. Nevertheless, the Tur poskins that an eruv created for a non-mitzvah purpose is still a kosher eruv.[1] (Orekh Hayyim, 415:1)

We already know that one must set aside enough food for two meals for each person participating in this eruv.[2] But how much food is that? “MISHNA: What is the measure for a joining of Shabbat boundaries? It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv. The tanna’im disagree with regard to the size of these two meals. It is referring to one’s food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intended to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi explains why Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda believes his position is the lenient one. Rabbi Meir believes that one eats more on Shabbat than on the weekday. Meals are just more elaborate and the food is plentiful then on weekdays. Besides sweet desserts are also served and there’s always room for dessert. Consequently, the amount of food needed for a weekday meal being less is a more lenient position. We are accustomed to eating three meals a day, but back in Talmudic times people ate two meals on a weekday day and three meals on Shabbat. The third meal in Hebrew is called se’udat shilisheet (סעודת שלישית) and in Yiddish shaleshudes. Rabbi Yehuda believes that people will eat less at each Shabbat meal because they know another one is coming. Intuitively and from our own experience we know that Rabbi Meir is correct. Shabbat meals are larger and more elaborate than an ordinary weekday meal. The Gemara comes to the same conclusion. “Rav Yosef said to Rav Yosef, son of Rava: Your father, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold, that of Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Meir? He replied: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef added: I too agree with the ruling of Rabbi Meir, because if the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, a difficulty would arise from the popular saying: There is always room for sweets. It is generally accepted that one dining on delicacies eats more, and therefore, the amount of food in Shabbat meals is greater than that of weekdays, as they include more sweet foods.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

 

---

[1] אין מערבין ערובי תחומין אלא לדבר מצוה כגון שהיה רוצה לילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה של נישואין או להקביל פני רבו או חבירו שבא מן הדרך וכיוצא באלו : הגה או שרוצה לילך לטייל ביום טוב או בשבת בפרדס שיש בו שמחה בזה מיקרי דבר מצוה (תה"ד סימן ע"ז) או מפני היראה כגון שהיה רוצה לברוח מן העכו"ם או מן הלסטים וכיוצא בזה ואז מותר לו לילך אפי' לדבר הרשות (טור והג"א פרק בכל מערבין) ואם עירב שלא לא' מכל אלו אלא לדברי הרשות הרי זה עירוב:

 

[2]  The required bread making up two meals for an eruv hatzerot is much smaller and there is a cap to the amount. “Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It was explained to me personally by my father, Rav Yehuda: Any case where, if one were to divide the food of two meals between them and it does not amount to the measure of a dried fig for each and every one of them, these are the very ones the tanna called numerous, and in this case food for two meals suffices for all of them. And if not, these are the very ones the tanna termed few, which means food in the measure of a dried fig is required for each of them.” (TB Eruvin 80b, Sefaria.org translation)

Healing the rift that divides us TB Eruvin 81

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 81 teaches us why sometimes style wins over substance. The Mishnah on the previous page TB Eruvin 80b reiterates that one may use any kind of food or drink except water and salt to make an eruv tekhumim and a shituf meva-ot, but only a contribution of bread is acceptable for an eruv hatzerot. Rabbi Yehoshua qualifies what type of contribution bread is acceptable. “Rabbi Yehoshua says that a different limitation applies: A whole loaf may be used for an eiruv. With regard to a baked product even the size of a se’a, if it consists of pieces, one may not join courtyards with it. However, with regard to a loaf, even one the size of an issar, if it is whole, one may join courtyards with it.” (Sefari.org translation) A copper Roman issar was the smallest coin in circulation whose worth was approximately eight prtutot and had a circumference of 1.125 inches. As you can plainly see a whole bread roll that was a small as a Roman issar could be a contribution to eruv hatzerot the but not a slice of bread from a gigantic wedding hallah! (See Shulkhan Arukh, Orukh Hayyim, 366:6)

The Gemara asks the question why a slice of bread can’t be the contribution to the eruv hatzerot. “The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.” (Sefari.org translation) The purpose of the eruv hatzerot is to create peace amongst the residents of the courtyard and not enmity.

Peace is a fundamental Jewish value. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel used to say: on three things does the world stand- in truth, justice, and peace…” (Avot 1:18) Of all the mitzvot, peace is unique. “Ḥizkiyah said: Great is peace, for all the commandments are written this way: "When you see" (Exodus 23:5), "when you encounter" (Exodus 23:4), "when you come across" (Deuteronomy 22:6). If a commandment comes to you are bound to do it, but if not you are not bound to do it. But here it says "Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15) – seek it for your place, and pursue it for other places.” (Sefari.org translation) Consequently, I’m not surprised that style wins over substance for the sake of peace in the case of the loaf of bread for an eruv hatzerot.

The 2020 elections are only five days away. I’ve read article after article how divided we Americans are and how great is the enmity that separates us. Family members can’t speak to one another. Americans think the worse of each other. Political signs for Trump or for Biden on private property are vandalized or destroyed. For the sake of peace how can we heal this divide and enmity between neighbors?

John Meacham said in the HBO documentary “The Soul of America” we need to cultivate three qualities. The first quality is curiosity. We have to listen to the other side with the understanding that we can learn something. We have to be able to say, “hmmm, I’ve learned something.” The second quality is humility. We have to be able to admit a mistake and learn from it. The third quality is empathy. We need to see life in the world through the other sides’ eyes. We don’t have to agree, but we can understand their pain, concerns, and worries. If we can cultivate those three qualities our better angels will defeat our worst instincts and we can heal the rift that divides us!

What do shituf mavui, eruv hatzerot, eruv tekhumim, and eruv tavshilin have in common? TB Eruvin 80

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 80 discusses whether a formal acquisition (קנין) is required to effectuate a shituf mavui (שיטוף מבוי) to unify an alleyway, to effectuate an eruv tekhumim, and to effectuate an eruv tavshilin (עֵירוּב תַבְשִׁילִין). Rav and Shmuel disagreed when it comes to the shituf mavui and eruv tekhumim.

“It is stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a merging of alleyways. Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession to them. They likewise disagreed with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but the opinions are reversed. Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession of the food to all those who wish to be included in the eiruv, and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession to them.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The fact that these two rabbis were not consistent whether a formal acquisition was needed or not is interesting. Tosefot explains the underlining reasoning of each rabbi. Rav holds since everybody wants to carry in the alleyway, the shituf mavui has an implicit acquisition and doesn’t require a formal one. Concerning the eruv tekhumim nothing is really forbidden because a people don’t have to extend their domain, formal acquisition is required for a shared eruv tekhumim to effectuate it. Shmuel holds because the unification of an alleyway means each individual needs to take possession of it, a formal acquisition is required. As soon a person says, “Go out and make an eruv tekhumim,” he has effectually made an acquisition for the group.

Sometimes the laws concerning eruv tekhumim are more stringent than those of eruv hatzerot. For example, enough food for two meals for each person must make up the eruv tekhumim while a total of two meals if there a lot of residents in the courtyard and just a fig if there a few residents in the courtyard must make up the eruv hatzerot. Sometimes the laws concerning eruv tekhumim are more lenient than those of eruv hatzerot. Any kind of food can be used for the eruv tekhumim while only bread may be used for the purposes of an eruv hatzerot.

As in many cases, the rabbis take the more stringent position when deciding the halakha. “Rav Naḥman said: We hold based on tradition that with regard to all of them, joining of Shabbat boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession.” (Sefaria.org translation)

He then asks does an eruv tavshilin require a formal acquisition as well. The answer is yes it does. What is the purpose of an eruv tavshilin? Each 24 hour period of a holiday is considered a separate unit. Food can only be prepared for that specific day. Since we are allowed to cook on each day of Yom tov, this prohibition is inconsequential. When Shabbat follows immediately after Yom Tov, a person can’t prepare food on Yom Tov to be eaten on Shabbat and can’t cook on Shabbat. What’s a person to do? The eruv tavshilin is the mechanism to get around this problem. Before Yom tov, a person sets aside two different foodstuffs to be eaten on Shabbat with the intention that any food left over on Yom Tov can be eaten on Shabbat as well. That way a person can cook on Yom Tov knowing that this “left over” food will be eaten on Shabbat.

One person takes his eruv tavshilin and gives it to another person ideally who is a nondependent[1] and says: “I hereby grant a share in this eruv to anyone who wishes to participate in it and to depend on it.

And then says the following blessing, ‘Praised are you, Lord our God, king of the universe, who has sanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us concerning the mitzvah of eruv.

‘Through this [eruv] it shall be permissible for us to bake, cook, put away a dish [to preserve its heat], kindle a light, prepare, and do on the holiday all that is necessary for Shabbat — for us and for all the Israelites who dwell in this city.’”

Bottom line, what is the halakha? All these types of eruvim need formal acquisition. For eruv tekhumim see Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 413:1. For eruv hatzerot see Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 366:9. For shituf mavui see Shulkhan Arukh. Orekh Hayyim, 386:3. For eruv tavshilin see Shulkhan Arukh. Orekh Hayyim, 527:10)

---

[1] Based on the Tosefot understand of the word gedol (translated as adult) in the Mishnah on daf TB Eruvin 79b meaning financially independent rather than reaching the age of majority. “by means of his adult son or daughter, and likewise by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv on behalf of all”

Ditch it TB Eruvin 79

Today’s daf TB 79 completes the discussion started in a Mishna on the previous page. Up to that Mishna we learned about accessibility concerning a wall separating two courtyards. The new Mishna analyzes accessibility when a ditch separates two courtyards. “With regard to a ditch between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they may not establish one eiruv. Even if the ditch is filled with straw or hay, it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is filled with dirt or pebbles, the residents establish one eiruv, but they may not establish two eiruvin, as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.

“If one placed a board four handbreadths wide across the ditch so that he could cross it, and similarly, if two balconies [gezuztraot] in two different courtyards are opposite one another, and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies establish two eiruvin, and if they desire, they may establish one, as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is less than four handbreadths, the residents establish two eiruvin, but they may not establish one eiruv.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What’s the difference between straw or hay and dirt or pebbles? At least when it comes to a ditch[1], straw or hay are not permanent fillers; consequently, they don’t fill in the ditch to make the two courtyards accessible with one another. Dirt or pebbles, on the other hand, are definitely there to close permanently the gap the ditch creates. We can not only see this as an eruv issue, but also as a safety one. Nobody wants somebody to fall into the ditch and hurt himself, while the owners of the ditch become liable for damages.

Why must the ditch be at least four tefakhim wide to create two separate courtyards? A gap of at least four tefakhim is difficult to cross making the other side less accessible. Rava teaches that the board doesn’t only have to span the width of the ditch. “Rava said: They taught this halakha only in a case where one placed the plank along the width of the ditch. But if one positioned a plank along its length, even if the plank is of minimum width, it is also considered an entrance and reduces the ditch, as he reduced the opening to less than four handbreadths. The ditch was originally only four handbreadths wide. Therefore, if one places a plank of any width along its length, it becomes less than four handbreadths wide and no longer constitutes a partition.” (Sefaria.org translation) Once the board lies along the side of the ditch and reduces its width below four tefakhim, the two sides of the ditch become accessible and can be united as one courtyard.

Even though the issue of accessibility raised in conjunction with Shabbat and eruvin and don’t readily apply to our lives now, this issue should give us pause and make us think how accessible are the places where in we live. Only 25% of New York City subway stations are handicap accessible. I’m proud that my synagogue has an handicap entrance to our building, a wheelchair lift available to allow access from the ground floor to the second floor (all of 5 steps, but still a barrier), and of course a handicap bathroom. We should not rest on our laurels. Our bimah is not handicap accessible. We have to bring the Torah down to the floor the sanctuary for person in a wheelchair to have an aliyah. Nor is our sanctuary equipped for the hearing impaired or the blind. How accessible are your synagogues and public spaces? How can you make them more accessible?

---

[1] The Gemara analyzes the difference between a ditch filled with dirt or pebbles and a house containing a dead body filled with dirt or pebbles.

When do walls make good neighbors? TB Eruvin 76, 77, 78

Thank God, I been able to maintain the discipline of studying a daf of Talmud a day. However, circumstances beyond my control made it impossible for me to write a daily blog on TB Eruvin 76 and 77. I’ve decided to combine today’s daf TB Eruvin 78 with the two previous pages all in one blog by writing about one of the major threads that unites the three dappim.

Picture two courtyards separated by a wall 10 tefachim, handbreadths, tall, and is 4 x 4 tefakhim wide. If the two courtyards are inaccessible from each other, two separate eruv hatzerot are needed. There is no way a person can unify them together to make one large courtyard. If on the other hand, there’s a breach in the wall wider than 10 amot, the two courtyards turn into one large one and only one eruv hatzerot can effectually unite both courtyards. Two separate eruv hatzerot are impermissible. Our dappim discuss ten permissible ways to allow people to join the two courtyards with one eruv. To make the two courtyards into one large one, they have to be accessible from one to the other. The technical term for accessibility in our case of a wall separating two different courtyards is “diminishing the wall- מיעוט הכותל.” A me’ute (מיעוט) or diminishment must be structured and fixed to be halakhically acceptable as a method of accessibility.

The first me’ute is a window in the wall that at least 4 x 4 tefakhim and is below 10 tefakhim on the wall. Think of this window not in modern terms, but rather just the opening that person can go from one side to the other. This opening may be either square or circular. If you like geometry then the discussion concerning the dimensions of these two openings are discussed in great detail. “Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A circular window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, with two and a bit of them within ten handbreadths of the ground, so that when he squares the window, i.e., if he forms the shape of a square inside it, it measures four by four handbreadths, and a bit of it is then within ten handbreadths of the ground.” The Gemara poses geometrical problems concerning this calculation and deals with the different required sizes between a square circumscribed by a circle and circle circumscribed by a square.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The second me’ute is to remove some stones from the wall to make a passable breach.

If a 4 x 4 tefakhim stone or a 4 x 4 tefakhim upside down basin that is firmly stuck into the ground is the third me’ute. By climbing upon the stone or upside down basin will enable a person to go over the wall and thus gain access to the other courtyard.

The fourth me’ute is a Tyrian ladder which has the required four rungs and its heaviness makes it hard to move and establishes it as part of the wall.

The fifth me’ute is two ladders, one on each side of the wall. “Abaye said: If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high, and one placed a ladder four handbreadths wide against the wall on one side, in one courtyard, and another ladder four handbreadths wide on the other side, in the other courtyard, and there are less than three handbreadths between them, i.e., the two ladders on the opposite sides of the wall are within three handbreadths of each other, even if they are not directly opposite each other, this diminishes the height of the wall. The pair of ladders is regarded as a valid passageway between the two courtyards. However, if the gap between the two ladders is three handbreadths or more, this does not diminish the height of the wall. And we only said this qualification if the wall was less than four handbreadths wide. However, if the wall was at least four handbreadths wide, then even if one ladder was greatly distanced from the other, this likewise renders it permitted. Since it is possible to walk along the thickness of the wall, the pair of ladders constitutes a passageway between the two courtyards.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The sixth me’ute is a wooden platform. “Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: If one built a wooden platform next to the wall above another platform, then if the lower platform is four handbreadths wide, it diminishes the height of the wall to below ten handbreadths. Alternatively, if the lower one is not four handbreadths wide, but the upper one is four handbreadths wide, and there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between them, it diminishes the height of the wall, as the two platforms are considered as one.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The best way of describing the seventh me’ute is a series of steps stools one higher than the next enabling the person to scale the wall. As long as one of the steps is 4 x 4 tefakhim and none are more than three tefakhim apart including the lowest step from the ground.

 The eighth me’ute is a projection from the wall and a ladder. “Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: If a projection four by four handbreadths in area extends from a wall, and one placed a ladder of any width against it, if the rungs of the ladder are less than three handbreadths apart, he has diminished the height of the wall by means of this ladder and projection. The Gemara qualifies this statement: And we said this only in a case where one placed the ladder directly against the projection, so that the ladder serves as a passage to it. However, if he placed it adjacent to the projection, he has merely widened the projection, while the ladder remains separate from it. Consequently, the projection does not have any connection to the ground, and a projection that is not within three handbreadths of the ground does not diminish the height of a wall.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks whether trees can be the ninth me’ute and answer is yes. “Rabba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The trunks of palm trees in Babylonia that were placed next to a wall between two courtyards so that people could climb on them and pass from one courtyard to another do not need to be established permanently and attached to the ground; rather, they serve to diminish the wall as they are. What is the reason for this? It is that their heaviness establishes them as connected to the ground. Although it is permitted to handle them, nevertheless, since their weight makes them difficult to move, they are considered fixed in place.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The tenth me’ute is grooves cut into the wall as steps. “Rav Yosef said to him: If there was no ladder, and one dug out the entire ladder in the wall, so that all the steps are grooves in the wall, how much must he hollow out? Rabba said to him: Those steps must reach the full height of the wall. Rav Yosef asked: And what is the difference in this case? Why must the steps reach higher in this case than in the case where the hollowed-out section was merely an extension of an existing ladder? Rabba said to him: There, where there is a ladder, it is easy to climb to the top of the wall; however, here, where there are only grooves in the wall, it is not easy to climb. If one cannot reach the top of the wall, the steps are not considered a passageway between the courtyards.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When do walls make good neighbors? The bottom line -when there is easy and fixed access, so come on over.

See the Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 372: 4, 6-11, 14-15 and the Mishneh Torah, Sefer Zemanim, Eruvin 3: 2, 7 for the piskai din.

Foot traffic is so important! TB Eruvin 75

Today’s daf clarifies the three different positions concerning the halakha of drisat haregel (דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל). Drisat haregel is foot traffic that creates a potential residency when it comes to eruvin. This is the scenario. There are two courtyards, one interior and one exterior. The only egress for the people who live in the interior courtyard is through the exterior courtyard. Their walking through the exterior courtyard could have major implications when it comes to carrying on Shabbat for the people who live in the exterior courtyard.

 “MISHNA: With regard to two courtyards, one of which was within the other, and the outer one opened into the public domain, the following distinctions apply: If the inner courtyard established an eiruv for itself and the outer one did not establish an eiruv, carrying in the inner one is permitted and carrying in the outer one is prohibited.

“If the outer courtyard established an eiruv and the inner one did not, carrying in both is prohibited, as the residents of the inner courtyard pass through the outer one, and are considered to a certain extent as residents of the courtyard who did not participate in the eiruv. If this courtyard established an eiruv for itself, and that courtyard also established an eiruv for itself, but they did not establish a joint eiruv with one another, this one is permitted by itself, and that one is permitted by itself, but they may not carry from one to the other.

“Rabbi Akiva prohibits carrying in the outer one even in such a case, as the right of entry to the outer courtyard enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard renders it prohibited. And the Rabbis disagree and say: The right of entry enjoyed by the residents of the inner courtyard does not render it prohibited. Since the residents of the inner courtyard do not use the outer one other than to pass through it, and they are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, they do not render it prohibited to carry in the outer courtyard.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yannai was a first-generation amora. Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia and he explained the Mishna according to his understanding of Rabbi Yannai.[1] “Rabbi Yannai said: There are three disputes with regard to this matter. The first tanna holds that the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry elsewhere, but the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render it prohibited to carry. Rabbi Akiva holds that even the foot of one who is permitted in his own place renders it prohibited to carry in a different place. And the latter Rabbis hold that just as the foot of one who is permitted in his own place does not render it prohibited to carry, so too, the foot of one who is prohibited does not render it prohibited to carry. This explanation resolves all of the difficulties posed earlier.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The first tanna holds the position that if the residents of the inner courtyard are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, the people in the outer courtyard are permitted to carry in theirs as well. But if the people in the inner courtyard did not make an eruv for themselves, even if the people in the outer courtyard did make an eruv, they are still prohibited to carry as well. Because the people in the inner courtyard have to walk through the outer courtyard to leave, they become “residents” of the outer courtyard. By becoming “residents” of the outer courtyard and did not participate in the eruv of the outer courtyard, the outer courtyard’s eruv falls apart. Consequently, the people in the outer courtyard are forbidden to carry.

Rabbi Akiva holds the position that in either case both the people of the inner courtyard and the outer courtyard are forbidden to carry in the outer courtyard because as “residents” who did not participate in the outer courtyard’s eruv, the eruv falls apart.

The later rabbis do not have the category of drisat haregel at all

The Shulkhan Arukh poskins: if both the inner and outer courtyards make an eruv, people within their own courtyard may carry. If the inner courtyard made an eruv and the outer courtyard didn’t or if one member of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, the people in the inner courtyard allowed to carry within their courtyard and the people in the outer courtyard of forbidden to carry within theirs. If the outer courtyard made an eruv and the inner courtyard didn’t or one member of the inner courtyard forgot to join the eruv, then both people in the inner and outer courtyard are forbidden to carry in the respective courtyards because the foot of one who is prohibited in his own place does render it prohibited to carry (רֶגֶל הָאֲסוּרָה -אוֹסֶרֶת). Orekh Hayyim, 378:2)

---

[1] Earlier on the daf, Rav Dimi brings an alternative version of Rabbi Yannai understanding of our Mishnah.

When is an alleyway not an alleyway? TB Eruvin 74

Today’s daf TB Eruvin 74 provides us with three different definitions what qualifies for an alleyway (מבוי). “Rav said: An alleyway cannot become permitted for carrying through a side post (לח) and a cross beam (קורה) unless there are houses and courtyards opening into it. This formulation implies that there must be at least two courtyards, each of which contains at least two houses. In the absence of these conditions, however, it is not considered an alleyway that can be permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam. And Shmuel said: Even one house without a courtyard and one courtyard with just one house is enough. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even a ruin and a courtyard with a house suffice for a side post or a cross beam to render carrying in an alleyway permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rav’s position is the most stringent and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position is the most lenient with Shmuel’s position in the middle. An exacting reading of the Mishnah support’s Rav’s position that an alleyway needs at least two courtyards opening into it with two houses in each courtyard. “With regard to the halakhot of eiruv, we have only the wording of our mishna. The mishna states that an alleyway is to its courtyards (the word courtyards is in the plural and the minimum number of courtyards would have to be two-gg) like a courtyard is to its houses (the word houses is in the plural and the minimum number of houses would have to be two-gg), which indicates that an alleyway must have at least two courtyards in order to be considered an alleyway and be rendered permitted for carrying through a side post or cross beam.”

The halakhic definition of an alleyway follows Rav’s understanding. The Mishnah Berurah[1] provides the underpinning reason of Rav’s position. Any place where homeowners would live and do things privately there like eating, needs a more visible wall to enclose it as a private domain. Since people don’t use alleyways for private purposes only a side post or a crossbeam is necessary to symbolically close it. This leniency only applies if the alleyway is less than 10 amot wide.[2] (Shulkhan Arukh, Orekf Hayyim 363, Berurah Mishnah, Note 13) To generate the necessary “public“ foot traffic in the alleyway, it needs at least two courtyards with two houses in each courtyard.

---

[1]Mishnah Berurah is a work of halakha (Jewish law) by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (Poland, 1838–1933, also known Mishnah Berurah Mishnah Berurah as Chofetz Chaim). It is a commentary on Orach Chayim, the first section of the Shulchan Aruch which deals with laws of prayer, synagogue, Shabbat and holidays, summarizing the opinions of the Acharonim (post-Medieval rabbinic authorities) on that work. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah_Berurah)

[2] - ואף דבחצר בעינן דוקא פס רחב ד' טפחים הכא הקילו חכמים והטעם שכל שהוא עשוי יותר לדירה ולתשמישי הצנע צריך מחיצות יותר גמורות ולפיכך החצרות שדרכן של בעלי בתים להשתמש בהן יותר בתשמישי הצנע ולאכול צריכות מחיצותיהן להיות יותר גמורות שיהיה שם רה"י עליהן מהמבואות שאין משתמשין בהן בתשמישי הצנע ולפיכך די במבוי בלחי ועיין לקמן סכ"ו שזהו דוקא כשאין רחב פתחו יותר מעשר אמות ועוד פרטים עי"ש

  

What determines our residence, where we eat or where we sleep?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

The phrase Anan Sahadee (אֲנַן סָהֲדִי) which translates literally we are witnesses means idiomatically a self-evident truth. Today’s daf TB Eruvin 73 provides us with a self-evident truth when discussing eruv hatzerot and eruv tekhumim concerning what determines our residence, where we eat or where we sleep?

The Mishnah on TB Eruvin 72b presents us with a case where five brothers who live in the same courtyard as the father and eat meals in his house, but live in their own domiciles. What determines whether an eruv hatzerot is needed, the place where a person sleeps or the place where the person eats? If the place where a person eats determines the person’s residence, then in our case no eruv hatzerot is needed because the family is already unified. If the place where the person sleeps i.e. lives is the determining factor, then each of the brothers need to contribute to the eruv hatzerot. That is the debate between Rav and Shmuel. “The Gemara asks: What is considered one’s place of residence? Rav said: The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara cites different kinds of watchmen who sleep in the field and eat at home and only have 2000 amot Shabbat limit from where they sleep as proof that a person’s residence is where he sleeps supporting Shmuel’s position. This proof is rebuffed by citing a self-evident truth. “There, in the case of the people in the field, we are witnesses (אֲנַן סָהֲדִי), 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.” (Sefaria.org translation) The halakha is according to Rav’s position. A person’s residence is determined where he eats. (Shulkhan Arukh, Orekh Hayyim, 370:5)

“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. 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.

“The Gemara answers: In that case we are witnesses (אֲנַן סָהֲדִי), and in this case we are witnesses (אֲנַן סָהֲדִי), 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.” (Sefaria.org translation)