Talmud for Eruvin 6:8

חָמֵשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ וּפְתוּחוֹת לְמָבוֹי, עֵרְבוּ בַחֲצֵרוֹת וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, מֻתָּרִין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וַאֲסוּרִין בַּמָּבוֹי. וְאִם נִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, מֻתָּרִין כָּאן וָכָאן. עֵרְבוּ בַחֲצֵרוֹת וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בַמָּבוֹי, וְשָׁכַח אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חָצֵר וְלֹא עֵרֵב, מֻתָּרִין כָּאן וָכָאן. מִבְּנֵי מָבוֹי וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּתֵּף, מֻתָּרִין בַּחֲצֵרוֹת וַאֲסוּרִין בַּמָּבוֹי, שֶׁהַמָּבוֹי לַחֲצֵרוֹת כֶּחָצֵר לַבָּתִּים:

Five courtyards opening into each other and opening into a mavui [The gemara concludes that "opening into each other" is to be omitted from the Mishnah, for we rule that a mavui is not permitted with lechi and korah (see 1:1) until houses and courtyards open into it, i.e., two houses into each courtyard and two courtyards into the mavui. And these, if they all opened into each other and were joined together by an eruv through their opening, would be regarded as one — so that the correct rendering is "Five courtyards opening into a mavui"] — If they made an eruv for the courtyards [each for itself], but did not become partners in the mavui, they are permitted in the courtyards [All the men of the courtyard are permitted (in it) for themselves], but forbidden in the mavui, [for eruv is not relied upon where partnership (in the mavui) is required.] And if they became partners [also] in the mavui [after having made an eruv in the courtyard], they are permitted in both places. If they made an eruv in the courtyard and a partnership in the mavui, and one of the men of the courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv [in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but he did have a share in the (mavui) partnership], they are permitted in both places. [For the reason that partnership is not relied upon where eruv is required is that the institution of eruv not depart form the children (6:5); but here, since most of the men of the courtyard did make an eruv, and only one forgot to do so, there is no fear in this regard.] (If one) of the men of the mavui (forgot) and did not enter into the partnership, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the mavui, for a mavui to the courtyards is as a courtyard to the houses. [i.e., Just as it is forbidden to carry from the houses to the courtyard without an eruv, so is it forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the mavui without partnership; and it is not to be contended that they cannot be compared in that with house and courtyard, one is private domain and the other public whereas with courtyard and mavui both are public domain.]

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

HALAKHAH: “The excess of sheqalim is profane,” etc. Rebbi Yasa⁸¹While all sources have “R. Yose”, the reading must be R. Yasa, a Babylonian early enough to have visited Samuel’s academy. The name is spelled correctly at the end of the Halakhah. said, when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel, if somebody had set his sheqel apart and died? He told him, they shall fall to gift⁸²Since the monies were set aside for the sheqel and “a promise to Heaven is like delivery to an individual” (Mishnah Qiddušin1:6), they are Temple property. Since they are not sheqalim they must be given to the Temple account into which all Temple monies not otherwise specified are collected.. The excess of his tenth of an ephah, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one shall bring them to the Dead Sea⁸³If this refers to the daily offering of the High priest and the High priest had died, then the monies cannot be used in the Temple since possibly they were not dedicated; they cannot be used as profane since possibly they were dedicated. They have to be destroyed.. Rebbi Eleazar said, it shall fall to gift. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁴The reading of B is “disagrees with both of them”.: “The excess of sheqalim is profane The excess of a tenth of an ephah, the excess of nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, the nests of female sufferers from flux, the nests of women after childbirth, or purification offerings, or reparation offerings, the excesses are gift.”. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explains it as excess from the tenth of an ephah of the purification offering of any one in Israel⁸⁵This seems to be required by the wording of the Mishnah, which decrees that the excess of monies for the tenth of an ephah is Temple property but allows only excess of purification or reparation sacrifices to be so taken. The High Priest’s flour offering is neither of these; therefore the Mishnah cannot include it.
The reading of B implies that R. Eleazar identifies that tenth of an ephah as the High Priest’s offering..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

Rav Ḥisda said, a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. Rebbi Yose said, that is correct. You cannot sacrifice it by itself since bread cannot be brought alone. You cannot sacrifice it together with another nazir’s since no nazir sacrifices without bread¹⁰¹While several flour offerings are described in Lev. 2, none is authorized for bread alone. Nowhere do we find a procedure to redeem sacrificial bread.. Therefore, it was necessary to say that a nazir’s leftover bread shall be left to decay. They wanted to say, the same rule applies to his leftover bread as to his leftover wine offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, his leftover wine offering is most holy¹⁰²Halakhah 5, Note 81.; it should be given to the gift account. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Samuel, Rav Ḥisda, and Rebbi Eleazar, all three said the same. Rav Ḥisda, as quoted here. Samuel, as Rebbi Yasa said,¹⁰²Halakhah 5, Note 81. when I still was there, I heard the voice of Rav Jehudah asking Samuel: If he designated his sheqel and died? He said, it should be given as gift. Rebbi Eleazar: ¹⁰³Halakhah 5, Note 83. the leftover of his tenth of an ephah: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one should bring it to the Dead Sea; Rebbi Eleazar said, it should be given to the gift account..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse