## Eruvin Daf 79b

###### Eruvin 79b:1
[Eruvin 79b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:1)

וְתֶבֶן שִׁבְעָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ, דְּכׇל פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה כְּלָבוּד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** the **hay** in the house is **slightly more than seven** handbreadths high it is considered a full-fledged partition that reaches the ceiling, as objects separated by **any** gap of **less than three** handbreadths **are considered joined,** based on the principle of *lavud*.


###### Eruvin 79b:2
[Eruvin 79b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״מֵעֲשָׂרָה״, אֶלָּא לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַאי ״מֵעֲשָׂרָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments. **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Abaye, that is why** the *baraita* **teaches:** If the height of the haystack was reduced to less **than ten** handbreadths. **However, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, what is** the meaning of: Less **than ten?** Even at the outset it was never as high as ten handbreadths.


###### Eruvin 79b:3
[Eruvin 79b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:3)

מִתּוֹרַת עֲשָׂרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It means that it was reduced to less **than the law of ten** handbreadths. As long as the hay is slightly more than seven handbreadths high, it is regarded as ten handbreadths high, in accordance with the principle of *lavud*. Once its height is reduced to less than seven handbreadths, the *halakha* of a partition ten handbreadths high is no longer in effect.


###### Eruvin 79b:4
[Eruvin 79b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:4)

שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דָּיוֹרִין הַבָּאִין בְּשַׁבָּת אֲסוּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The same *baraita* taught that if the height of the hay was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, it is **prohibited** to carry in **both.** The Gemara comments: Should we **learn from this** that **residents who arrive on Shabbat prohibit** the other residents from carrying? At the onset of Shabbat, both sets of residents were permitted to use the hay and the house, but once the hay was reduced on Shabbat it is as though new residents had been added to each of the courtyards, and it is prohibited for all of them to carry. Why not say that since at the beginning of Shabbat it was permitted to carry in the domain, they are permitted to do so for its duration?


###### Eruvin 79b:5
[Eruvin 79b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:5)

דִּלְמָא דְּאִימְּעַט מֵאֶתְמוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this contention: **Perhaps** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the hay **was** already **reduced on the previous day,** before Shabbat began. In that case, it was never permitted to carry at all.


###### Eruvin 79b:6
[Eruvin 79b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:6)

כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹעֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּתוֹ. תַּרְתֵּי?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ נוֹעֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ מְבַטֵּל אֶת רְשׁוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **How,** then, **does** the resident of one of the courtyards **act** if he seeks to permit use of the other courtyard to its resident? He **locks his house and renounces his right** to carry in the courtyard in favor of the other person. The Gemara is surprised by this ruling: Does he require these **two** steps? One should suffice. The Gemara answers: **This is what** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **is saying: Either he locks his house or he renounces his right** to the courtyard.


###### Eruvin 79b:7
[Eruvin 79b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:7)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם תַּרְתֵּי, כֵּיוָן דְּדָשׁ בֵּיהּ — אָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** a different explanation instead. **Actually, both** actions are required in this case, even though one of them would ordinarily suffice. The reason is: **Since he is accustomed to** using the courtyard, **he will come to carry.** Consequently, the Sages were stringent with a person in this position and obligated him to implement an additional change so that he will not forget and come to carry when it is prohibited.


###### Eruvin 79b:8
[Eruvin 79b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:8)

הוּא אָסוּר וַחֲבֵירוֹ מוּתָּר. פְּשִׁיטָא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּהֲדַר אִידַּךְ וּבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּאֵין מְבַטְּלִין וְחוֹזְרִין וּמְבַטְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the *baraita*: If one locks his house and renounces his rights to the courtyard, **it is prohibited** for him to carry, **and it is permitted** for **the other** person to carry. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this **obvious?** Why was it necessary to state this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **It was necessary only** in a case **where the other** person **then renounced** his right in favor **of the first** person. **And** the *baraita* **teaches us that** one **may not renounce** his rights in favor of the other, **and then** have the latter **renounce** his own rights in favor of the former.


###### Eruvin 79b:9
[Eruvin 79b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:9)

וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגוֹב שֶׁל תֶּבֶן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁנֵי תְּחוּמֵי שַׁבָּת. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: תְּחוּמִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזוֹר דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was further taught in the *baraita*: **And you** can **say likewise with regard to a pit of hay that** is situated **between two Shabbat limits.** The inhabitants of each area may feed their animals from the common hay. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this **obvious?** The same principle that is in effect with regard to a haystack between courtyards should apply here as well. The Gemara answers: **It was necessary** to state this *halakha* only **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who said** that the principle of Shabbat **boundaries** is **by Torah law. Lest you say** that **let us issue a decree** and prohibit it, **lest** people **come to exchange** objects from one boundary to another, which would violate a Torah prohibition; therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that no distinction is made between the cases, and no decree of this kind is issued.


###### Eruvin 79b:10
[Eruvin 79b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בְּמָבוֹי? מַנִּיחַ אֶת הֶחָבִית, וְאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זוֹ לְכׇל בְּנֵי מָבוֹי, וּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים, וְעַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **How does one merge** the courtyards that open **into the alleyway,** if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? **He places a barrel** filled with his own food **and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway.** For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, **and** the *tanna* therefore teaches that **he** may **confer possession to them** even **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 the residents of the alleyway.


###### Eruvin 79b:11
[Eruvin 79b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:11)

אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְזַכֶּה לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן כְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, he** may **not confer possession by means of his minor son or daughter, nor by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, because** they cannot effect acquisition, as ownership of objects that come into **their possession is as** if those objects came into **his possession.** Consequently, the master or father cannot confer possession to the slave or minor respectively on behalf of others as their acquisition is ineffective and the object remains in his own possession.


###### Eruvin 79b:12
[Eruvin 79b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: חָבִית שֶׁל שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ מִן הַקַּרְקַע טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda said:** With regard to **a barrel for the merging of alleyways,** the one acquiring it on behalf of the alleyway’s residents **must raise** it **a handbreadth from the ground,** as he must perform a valid act of acquisition on their behalf.


###### Eruvin 79b:13
[Eruvin 79b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי מִילֵּי, סָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַמְרִינְהוּ: חֲדָא — הָא. אִידַּךְ — הַמְקַדֵּשׁ, אִם טָעַם מְלֹא לוּגְמָיו — יָצָא, וְאִם לָאו — לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The elders of Pumbedita,** Rav Yehuda and his students, **stated these two matters. One** was **this** mentioned above with regard to lifting the barrel; and **the other** was: With regard to **one who recites *kiddush*** over wine on Shabbat or a Festival, **if he tasted a mouthful** of wine, **he fulfilled** his obligation; **however, if** he did **not** taste a mouthful, **he did not fulfill** his obligation.


###### Eruvin 79b:14
[Eruvin 79b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:14)

אָמַר רַב חֲבִיבָא: הָא נָמֵי סָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַמְרִינְהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עוֹשִׂין מְדוּרָה לַחַיָּה בְּשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥaviva said:** In addition to the aforementioned pair of teachings, **the elders of Pumbedita stated this too, as Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: One builds a fire for a woman in childbirth on Shabbat.**


###### Eruvin 79b:15
[Eruvin 79b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:15)

סְבוּר מִינָּה: לְחַיָּה — אִין, לְחוֹלֶה — לָא. בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים — אִין, בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that the Sages **thought** to infer **from here: For a woman in childbirth, yes,** one builds a fire, due to her highly precarious state; **for a sick person, no,** one does not build a fire. Likewise, **in the rainy season,** when the danger of catching cold is ever present, **yes,** one builds a fire; **in the summer, no,** one may not.


###### Eruvin 79b:16
[Eruvin 79b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:16)

אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִקִּיז דָּם וְנִצְטַנֵּן — עוֹשִׂין לוֹ מְדוּרָה בְּשַׁבָּת, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that which **was stated: Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to one who **let blood and caught cold, one builds a fire for him on Shabbat, even during the season of Tammuz,** i.e., the summer. Clearly, Rav Yehuda’s ruling is limited neither to a woman in childbirth nor to the rainy season.


###### Eruvin 79b:17
[Eruvin 79b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:17)

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הָא נָמֵי סָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא אַמְרִינְהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲשֵׁירָה סְתָם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar said: This too was stated by the elders of Pumbedita, as it was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to **which** tree **is presumed** to be **a tree designated for idolatry [*asheira*],** even though no one actually saw it worshipped.


###### Eruvin 79b:18
[Eruvin 79b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/79b:18)

אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שֶׁכּוֹמָרִין שׁוֹמְרִין אוֹתָהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said: It is any** tree **that** idolatrous **priests guard.**