(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Eruvin 45

ERUVIN 45 - Dedicated in memory of Meir Menachem (Max) Turkel, whose Yahrzeit is the 5th of Teves, by his wife, Jean, and his sons, Eddie and Lawrence Turkel.



(a) The Seifa of our Mishnah does not allow someone who left his Techum legally e.g. to save from the enemy or from an overflowing river, to return (under the circumstances mentioned there) even if it is *more* than two thousand Amos, like we thought at first. - What the Mishnah is coming to permit is soldiers who left the Techum with their weapons, in order to save Jews from enemies who were attacking them, to return even with their weapons (to tell us that they are not obligated to leave their weapons by the first house that they found).

(b) We could answer the contradiction between the Reisha of the Mishnah (which limits someone who returns to *two thousand Amos* from where he is when he discovers that his journey is no longer necessary) and the Seifa (which permits him to walk *any distance* to return to his Techum), by explaining that the latter is permitted because it speaks about someone who went to save from the enemy. *He* is permitted to return whatever the distance to save his life, because the enemy might give chase - which is not the case in the Reisha, which speaks about the other categories of people who leave the Techum legally, and whose lives are not in danger.

(c) The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah permits anyone who left his Techum, (including someone who did so in order to save from a band of robbers) to walk two thousand Amos, and no more - that certainly clashes with the Seifa of our Mishnah, which appears to permit even more than two thousand Amos. Therefore, the Gemara needs to establish the Seifa of our Mishnah not with regard to the concession of walking more than two thousand Amos, but with regard to returning with their weapons.

(d) It happened once - that the returning soldiers left their weapons in the first house that they arrived at. The enemy noticed this however, and attacked. In the ensuing rush to retrieve their weapons, more soldiers killed each other, than were killed by the enemy. That was when Chazal issued the concession to return all the way home with their weapons.

2) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, which limits the soldiers to two thousand Amos, is speaking when they were the victors, whereas our Mishnah, which permits even more, speaks when they were the vanquished, in which case they need to escape, like we learnt initially.


(a) It is always permitted to attack a besieging army and to transgress Shabbos - when it is a border town that is being besieged.

(b) If the town that is under siege is not a border town, then one may attack the enemy and break the Shabbos - provided the enemy have come to kill, but not if what they only want money or property.

(c) Neherda'a in Bavel is considered a border town (See Toras Chayim).

(a) Ke'ilah was a border town - which explains why David ha'Melech attacked them on Shabbos.

(b) If David ha'Melech wished to know whether or not he was permitted to attack Ke'ilah on Shabbos - then he should have consulted, not the Urim ve'Tumim, but the Beis-Din of Shmuel ha'Ramasi (due to the principle of 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi')?

(c) What he consulted the Urim ve'Tumim about - was whether he would be successful in his attack. The proof for this is from the Urim ve'Tumim's reply 'Go and strike the Pelishtim *and you will save Ke'ilah*'.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, someone who stopped at a certain spot just before Shabbos, and who was unaware that he was actually within the Techum of a town - is not permitted to enter the town i.e. to walk the entire town like the residents of the town are permitted to do. He is however, permitted to walk two thousand Amos from his current location in any direction - even into the town.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah testified that this happened once to Rebbi Tarfon - who subsequently entered the town and, and went straight to the Beis ha'Medrash, where he Darshened all day.

(c) Perhaps, suggested Rebbi Akiva - Rebbi Tarfon *did* know that he was within the Techum of the town (and Rebbi Yehudah erred in believing that he did not). In addition, who says that the Beis-ha'Medrash was not within his two thousand Amos?

(a) According to the Chachamim, if a traveler was asleep when Shabbos came in - he only has four Amos when he wakes up.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer allows him only two Amos in each direction.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah maintains that he is allowed four Amos in any one direction that he chooses, but not in any other.

(d) The Tana is strict here, by someone who is Koneh Shevisah (either with food or on foot), forbidding him to take from outside his four Amos to inside (and the same applies to someone who leaves his Techum) - because the four Amos that he has is like a Reshus ha'Yachid, and carrying anything from another Reshus to a Reshus ha'Yachid is prohibited. Whereas in the case when someone's Techum ends in the middle of the town, where both inside his Techum and outside it are one and the same Reshus he will be premitted to throw outside his Techum (and similarly if his Techum outside the town is a Reshus ha'Rabim, where, both inside his Techum and outside it, are one and the same Reshus, he will be allowed to move something less than four Amos from outside his Techum to inside or vice- versa).




(a) The Tana Kama writes about three travelers, when two Amos of the middle one overlap two Amos of one of the outer ones on the one side, and two Amos of the other one on the other side, but when the four Amos of each of the outer ones do not overlap at all - then the middle one is permitted to carry in the areas of the two outer ones, and vice-versa; but the two outer ones are forbidden to carry in each other's area.

(b) Concerning the three courtyards which are situated side by side, each of which opens independently into the street: when the outer two made an Eruv with the one in the middle - if the courtyards opened into each other, it would be forbidden to carry in *any* of the courtyards, since the inside courtyard would forbid carrying in the others (as will be discussed later).

(a) If Rebbi Yochanan's reason is because no Da'as is needed to acquire Shevisah, and even objects that are Hefker will acquire Shevisah, then he and the Rabbanan argue by people (rather than by vessels) that are Hefker - to teach us how far the Rabbanan go, that even by people, where we could say that, since when he is awake, he is Koneh Shevisah, he will also be Koneh Shevisah when he is asleep. Yet they do not say that; even there, they rule he is not Koneh Shevisah.

(b) If Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that objects that are Hefker do *not* acquire Shevisah, then his reason (for holding that a sleeping person is Koneh Shevisah) - is because: since when he is awake, he is Koneh Shevisah, he will also be Koneh Shevisah when he is asleep.

(c) The Beraisa rules that rainwater which fell on Erev Yom-Tov is Koneh Shevisah, and may be carried two thousand Amos in all directions. Now the author of this Beraisa can only be Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - and the rain- water can only be Koneh Shevisah because of Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah.

(d) Rav Safra tries to refute this proof - on the grounds that the rain- water acquires Shevisah, not for the above reason, but because it speaks when it had collected near the town, and it is Koneh Shevisah like the residents of the town, who had their minds on it from before Yom-Tov.

(a) We establish the Beraisa, which gives wells of the Olei Regalim two thousand Amos - like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah'; and the Mishnah, which holds 'ke'Raglei ha'Memalei' - like the Rabbanan.

(b) This proves that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri holds that 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah' - like we learnt at first, and not like Rav Safra, who tried to refute that.

(c) Why did you not refute Rav Safra's contention from the Lashon of the Beraisa under discussion, Rav Yosef asked Abaye? - The Beraisa says 'Yesh Lahen Alpayim Amah le'Chol Ru'ach', when, according to Rav Safra, it should have said 'ke'Raglei Anshei Osah ha'Ir'?

(a) It is Rebbi Eliezer who maintains that the rain comes from the water of the oceans. According to him, why should the rain-water not acquire Shevisah in its place in the ocean when Yom-Tov enters? Consequently, it would appear, contends the Gemara, that the Beraisa, which rules that rain which fell on Yom-Tov acquires Shevisah like the person who eventually draws it, and not in the ocean, must go like Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that the rain comes from the sky.

(b) According to the current contention in Rebbi Eliezer, one will only be permitted to carry the rain-water which fell on Yom-Tov - four Amos (because it left its Techum on Yom-Tov).

(c) We establish the Beraisa even like Rebbi Eliezer, by further establishing it when the rain came from clouds that we recognize in the sky from the previous day. Alternatively, we simply assume these clouds to be the ones from the previous day - because it is only a Safek de'Rabbanan, and we will be lenient when there is a doubt.

(a) If there was Techumin above ten Tefachim, argues the Gemara - then why would the rain not be Koneh Shevisah in the clouds?

(b) The contention that the water cannot acquire Shevisah in the clouds because it is totally absorbed in the clouds, and is therefore considered non-existent, is not acceptable - because if we say that, then the rain which eventually falls should be Muktzah because it is 'Nolad', in which case, nobody would be permitted to frink it?

(c) The reason that the water did not acquire Shevisah in the clouds - is because it is constantly moving, and a moving object is not Koneh Shevisah.

(d) In that case, the Gemara concludes, we can also establish the Beraisa which gives rain-water the Techum of whoever collects it (and not from its place in the ocean) - like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah'. Rainwater that comes from the sea however, is different, because it is constantly moving.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,