## Eruvin Daf 15b

###### Eruvin 15b:1
[Eruvin 15b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:1)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וְכוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But Rabbi Meir deems it pure.** Likewise, **one may write women’s bills of divorce on** anything, even a living creature. **But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates** a bill of divorce written on a living creature.


###### Eruvin 15b:2
[Eruvin 15b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ לֹא דּוֹפֶן לְסוּכָּה וְלֹא לֶחִי לְמָבוֹי, לֹא פַּסִּין לְבֵירָאוֹת וְלֹא גּוֹלֵל לְקֶבֶר. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אָמְרוּ: אַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Meir says: An animate object may neither be used as a wall for a *sukka*, nor as a side post for an alleyway, nor as** one of the upright **boards** surrounding **a well, nor as the covering of a grave. They said in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Nor may one write women’s bills of divorce on it.**


###### Eruvin 15b:3
[Eruvin 15b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״סֵפֶר״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר. מִנַּיִין לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״סֵפֶר״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה סֵפֶר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל, אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s** opinion? **As it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her **a scroll** of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1): From the word scroll, **I have** derived that **only a scroll** is valid. **From where** is it derived **to include all objects** as valid materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written? **The Torah states: “That he write her,” in any case,** i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written. **If so, why does the verse state “scroll”? To tell you** that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: **Just as a scroll is neither alive nor food, so too,** a bill of divorce may be written on **any object that is neither alive nor food.** That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.


###### Eruvin 15b:4
[Eruvin 15b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:4)

וְרַבָּנַן? מִי כְּתִיב ״בְּסֵפֶר״? ״סֵפֶר״ כְּתִיב, לִסְפִירוּת דְּבָרִים בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis,** who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse? They contend: **Is** the verse **written:** “Let him write for her **in the scroll [*basefer*],”** indicating the only type of surface on which the bill of divorce may be written? No, **scroll [*sefer*] is written, which comes to** teach that **a mere account of the matters [*sefirot devarim*]** is required. In other words, *sefer* is referring not to the surface on which a bill of divorce must be written, but rather to the essence of the bill of divorce. The verse teaches that the bill of divorce must contain particular content.


###### Eruvin 15b:5
[Eruvin 15b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:5)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: בִּכְתִיבָה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, וְאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּכֶסֶף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ יְצִיאָה לַהֲוָיָה — מָה הֲוָיָה בְּכֶסֶף, אַף יְצִיאָה בְּכֶסֶף. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And what do the Rabbis derive** from **the** phrase **“that he write her”?** The Gemara answers: **That** phrase **is required** to teach the principle that a woman **is divorced** only **by means of writing,** i.e., a bill of divorce, **and she is not divorced by means of money. It might have entered your mind to say: Since** in the verse, **leaving** marriage, i.e., divorce, **is juxtaposed to becoming** married, i.e., betrothal, then, **just as becoming** married **is** effected **with money, so** too, **leaving** marriage may be effected **with money.** Therefore, the Torah **teaches us:** “That he write for her”; divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.


###### Eruvin 15b:6
[Eruvin 15b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״סֵּפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״: סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ, וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he** derive **this reasoning,** that a woman cannot be divorced with money? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the phrase: **A scroll of severance,** which teaches that **a scroll,** i.e., a written document, **severs her** from her husband **and nothing else severs her** from him.


###### Eruvin 15b:7
[Eruvin 15b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:7)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְדָבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. לְכִדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ לְעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And the Rabbis** explain that **this** phrase: **A scroll of severance, is required** to teach that a bill of divorce must be **a matter that severs** all connection **between him and her. As it was taught** in a *baraita*: If a man says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you will** never **drink wine,** or **on condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance;** the bill of divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition **for the duration of thirty days,** or any other limited period of time, **that is severance,** and the bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.


###### Eruvin 15b:8
[Eruvin 15b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״כָּרֵת״ ״כְּרִיתוּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derives** that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce **from** the fact that instead of using the term ***karet*,** the verse uses the more expanded term ***keritut*.** Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches us two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.


###### Eruvin 15b:9
[Eruvin 15b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:9)

וְרַבָּנַן ״כָּרֵת״ ״כְּרִיתוּת״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **the Rabbis, they do not derive** anything from the expansion of ***karet*** to ***keritut*.**


###### Eruvin 15b:10
[Eruvin 15b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁיָירָא שֶׁחָנְתָה בְּבִקְעָה וְהִקִּיפוּהָ כְּלֵי בְהֵמָה — מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא גָּדֵר גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְלֹא יְהוּ פִּירְצוֹת יְתֵרוֹת עַל הַבִּנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **a caravan camped in a valley,** i.e., an open space not enclosed by walls, **and** the travelers **enclosed** their camp **with** partitions made of the **animals’ equipment,** e.g., saddles and the like, **one may carry inside** the enclosed area, **provided that** the resultant partition **will be a fence ten handbreadths high, and** that **there will not be breaches** in the partition **greater** than **the built** segment.


###### Eruvin 15b:11
[Eruvin 15b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:11)

כָּל פִּירְצָה שֶׁהִיא כְּעֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת מוּתֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפֶתַח. יָתֵר מִכָּאן — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Any breach that is approximately ten cubits** wide **is permitted** and does not invalidate the partition **because it is** considered **like an entrance.** However, if one of the breaches is **greater than** ten cubits, **it is prohibited** to carry anywhere in the enclosed area.


###### Eruvin 15b:12
[Eruvin 15b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר, פָּרוּץ כְּעוֹמֵד — רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מוּתָּר, רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It is stated** that the *amora’im* disagree about the case where the **breached** segment of the partition **equals the standing** portion. **Rav Pappa said: It is permitted** to carry within that enclosure. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 15b:13
[Eruvin 15b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:13)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר מוּתָּר: הָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — לָא תִּפְרוֹץ רוּבָּה. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר אָסוּר: הָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — גְּדוֹר רוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav Pappa said: It is permitted. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Do not breach the majority** of the partition; as long as the greater part is not breached, it is considered a partition. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is prohibited. This is what the Merciful One taught Moses: Circumscribe the greater** part; if the greater part is not enclosed, it is not a partition.


###### Eruvin 15b:14
[Eruvin 15b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:14)

תְּנַן: וְלֹא יְהוּ פִּירְצוֹת יְתֵרוֹת עַל הַבִּנְיָן. הָא כַּבִּנְיָן — מוּתָּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **And there will not be breaches** in the partition **greater** than **the built** segment. Only then would carrying be permitted in the enclosed area. By inference, **if** the breaches **equal the built** segment, **it is permitted.** This presents a difficulty for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


###### Eruvin 15b:15
[Eruvin 15b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:15)

לָא תֵּימָא הָא כַּבִּנְיָן מוּתָּר, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אִם בִּנְיָן יָתֵר עַל הַפִּירְצָה — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Do not say:** By inference if they **equal the built** segment, **it is permitted; rather, say: If the built** segment **is greater than the breach, it is permitted** to carry in the enclosed area.


###### Eruvin 15b:16
[Eruvin 15b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:16)

אֲבָל כַּבִּנְיָן, מַאי — אָסוּר? אִי הָכִי לִיתְנֵי ״לֹא יְהוּ פִּירְצוֹת כַּבִּנְיָן״! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **However,** according to that way of understanding the mishna, if the breach **equals the built** segment, **what** is the *halakha*? Is carrying **prohibited? If so, let** the mishna **teach** that carrying is permitted, provided that the **breaches do not equal the built** segment. It can be inferred from this that if the breaches are greater than the built segment, it is certainly prohibited. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses **a difficulty** to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


###### Eruvin 15b:17
[Eruvin 15b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:17)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְקָרֶה סוּכָּתוֹ בְּשַׁפּוּדִין אוֹ בַּאֲרוּכּוֹת הַמִּטָּה, אִם יֵשׁ רֶיוַח בֵּינֵיהֶן כְּמוֹתָן — כְּשֵׁירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof to support Rav Pappa’s opinion. **Come** and **hear** that which the mishna taught about the *halakhot* of *sukka*: With regard to **one who roofed his *sukka* with** metal **skewers or with bed posts,** both of which are unfit for *sukka* roofing because they are susceptible to ritual impurity, **if there is space between them, equal to their** width, filled with materials valid for *sukka* roofing, the *sukka* **is valid.** Apparently, with regard to roofing, if the valid materials equal the invalid, the *sukka* is valid. Similarly, if the built segment of an enclosure equals the breached segment, it is a valid enclosure for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat. This supports Rav Pappa’s opinion against that of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


###### Eruvin 15b:18
[Eruvin 15b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:18)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: כְּשֶׁנִּכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara contests this conclusion. **With what are we dealing here?** It is with a case **where** the skewers can be **inserted and extracted** easily. In other words, the case of the mishna in *Sukka* is not one where there are equal amounts of valid and invalid roofing. It is referring to a case where there is additional space between the skewers, which allows for their easy insertion and removal. Consequently, the space filled by the valid roofing is greater than that filled by the skewers.


###### Eruvin 15b:19
[Eruvin 15b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:19)

וְהָא אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t it possible to be precise?** Couldn’t the mishna in *Sukka* be understood as describing a case where the gaps between the skewers equal the width of the skewers? That understanding supports the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that when the valid segment precisely equals the invalid segment, the whole is valid.


###### Eruvin 15b:20
[Eruvin 15b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: בְּמַעֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said:** This mishna is referring to a case **where one adds** roofing, so that the area of the valid roofing is greater than that of the skewers.


###### Eruvin 15b:21
[Eruvin 15b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:21)

רָבָא אָמַר: אִם הָיוּ נְתוּנִין עֵרֶב — נוֹתְנוֹ שְׁתִי, שְׁתִי — נוֹתְנוֹ עֵרֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** This is referring to a case where **if** the skewers **were placed crosswise** to the *sukka*, **he should place** the valid roofing **lengthwise,** and similarly, if the skewers were placed **lengthwise, he should place** the valid roofing **crosswise,** ensuring that there is more valid than invalid roofing.


###### Eruvin 15b:22
[Eruvin 15b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15b:22)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁיָירָא שֶׁחָנְתָה בְּבִקְעָה וְהִקִּיפוּהָ בִּגְמַלִּין, בְּאוּכָּפוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to adduce a proof in support of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: **Come** and **hear** that which was taught in a *baraita*: If **a caravan camped in a field, and** the travelers **surrounded** their camp **with camels** that were made to crouch down, or **with** their **saddles,**