(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 47



(a) According to Rebbi Yossi, a non-Jew who goes away for Shabbos forbids the other members of the courtyard to carry there - because he is liable to return on Shabbos (and they failed to hire his Reshus from him before Shabbos); whereas a Jew, who is unlikely to return on Shabbos, is considered as if he had left the courtyard, and there is no need to contend with him.

(b) Rebbi Shimon maintains that - even if a Jew just went to stay with his daughter at the other side of town, the other members of the courtyard do not need to contend with him, because, having moved to another dwelling for Shabbos, he has not the slightest intention of returning on Shabbos.

(c) Rav rules like Rebbi Shimon.

(a) The poor man who Rebbi Meir permits to make an Eruv on foot - is a traveler (who is considered poor because he is traveling, irrespective of his means).

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, it is quite to the contrary: both a rich man (who is currently at home) and a poor man are permitted to make an Eruv on foot, and it is making an Eruv using bread that Chazal introduced as a special concession for the rich man.

(c) The Gemara tries to prove from the fact that Rav found it necessary to rule like Rebbi Yehudah, that Rav Mesharshaya is justified in disregarding the rules mentioned above in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (one of them being that Rebbi Meir, ve'Rebbi Yehudah, Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah).

(d) The fact that Rav disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan does not authorize Rav Mesharshaya to disregard Rebbi Yochanan's rules - because of the hard and fast principle that when Rav argues with Rebbi Yochanan, we follow the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) Betrothal is forbidden within three months of a brother-in-law or husband's death - because Chazal decreed betrothal because of marriage, which is forbidden in order to clarify whose baby it will be, should she become pregnant shortly after the marriage or the Yibum.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah permitted those who were married to become betrothed, and those who were betrothed to marry, with one exception - namely, a woman who had been betrothed in Yehudah, whom they forbade to get married (or vice-versa), because the betrothed couples in Yehudah behaved with unusual familiarity, and the chances of the woman being pregnant were strong.

(c) Rebbi Yossi forbids a widow to become betrothed - as long as she is in mourning for her deceased husband, but not because of the decree quoted in 3a.

(d) Rebbi Meir does not differentiate between one woman and another. All women are obligated to wait three months, according to him, whether there is a possibility that she is pregnant or not.

4) Rebbi Yochanan needs to rule like Rebbi Yossi, in spite of his previous ruling (in which he followed Rebbi Yossi as a matter of principle), because here, that ruling might not be applicable, due to Shmuel, who is quoted as ruling like Rebbi Meir, whenever he issues a decree (which is the case here). Now Rebbi Yochanan might agree with that ruling, which clashes of course, with his previous one ('Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi' etc.) Consequently, he needed to rule in this case like Rebbi Yossi (in spite of Rebbi Meir's decree).


(a) The Tana permits the purchase of ...
1. ... houses and fields (from gentiles on the day of their festival - either because he is depriving the gentiles of property in Eretz Yisrael, or because of the Mitzvah to inhabit Eretz Yisrael (with Jews).
2. ... animals and slaves - because he brings them into the realm of Kedushah.
(b) Since it is permitted to purchase these things - Chazal also permitted documentation of such a sale, even in a non-Jewish court.

(c) When the Tana permits a Kohen to even enter a graveyard if necessary, to fight for these things in court, he means, not a regular graveyard (because how can Chazal permit something which the Torah forbids?), but a Beis ha'Peras, where a grave was dug up, and whose Isur for a Kohen to pass through is only de'Rabbanan.

(d) Chazal also waived the Isur de'Rabbanan of *Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz* for a Kohen.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah restricted the concession of leaving Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah - to where one is unable to find a suitable Rebbe in Eretz Yisrael.

(b) Rebbi Yossi holds that he is permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael - even if he *can*, because one never knows from which Rebbe one will learn the most.

(c) Not even from here do we have any justification for Rav Mesharshaya to disregard Rebbi Yochanan's previous rules. That is because Rebbi Yochanan needs to rule here like Rebbi Yossi because here, we are dealing with a Beraisa, and we might have thought that his previous ruling applied only to Mishnahs, and not to Beraisos.




(a) When Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, states that objects belonging to a gentile, do not acquire Shevisah - he means that they may be taken on Yom- Tov, as far the Jew who acquires them.

(b) If objects of Hefker, which have no owners at all, do not acquire Shevisah (according to the Rabbanan), then it goes without saying that objects owned by gentiles (who themselves are not Koneh Shevisah) will not do so.

(c) The Gemara therefore contends that Shmuel says his Chidush in Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri - to teach us that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's Din (that Hefker objects are Koneh Shevisash) is restricted to objects of Hefker, which have no owner who will interfere with their Shevisah; whereas with regard to objects belonging to gentiles, he will agree that they are not Koneh Shevisah like their owners.

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar rules that objects belonging to a non-Jew that a Jew borrowed on Yom-Tov, or objects of a Jew which he lent to a non-Jew and that were returned to him on Yom-Tov - may be carried two thousand Amos on Yom-Tov.

(b) This can only follow the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who says 'Cheftzei Hefker Konin Shevisah', and we see from here that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri does not differentiate between Hefker objects and objects belonging to a gentile. Both are Koneh Shevisah when Shabbos enters.

(c) Shmuel must hold like the Chachamim, and his Chidush is that - we do not decree objects belonging to a gentile (to restrict them to two thousand Amos) because of objects that belong to a Jew.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin quotes Rebbi Yochanan, who disagrees with Shmuel and says 'Cheftzei Nochrim Konin Shevisah, Gezeirah Ba'alim de'Nochrim Atu Ba'alim de'Yisrael'.

(b) Rava permitted the Jews of Mechuza, who had made an Eruv which enabled them to go to Mavrechta, to purchase the rams from the non-Jews of the town on Yom-Tov (obviously having made the appropriate arrangements to pay after Yom-Tov, or having paid in advance), and to take them back to Mechuza.

(c) Ravina objected to this on the grounds of what we just learnt in the name of Rebbi Yochanan - like whom we rule even against Rav, and certainly against Shmuel. So how could the purchasers lead the animals (who had acquired Shevisah like their gentile owners) back to Mechuza?

(a) Rava's second ruling was - that the residents of Mavrechta were permitted to purchase the rams (in spite of the fact that they had been brought into Mavrechta from outside the Techum on that day.

(b) This follows what we learnt above, that someone who is forcibly taken from his Techum into another town with a wall, is permitted to walk the entire town (because a town with a wall is considered loke four Amos). The rams too, were taken forcibly outside their Techum and placed inside Mavrechta, which had a wall.

Next daf


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