Daf Ditty Eruvin 20

1
Abaye asked Rabba yet another question: If the water in the cistern dried up on Shabbat,
what is the law? Is it still permitted to carry between the boards? Rabba said to him: The boards
are considered a valid partition only on account of the water; since there is no longer any
water here, there is also no longer a valid partition here.

Ravin raised a dilemma: If the water in the well dried up on Shabbat, and then on the same
Shabbat it rained and other water came in its place, what is the law? Is the original allowance to
carry restored? Abaye said to him: The case where the water dried up on Shabbat should not
be a dilemma for you, for I already raised this dilemma before my Master, Rabba, and he
resolved for me that it is prohibited to carry in the enclosed area.

2
The case where other water came on Shabbat should also not be a dilemma for you, for this is
a case of a partition erected on Shabbat, and it was already taught in a baraita: Any
partition erected on Shabbat, whether it was erected unwittingly, or whether intentionally,
whether by unavoidable accident, or whether willingly, it is called a valid partition. The fact
that it was erected in a prohibited manner, in violation of prohibitions related to building, does
not negate its effectiveness.

RASHI

3
If a chatzer extends into an area enclosed by double posts, is it permitted to carry? Rabbah
responded that it is permitted.

Abaye questioned further; what if there are two chatzeiros that open into the area enclosed by
double posts.

Rabbah responded that it is prohibited.

R’ Huna rules like Rabbah, but Rava disagrees and maintains that it is permitted to carry under
such conditions.

Is it still permitted to carry if the water in the well dries up?

Rabbah ruled that it becomes prohibited.

In a related question, Ravin asked: If the water dried up on Shabbos and then returned, is it
permitted to carry?

Abaye responded that it is permitted.

Summary

1.One may carry from a private yard into the area within the Pasim (and vice versa), provided that
the yard opens directly into the area between the two Pasim of one side of the Pasei Bira'os. Once
the leniency of Pasei Bira'os is employed, the area within the Pasim is considered a Reshus
ha'Yachid. Since no people live in that domain, it is not necessary to make an Eruv to permit
carrying from that domain to one's yard (and vice versa).

2. There is a dispute about the law in the case (similar to #1) of two yards, separated by a wall,
when open into the area of the Pasei Bira'os. Rava: If they make an Eruv Chatzeros through an
entrance in the wall that connects the two yards, the residents of both yards may carry in the area
of the Pasim. Rav Huna: The residents of the two yards may not carry even if they make an Eruv
Chatzeros, because outsiders who do not know about the small entrance in the wall will think that
an Eruv Chatzeros was made between the two yards because they are connected by the area within
the Pasim.

3. If the water of the well dried up on Shabbos, the Pasim are no longer effective. This is because
the entire leniency was based on the need for animals to have water. If the water is no longer there,
the area must be treated as a Reshus ha'Rabim.

4. If rain fell on Shabbos, filling up a well that had been dry, one may carry on that Shabbos within
the Pasim. This is because any wall that is made on Shabbos is considered a wall. The only

4
exception to this rule is that the Rabanan said that one should not carry within an area around
which a wall was built intentionally on Shabbos.

5. If a person throws an object from Reshus ha'Rabim into an area surrounded by Pasei Bira'os, he
is liable, even if there is no well within the Pasei Bira'os. In other words, Pasei Bira'os, according
to Torah law, creates an area that is a Reshus ha'Yachid, despite the fact that there is no well there,
and that people constantly walk through the area.

The Rabanan sanctioned carrying in it l'Chatchilah only when there is a well (with water) in it, but
it is a Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa in any case.

RAMBAM

[In the case of] a courtyard the head of which protrudes between the boards, it is permissible to
carry from within it to [the area] between the boards, and from between the boards to within it.
[But] if there were two courtyards, they are forbidden until they make an eruv (which renders it
all into one domain).

[If ]the water dried up on Shabbat, it is forbidden to carry between the boards; as they are only
considered a partition to carry within it on account of the water. If water arrived there on Shabbat,
it is permissible to carry between them—as any partition formed on Shabbat is [still] called a
partition. It is forbidden to carry in an alley, the beam of which or the post of which was taken
away on Shabbat—even [when] it is open to a karmelit.

5
Rabbi Jesse Paikin writes:1

Thus far, the second chapter of Eruvin has been mostly focused on how to enable the drawing of
water from a well on Shabbat. As we’ve seen, the laws of Shabbat forbid transferring objects
between public and private domains. Because the rabbis considered a well intrinsically private,
and the area around it is public, this restriction makes water challenging to provide on Shabbat. So
the Gemara teaches that water can be collected on Shabbat if an eruv is built around the well.

On today’s daf, the Gemara shares a question about such an eruv that is both practical and
philosophical:

Abaye asked Rabba: If the water in the cistern dried up on Shabbat, what is the law? Is it still
permitted to carry between the boards of the eruv? Rabba said to him: The boards are considered
a valid partition only on account of the water; since there is no longer any water here, there is
also no longer a valid partition here.

The reasonable chance that a well might dry up on Shabbat provides occasion to ask whether the
boards that mark the eruv are still operative if the well is no longer functional. Given the Talmud’s
lengthy focus on eruv construction, one might think that the eruv is primary and that once it’s built,
it remains valid even if the underlying purpose for which it was built no longer applies.

But according to Rabba, it is the well that determines the validity of the eruv. Once the well isn’t
functional anymore, it voids the eruv that has been built around it. Rabba may have been concerned
that people would exploit the leniencies that the eruv permits, so he teaches: Don’t forget the
purpose of the eruv. That’s what matters.

1
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-20/

6
Abbaye’s colleague, Ravin, then asks a follow-up question: What if it rains on Shabbat and the
well that had previously run dry is now operating again? Abaye then provides the answer:

This is a case of a partition erected on Shabbat, and it was already taught in a baraita: Any
partition erected on Shabbat, whether it was erected unwittingly, or whether intentionally,
whether by unavoidable accident, or whether willingly, it is called a valid partition.

Abaye understands the shift in the eruv’s status in this hypothetical to be a kind of construction on
Shabbat. Since we learned from Rabba that the emptying of the well effectively deconstructs the
eruv, the refilling of the well might be similarly seen as building a new one. And since construction
isn’t typically permitted on Shabbat, we might conclude that the eruv isn’t permitted either.

But Abaye teaches that if the well resumes its original functionality, the accompanying eruv
resumes its validity. He does so by drawing on a principle articulated in Tractate Shabbat, that a
partition unintentionally erected on Shabbat is a valid partition. Since the “reconstruction” of the
eruv was unintentional, the eruv can be used.

This daf is a helpful illustration of how the complexity of Jewish law often requires the ability both
to be purposeful and to adapt to changing circumstances.

7
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

As mentioned above, the Mishna (17b) discusses the unique case of a water hole in the
public thoroughfare that can be surrounded by four right-angled walls in each corner -
referred to by the Mishna as Deyomadin - in order to allow access to the water for
travelers and their cattle.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Ada argues that this leniency - the ability to carry within that
rectangular space - is not permitted for all, but is the exclusive benefit of the Olei Regalim
– the Jews who are traveling to Jerusalem for Pesach, Shavuot or Sukkot - to fulfill the
commandment of visiting the Temple on these holidays.

The Jerusalem Talmud brings a dispute among the amoraim on this question. One
opinion agrees with Rabbi Yitzhak bar Ada that these walls can only be used as an eiruv
by olei regalim. A second opinion argues that the special leniency was approved by the
Sages with the olei regalim in mind, but once it was adopted, the ruling works for all, and
anyone can use the water in these wells. The third opinion argues that the ruling was
made with the olei regalim in mind, but during the times of year when people are oleh
regel, anyone – even those not coming to Jerusalem - can benefit from them.

What is clear is that according to all, this method of fencing off the area of the well or
waterhole with four deyomadin is related to the needs of olei regalim.

In other words, the walls are so poorly designated that it was only the desire to assist
people involved in this mitzva that led the Sages to permit their use.

Since the olei regalim invariably brought with them animals for sacrifices in the Temple,
there was a desperate need to make water as readily accessible as possible.

During the times of year that the masses are commanded to travel to the Temple in
Jerusalem, the only available water is in wells or cisterns that collected rainwater.

2
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

8
Eli Genauer writes:3

“DID THE BACH REALLY DRAW A COW?” ERUVIN 20 B – HAGAHOT

HABACH ON RASHI “‫”הא אתמר עלה‬

3
https://seforimblog.com/2020/08/did-the-bach-really-draw-a-cow-eruvin-20-b-hagahot-habach-on-rashi-%d7%94%d7%90-
%d7%90%d7%aa%d7%9e%d7%a8-%d7%a2%d7%9c%d7%94/

9
Summary

The diagram in the first edition of the Bach (1824) is much more accurate than how it is depicted
in later editions, especially the Vilna Shas. The Bach’s picture features a long feeding trough,
(an ‫)אבוס‬, whereas Vilna and others show it looking more like something attached to the animal.
The Zhitomir Shas compounds the error by leaving out an essential characteristic of the situation
under discussion. The new editions of the Talmud get it much better. The one diagram I found in
a manuscript and the diagram in the Soncino Pesaro edition of 1515 (which was based on a
manuscript) are very close to the drawing in the Bach (1824).
The picture in the Bach focuses on the relationship between an animal, its feeding trough and a
well. One of the key words here is ‫ אבוס‬which is the feeding trough:

JASTROW

10
 ‫משנה י״ז׃‬: ‫מסכת עירובין‬

‫ עושין פסין לביראות‬:‫משנה‬2]

MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [‫ ]פסין‬around a well (in the Reshut Harabim in
order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat.) [A well is usually at least four Tefachim
wide and ten Tefachim deep. Therefore, it is considered a Reshut HaYachid, and it is Asur to draw
water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a
Reshut HaYachid into a Reshut HaRabim. The Chachamim therefore sometimes made a Kulah
that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area
could be considered a Reshut HaYachid.]
`
Perush Chai

Our daf discusses a case where the owner fills a bucket and gives water to an animal or fills a
bucket and then pours water into a trough from which the animal then drinks:

‫ אבל ממלא הוא ושופך והיא שותה מאיליה‬,‫לא ימלא אדם מים ויתן בשבת לפני בהמתו‬

A person may not fill a bucket with water and hold it before his animal on Shabbat; but he may
fill it and pour it out (into a trough.) The animal then drinks of its own accord.

11
 ‫הא אתמר עלה אמר אביי הכא באבוס העומד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים ורוחב ארבעה וראשו אחד נכנס‬
‫לבין הפסין‬
The Gemara qualifies the case of pouring water into a trough by saying that the above Baraita is
dealing with a cow standing inside a house with windows open to the Reshut HaRabim, eating
from a trough that stands in the Reshut HaRabim that is ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide,
( meaning it is a Reshut HaYachid), and one end of this trough extends into the area between the
upright boards surrounding a well. Here is what it looks like.4

‘ ‫ר ש ״י – ה א א ית מ ר ע ל ה כ ו‬
‫הא איתמר עלה כו‘ – כלומר כי בעינן ראשה ורובה בדלא נקיט לה וכי הוי ראשה ורובה שרי וברייתא דקתני לא‬
‫ימלא ויתן הוא עצמו לבהמתו הא תרצה אביי לקמן דלאו בבהמה העומדת ברה“ר וראשה ורובה בין הפסין‬
‫עסקינן אלא בבהמה העומדת בבית וחלונות פתוחות לה לרה“ר ואיבוס מתוקן לה (ב”ח) לפניה ברה“ר גבוה‬
‫י‘ ורחב ד‘ דהוי רה“י ונותן לה שם תבן ומספוא מרה“י וראש האיבוס נכנס לבין הפסין ואשמעינן דלא ימלא מן‬

4
http://files.daf-yomi.com/klali/lilmod/chavruta-english-eruvin1.pdf, p14

12
 ‫הבור ויגביה הדלי על ראש האיבוס וילך דרך רה“ר ויטלטל הדלי על האיבוס לפני בהמה ואע“ג דקיי“ל עומד‬
:‫ הכא אסור‬.(:‫אדם ברה“ר ומטלטל ברה“י בהמוצא תפילין )לקמן עירובין ד‘ צח‬
The portion of Rashi relevant to the diagram in the Bach is in bold.
‫– ב ב ה מ ה ה ע ומ ד ת ב ב ית‬

It is a case where the animal is standing in the house which has windows open to the Reshut
HaRabim and a trough is positioned in front of it in the Reshut HaRabim and it is 10 tefachim high
and 4 tefachim wide which makes it a Reshut HaYachid, and the owner puts animal feed( ‫תבן‬
‫ )ומספוא‬into the trough in the Reshut HaYachid and the front portion of the trough enters into the
area between the upright boards (‫)בין הפסין‬

In the Vilna Shas (Eruvin,1881) in the middle of this description in Rashi, there is an indication to
look at the Hagahot HaBach.

The Hagahot HaBach are suggestions for textual emendations in the Talmud and Rashi, copied
from the notes that the author added to his copy of the Talmud. The Bach died in 1640 but these
suggested emendations were not printed until 1824. Here is the title page of this original edition:

13
The picture is in the bottom right corner of the Daf and looks like this:

Here it is straightened out:

14
It has all the elements mentioned in Rashi…an animal standing in a house (with a window)
connected in some way to an ‫אבוס‬which extends through the Reshut HaRabim and into the area
between the upright posts surrounding the well.

Nevertheless, I had two issues with this depiction:

1. Did the Bach really draw a picture of an animal in his Gemara?
2. The ‫אבוס‬does not look like a trough positioned on the ground that has substantial
dimensions. (10 tefachim high and 4 tefachim wide).

In the first edition of the Hagahot HaBach (Warsaw 1824), the picture looks like this:

We have all the elements described in Rashi, but the house and animal are depicted by words rather
than pictures. The crucial ‫אבוס‬could easily be a feeding trough which stands on the ground and
has significant enough dimensions to make it a Reshut HaYachid. I find this depiction a more
accurate one than what appeared in the Vilna Shas.
What was the origin of the depiction in the Bach? We know that the Bach emended the text based
on manuscripts he had, or by using his logic to arrive at the proper text.[4] It would be nice if we

15
could find a manuscript with a similar depiction, as this might give us a clue to the source of the
Bach. Fortunately, there are two such sources.

Source #1- Rashi-Commentary on Talmud Bavli (Eruvin and Betsah)5

5
The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford Oxford England Ms. Opp. Add. Qu. 23 –15th century (1426-1475), online

16
Compared to printed Bach:

17
There is no indication of where the animal is standing, but otherwise it is quite similar, especially
its depiction of the ‫אבוס‬.

Source #2:6

Compared to printed Bach:

There are some differences with the depiction of the Bach, mainly in the positioning of the animal,
but this depiction also shows the ‫אבוס‬being a long substantial structure.

6
Soncino Pesaro 1511(?) – First printed edition of Eruvin.[6] Its source was from manuscripts.

18
After the printed edition of the Hagahot HaBach appeared in 1824, those Hagahot began to be
included in printed Gemarot.[8] I was able to find a number of editions containing this diagram
which were printed between 1824 and 1881 when the Vilna edition was published.

The first I examined was Vilna/Horodna 1836 which included the Hagahot Ha’Bach after the
Peirush Mishnayot of the Rambam. It was the first printed edition to include these Hagahot on
Eruvin after 1824.[9] We already see major changes from the first edition, including the picture of
the animal and the change to the depiction of the ‫אבוס‬.

The second printing I examined was Chernowitz 1847. This printing retained the exact diagram of
the 1824 edition:

19
The third is in the normally reliable Zhitomir edition of 1862. It completely misplaces the ‫אבוס‬by
not having it extend into the area surrounding the well.

It turns out that the depiction attributed to the Bach appearing in the first printed edition of Hagahot
HaBach is more in line with the words of Rashi than the “improvements” to that depiction made
in subsequent editions.

20
After Soncino, until much later, empty spaces were left where Soncino had included a diagram.
This Soncino diagram was the reason why an empty space existed in this Rashi in subsequent
editions of the Talmud until Amsterdam 1717 which eliminated the empty space. It has stayed that
way until today.

Here is Bomberg 1522:

Amsterdam 1646:

21
Amsterdam 1717:

There was an edition printed in Vienna from 1830-1833 but according to Maamar al Hadpasat
ha-Talmud, it did not include the Hagahot Ha’Bach. There was also an edition of the Talmud
printed in Prague between 1830-1835, but it also did not contain the Hagahot Ha’Bach. This
makes the Vilna/Horodna edition of 1836 the first to include the Hagahot Ha’Bach on Eruvin.
(See pages 133-134 of Maamar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud).

Vagshal

22
The Manger in western culture

23
A manger or trough is a rack for fodder, or a structure or feeder used to hold food for animals.
The word comes from the Old French mangier (meaning "to eat"), from Latin mandere (meaning
"to chew").
Mangers are mostly used in livestock raising and generally found at stables and farmhouses.
They are also used to feed wild animals, e.g., in nature reserves.
A similar trough providing drinking water for domestic or non-domestic animals is a watering
trough and may be part of a larger watering structure called abreuvoir.

A manger is also a Christian symbol, associated with nativity scenes where Mary and Joseph, forced
by necessity to stay in a room for animals instead of a guest room, used a manger as a makeshift
crib for the Baby Jesus 7] (Greek: φατνη phatnē; Luke 2:7).

The story of the manger

Everywhere on this world where people celebrat
life of Jesus Christ, we find the tradition to put u
in churches and at home. Mangers are figured - t
representation of the birth of Jesus in a manger i
Bethlehem. Gathered around the manger are the
and the shepherds, in the background is the ox a
The arrival of the wise men (the Magi) is embed
scenery on 6th January.

The first known written testimonies who wrot

coming to life of Jesus Christ are the evangelists
Mathew. Very famous is St Luke's Christmas Go
dates back to the 2nd century AD and was then s
in the first settlements of Christians.

Sometimes St Francis of Assisi is called the "F

manger" because in the year 1223, he built the
similar to the one we know today. He left the mo
Greccio with Pope Honorius' permission and we
wood where he built the manger with an ox and
Holy Family, however, wasn't there then. Afterw
his famous Christmas speech in front of a crowd
the Christmas story accessible to those who couldn't read.

The manger's heyday was during the baroque period. The first news of mangers in churches came from the south of Germany, where after the refo
Jesuits acknowledged the great value of the manger as object of devout and as a means of religious instruction. The Jesuits built amazing, precious ma
quickly spread throughout the churches in Catholic Europe. Finally, also the cities were interested in mangers and wanted to have their own manger.

The stronghold of manger building was Italy followed by Spain, Portugal, Austria, places in the south of France and in the south of Germany; in Ea
Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

7
William, Francis Dawson (1902). Christmas: Its Origin and Associations. E. Stock.

24
Another heyday followed in the 18th century. In churches, in castles, as well as in their houses people began to expand the Christmas story and adde
stations and episodes. The most famous of these representations of the "mangers throughout the year" (also called Passion or Lent manger) with abou
can be seen in the museum in Brixen. It was created by Augustin Propst and his half-brother Joseph from Sterzing.

At the end of the 18th century was the period of enlightenment and of secularisation. During this time, people were forced to remove the mangers
churches, especially in Bavaria. As a result, people put up mangers in their own houses, especially farmers were increasingly interested in the art of m
started carving their own sculptures, also in Tyrol. Until the mid 19th century people preferred to make the local alpine scenery of their manger. In the
the 19th century the oriental manger gained more and more recognition.

At the turn of the century the interest in mangers faded away. Still there were collectors who prevented the disappearance of many representations.
the business financier of Munich Max Schmederer collected mangers from all over the world. His collection counts to the world's biggest collections
in the National Museum of Munich.

Nowadays the interest in mangers has increased as the recently founded manger associations prove.

25