EIRUVIN - 063b – הדר – פרק ששי – עירובין, סג ע”ב

Gemara

And it is written (Divrei Hayamim I 7): "Nun his son, Yehoshua his son."^[1]

וכתיב נון בנו יהושע בנו - And after Yehoshua no son is reckoned.

And this differs with Rabbi Abba bar Pappa, for Rabbi Abba bar Pappa said: Yehoshua was punished only because he kept Israel from procreation for one night.

לא נענש יהושע - With being childless - except because he kept (Israel) etc.

As it is said (Yehoshua 5): "And it was, when Yehoshua was by Yericho, that he lifted up his eyes and saw, etc."; and it is written: "And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of Hashem; now I have come, etc."

ויהי בהיות יהושע וגו' - From what is written, "with his sword drawn in his hand," it follows that he came for punishment. And "now I have come," which he said to him, means this: I have come over the present transgression. And since he needed to say "over the present one," it follows that there was yet another. And what was it? This is what he said to him: "Last evening you neglected the afternoon tamid" - in the evening you neglected the tamid, and now that it has grown dark you are neglecting Torah study; for since they were busy with the war by day, they had no time to occupy themselves with Torah except at night. And the matter proves that he rebuked them over Torah study, from what another verse writes about the war of Ai, which came after it: "And Yehoshua went that night into the midst of the valley," and Rabbi Yochanan said: This teaches that he lodged in the depth of halachah.

He said to him: Last evening you neglected the afternoon tamid offering,^[2] and now you are neglecting Torah study.

(Yehoshua asked:) On account of which of them have you come?

He said to him: "Now I have come."

Immediately (Yehoshua 8): "And Yehoshua went that night into the midst of the valley (ha'emek)";

and Rabbi Yochanan said: This teaches that he went into the depth (omek) of halachah.

And we have a tradition that whenever the Ark and the Shechinah are not resting in their place, (Israel) are forbidden in marital relations.^[3]

וגמירי דכל זמן שארון ושכינה שרויין שלא במקומן כו' - And that night on which the angel rebuked them, they were neglecting Torah study because they were lying in ambush against the city, and in the evening they did not return the Ark to its place in Gilgal; and that is the night on which they neglected procreation.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Torah study is greater than offering the tamid offerings, for he said to him: "Now I have come."

Rav Beruna said in the name of Rav: Whoever sleeps in a chamber in which a husband and his wife are resting - of him the verse says (Michah 2): "The women of My people you drive out from their pleasant home."^[4]

בקילעא - In a chamber.

נשי עמו תגרשון - For they are embarrassed before him.

And Rav Yosef said: Even (if he sleeps there) when the wife is a niddah.

Rava said: If his wife is a niddah, may a blessing come upon him (for his presence guards them from sin).

But that is not so - for until now, who guarded him?^[5]

There was a certain alley in which Lachman bar Ristak lived.

לחמן בר ריסתק - That was his name.

They said to him: Rent us your rights.^[6] He would not rent to them.

They came and told Abaye.

He said to them: Go, renounce your rights in favor of one (of you);^[7] then he is an individual in the place of a gentile, and an individual in the place of a gentile does not prohibit.^[8]

בטילו רשותייכו - (Your rights) in the alley, in favor of one of you. And even though they themselves are forbidden to carry out from their courtyards into the alley, as we learned: "If they gave him their rights, he is permitted and they are forbidden,"^[9] it at least helps him to carry throughout the whole alley the utensils that rested in it over Shabbos and the utensils that rested in the house of the individual to whom they renounced their rights; for otherwise it would be forbidden to carry them there, as we say in Tractate Shabbos, in the chapter "Rabbi Eliezer Omer Im Lo Hevi Kli" (130b).

They said to him: Is the reason not only that it is uncommon (for one Jew) to live (with a gentile)? But here they do live (together)!

He said to them: For all of them to renounce their rights in favor of one is an uncommon thing, and regarding an uncommon thing the Rabbis did not decree.

Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua went and said this teaching before Rava. He said to him:

מיד וילך יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק - We read this, and we also read: "This teaches that he went into the depth of halachah etc." In the war of Ai, the last passage writes "and he lodged (vayalen)," but there it is written "in the midst of the people (ha'am)." And when it says "immediately," it was not at once; rather, when he became free he went into the depth of halachah, but a long time passed after the episode of the angel.

כל זמן שארון ושכינה שלא במקומן ישראל אסורין בתשמיש המטה - The Ri finds it difficult: in the episode of Uriah the Hittite the Ark was not in its place, as it is written: "The Ark and Israel and Yehudah dwell in booths, and my master Yoav and the servants of my master are encamped in the open field, and shall I [etc.] lie with my wife?"^[10] - which implies that others were permitted marital relations, only Uriah the Hittite was stringent with himself because Israel was in distress; for David said to him, "Go down to your house." Furthermore, we say in Perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 107a) about David, that he turned his night-time bed into a daytime bed, and this halachah was hidden from him etc. - implying that at night it was permitted. And the Ri says that there were two arks. One, in which the broken tablets lay, they would take to wars, as taught in the Sifri: "And the Ark of the covenant of Hashem traveled before them by day" - this is the one that goes out with them in the camp; and that is the wooden ark that Moshe made when he went up to Sinai, as written about the last tablets in Mishneh Torah: "And make yourself a wooden ark"; and at first he placed the last tablets in it too, as written: "And I placed the tablets in the ark which I had made," until the golden Ark that Betzalel made was made, and then they placed the last tablets in it, as written: "And you shall put into the Ark the testimony which I shall give you," and so he did, as written in Vayakhel. And here the Gemara speaks of that one - that they were forbidden marital relations when it was not in its place; and that one they were not accustomed to take to war, as it is written regarding Shiloh: "Who will save us from the hand of these mighty gods... for such a thing has not happened yesterday or the day before" - for they were not accustomed to take it out; and then, when they took it out, they were stricken and it went into captivity, as Rashi explains there. And its being with them in Yehoshua's war was by the Divine word, which did everything. And what we expound in the first chapter of Bava Basra (14a), "There was nothing in the Ark except" etc. - teaching that the tablets and the broken tablets lay in the Ark - refers to the Ark that Betzalel made, as is implied there that this was in the Beis Hamikdash, for this verse is written about Shlomo; and even according to the one who expounds from "which you broke, and you shall place them in the Ark", that refers to the time of the Temple building, where it rested forever. And in the Yerushalmi there is a dispute in Perek Mashuach Milchamah, for some say there was one ark [and it says there: a verse supports Rabbi Yehudah - meaning, who says there were two arks - "The Ark and Israel dwell in booths"; but was the Ark not in Tziyon? What do the Rabbis, who say there was one ark, do with it?] - rather, it was under a roof, until the Chosen House was built. Meaning: "in booths" that is said does not mean it was with them in war, but that it was under an ordinary roof, which is not the Beis Hamikdash. Even though they were not forbidden marital relations because of this, and Uriah himself was married to Bas Sheva, and so he would not have been stringent to separate from his wife just because it was not in the Mikdash - nevertheless, since there were two shortcomings, that Israel was at war dwelling in booths and also that the Ark was not in the Mikdash, he wished to be stringent with himself. And if one read in the Yerushalmi "that it was not under a roof," meaning rather within the curtain, it would be better, for the term "roof" does not imply that it is ordinary.

לחמן בר ריסתק - Rabbeinu Chananel^[11] reads "Haman."

בטילו רשותייכו לגבי חד מינייכו - The Kuntres^[12] explained: even though they themselves are forbidden to carry out from their courtyards into the alley, as we learned: "If they gave him their rights, he is permitted and they are forbidden," it helps them at least to carry throughout the whole alley the utensils that rested in it and the utensils that rested in the house of the individual to whom they renounced their rights; for otherwise it would be forbidden to carry there, as we say in Tractate Shabbos, Perek Rabbi Eliezer Omer Im Lo Hevi (130b): in an alley in which (the courtyards) did not join together, if the courtyards made an eruv with the houses one may carry in it only within four amos; if the courtyards did not make an eruv with the houses, one may carry in all of it. For when the courtyards made an eruv with the houses, the utensils of the houses are commonly found in the courtyard, and we decree lest one come to take them out from the courtyard into the alley; therefore it is forbidden to carry in the alley except within four amos. But when they did not make an eruv, the house utensils are not commonly found in the courtyard and there is nothing to decree; and as for the concern lest one come to carry utensils that rested in the courtyard into the alley - Rav follows his own reasoning, for he says below (Eruvin 91a) that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, who says courtyard, karpef and alley are one domain, provided they did not make an eruv, as the Kuntres explains there. And the Ri finds it difficult: presumably the people in our sugya did make an eruv of the courtyards with the houses and renounced only the right to the alley; for if they did not make an eruv, they would lose all the courtyards, being unable to carry out into them from the houses; and it would be better for them to be permitted in the courtyards and all be forbidden in the alley, than for all to be forbidden in the courtyards and in the alley for the sake of the one who would be permitted. And since they made an eruv in the courtyards, what the Kuntres explained cannot be - that this renunciation helps to carry in the whole alley the utensils that rested in it and the utensils that rested in the individual's house - for once the courtyards made an eruv with the houses, one may carry in it only within four amos. Furthermore, we hold like Rabbi Yochanan, who says below (ibid.) that the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, who says karpef and courtyard are one domain whether or not they made an eruv; and we do not hold like that ruling of Rav in Shabbos - and if so, from the outset it was also permitted to carry in all of it. However, with regard to the individual's house the renunciation certainly helps; and it even helps to join the others' houses, in that the individual to whom they renounced their rights can carry the utensils of their houses out to the alley, for the eruv makes them like one house. And also if the courtyards open into one another and made an eruv, the individual can carry out from all the houses and courtyards into the alley, for they all become one through the eruv. Nevertheless, through an eruv they are not considered an individual in the place of a gentile, for if so one would never need to rent. And one cannot say that since through renunciation it becomes permitted, they would no longer need to rent - for they will certainly need to, since the renunciation permits only the individual, while the rest are forbidden; for if they carry out, they take hold of the rights they had in the alley before the renunciation, and the renunciation is thereby annulled, and they become many in the place of a gentile. And if you will ask: since all the courtyards become one, their houses likewise become one through the eruv when they renounce the alley to one - why should they be forbidden? If two live in one house and the residents of the courtyard renounced their rights to one of the two, would he alone be permitted to carry from the house to the courtyard while his fellow who lives with him is forbidden, and the renunciation not help him? This is no difficulty at all. For if we wish, we can say that indeed it is so; but we need not say this, for even if we say it is impossible that this one be forbidden and that one permitted, but the renunciation helps both equally although they renounced only to one, there is a great reason for the matter: two in one house are considered as one man, also regarding being an individual in the place of a gentile; but through an eruv they do not become an individual in the place of a gentile. And the same applies to renunciation - one cannot say that just as the renunciation helps the one to whom they renounced, it helps his fellows, for they are not considered as one man. Furthermore, it is impossible to say here that all are permitted because the renunciation helps all of them like two who live in one house, for then there is no renunciation at all: just as at first all had rights, so now too all would, and they are, as at first, many in the place of gentiles. Furthermore, it says explicitly that one must renounce to each one of those who made an eruv, according to the one who holds above that one renounces grudgingly; and the other view too agrees that if he explicitly specified that he renounces only to one, he has not renounced to the others, even though they made an eruv with the one to whom he renounced. And if you will ask: since he would permit all of them through the eruv that all the courtyards placed together, then Rava's challenge, "If so, you have abolished the law of eruv from that alley," and the answer, "they made an eruv from the start" - it was specifically through an eruv that he permitted, in order to make a remedy for all, that the individual would carry the utensils of their houses out to the alley, as I explained. One can answer that Rava thought he came to permit the utensils that rested in the individual's house without an eruv of the courtyards, and did not know that they opened into one another; and according to what he thought, that they did not open into one another, his challenge, "you have abolished the law of eruv from that alley," speaks of shituf,^[13] which he calls eruv.

Notes

1. 1. On the previous amud Rabbi Levi taught that one who answers a matter in his teacher's presence goes childless, learning it from Yehoshua, who said "My master Moshe, restrain them" about Eldad and Meidad (Bamidbar 11:28); the genealogy in Divrei Hayamim lists no son after Yehoshua.
2. 2. The tamid is the communal burnt-offering brought every day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon (bein ha'arbayim). The angel rebuked them for having let the afternoon one lapse.
3. 3. In Yehoshua's day the Ark's place was the Mishkan at Gilgal. That night it was not returned to its place, so marital relations were forbidden - and that is the night on which Yehoshua kept Israel from procreation (Rashi).
4. 4. Michah 2:9. One who sleeps in a couple's room keeps them from being together, as if driving the wife from her pleasure.
5. 5. The rejection: the husband guarded himself until now without the guest, so the guest adds no protection; his presence is only a burden on the couple.
6. 6. Renting rights: a gentile living in an alley or courtyard prevents the Jewish residents' eruv from taking effect until they rent his rights from him. Lachman bar Ristak was a gentile who refused.
7. 7. Renouncing rights (bittul reshus): a resident who did not join the eruv may renounce his rights in the shared area to another, who may then carry there as though he lived alone.
8. 8. An individual Jew living alongside a gentile is not restricted; the Rabbis required renting only where two or more Jews live with a gentile, since it is uncommon for a single Jew to live with one.
9. 9. A Mishnah: when residents renounce their rights to one, he may carry out and they may not. Rashi explains what the renunciation achieved here despite that.
10. 10. Shmuel II 11:11 - Uriah's answer when David urged him to go home to his wife.
11. 11. Rabbeinu Chananel of Kairouan (11th century), whose commentary often preserves different readings.
12. 12. "The Kuntres" is how Tosfos refers to Rashi's commentary.
13. 13. Shituf mevo'os: the courtyards of an alley pool food to permit carrying in the alley itself, distinct from eruv chatzeros, which permits carrying from the houses into the courtyard.