Gemara Clarity

Eruvin 49a

עירובין מ״ט ע״א

Learn Eruvin 49a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 49a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Middle areas joined to two sides; what makes an עירוב valid (stinginess, dividing); and whether an עירוב works through קנין or דירה.

Overview

The amud opens by finishing שמואל's statement that the lenient ruling follows רבי שמעון alone. Under that ruling, two outer areas that are forbidden to each other may each use a shared middle area. חכמים forbid all three, and a ברייתא confirms both views. שמואל holds this consistently: a חצר between two מבואות that joined both is forbidden with both. If it joined neither, it forbids both alleyways, unless its residents regularly use only one of them. רבה בר רב הונא adds that we may send the חצר to the alleyway it does not usually use, because refusing would be מדת סדום. Next, שמואל rules that a stingy owner's עירוב is invalid and that a deliberately divided עירוב is invalid. The גמרא defends the divided-עירוב ruling against בית הלל and against another ruling of שמואל. Finally, שמואל says an עירוב works through קנין, while רבה says it works through דירה. The גמרא begins listing the practical differences between the two views, such as a כלי and food worth less than a פרוטה, and the list continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

אַף זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן,

This too is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,

אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:

but the Sages say:

שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אֲסוּרוֹת.

all three of them are forbidden.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Rav Yehuda

The steps (27)

  1. Statementשמואל: this lenient ruling is only רבי שמעון's view
  2. ProofA ברייתא supports שמואל: רבי שמעון's comparison to three courtyards
  3. ProofThe ברייתא ends: the Sages forbid all three courtyards
  4. Statementשמואל is consistent: a courtyard between two alleyways
  5. StatementA courtyard with no עירוב forbids both alleyways
  6. StatementUsual alleyway forbidden, unusual alleyway permitted
  7. StatementJoining the unusual alleyway frees the usual one
  8. StatementWe send the courtyard to the alleyway it does not usually use
  9. ConclusionWhy we may force the courtyard to use the other alleyway
  10. StatementA stingy owner's עירוב is invalid
  11. Statementרבי חנינא: the עירוב is valid, but the owner is a miser
  12. StatementDividing one's עירוב makes it invalid
  13. ChallengeDoes שמואל follow בית שמאי?
  14. Resolutionבית הלל only allowed overflow, not deliberate division
  15. QuestionWhy did שמואל need two rulings?
  16. ResponseEach ruling teaches something the other cannot
  17. Challengeרבי אבא points out a contradiction between two rulings of שמואל
  18. ResolutionThe house ruling works for a different reason
  19. Statementשמואל: an עירוב works through acquisition
  20. QuestionWhy not acquire with a coin?
  21. ResponseCoins are often unavailable on Friday
  22. ChallengeIf someone did make an עירוב with a coin, it should still work
  23. ResolutionThe Sages decreed against coins so people would not stop using bread
  24. Statementרבה: an עירוב works because of residence
  25. QuestionWhat is the practical difference between the two views?
  26. ResponseThe difference: making an עירוב with a utensil
  27. ResponseSecond difference: food worth less than a פרוטה