Ive been learninh mishnayis and theres sometihng i just dont get.
Why is it that Euruvin got a entire Meseches for itself? at the end of the day its just a rabbinical degree extending the laws of shabbat.
I haveent seen that other Rabbinical Degreees should be awarded such status, as to receive a entire meseches for themselves.

Ive look in the rambam intoduction, but without luck.
Any other ideas?

B"H
Considering the voluminous material that had to be discussed on that one subject, it's no wonder that they dedicated an entire tractate to that one subject. (Compare that sub-topic to the other sub-topics of Shabbath, and I think you will understand why.)

B"H

Joseph,

You wrote: "...at the end of the day its just a rabbinical degree extending the laws of Shabbat."

Is not Mesecheth Berakhoth just about blessings from a rabbinial degree, for the most part?
Do not rabbinic enactments carry with them the full validity and force of the Law?
כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון.
(פסחים ל, ב)

Joseph,
If we consider that Moshe RABBIENU was our first rabbi, what, in Torah and halacha, was not written by rabbonim? Even what is attributed to the Kadosh Baruch Hu was written by Moshe.....at least we take his word for it. So which part of halacha will you be more enthusiastic about?

I think my question has been misuderstood. By saying that eruvin is "just" a rabbinic extension of the laws of shabbat, i was trying to point out why i think eruvin should be a part of Meseches Shabbat, and not a volume for itself. The stress then being on the fact that its a part of shabbat, not on the detail that its a rabbinic decree.
I was not in any way, shape or form suggesting that a rabbinc decree dosent "deserve" a meseches for itself.

With regards to dovids answer: i had a thought along those lines, however i thought it was abit, shall i say "balei battish".

Thanks for the thought.

I was disscusing the issue with a friend, who added an interesting twist.
He told me somthing else he never understood. The laws of " dalet reshuyot" and the laws of "hotza", are both fundemantal (torah) laws of shabbat, and disscused mainly in the first chapter of meseches shabbat. why is it then that in the Tur and SA they are disscussed mainly under the title of "hilchot eruvin"?

B"H
Dear Joseph,

You asked: "The laws of dalet reshuyot ("the four domains") and the laws of hotza ("carrying forth objects from one domain to another"), are both fundamental (Torah) laws of Shabbat, and discussed mainly in the first chapter of meseches Shabbat. Why is it then that in the Tur and Shulhan Arukh they are discussed mainly under the title of Hilchot Eruvin?"

First, to make a correction. Among the "four domains" (arba' rashuyoth), one of them is actually a rabbinic enactment, and is not a fundamental Torah law, viz., 1) "Karmelith."
The other three, (2)Public Domain, 3)Private Domain and 4) Makom Patur) are all intimated in the Torah. The idea about not carrying forth objects from one domain to another is first heard in Parashas Bashalach (last week's Torah section): אל יצא איש ממקומו. Look there at the commentaries.

As to your question, Maimonides brings down the bulk of these laws under the Sabbath laws. So why one posek brings them under Eruvin and another under Shabbat, I think just might be a matter of taste - Since all have to do with the Sabbath.

David

Then the answer is that it would be too long of a Mesechta, Shabbos is long enough as it is. So it included Eiruvin as a separate Masechta.

B"H
Dear Joseph,

Since your question was a good one, and my previous post may have been a little too terse to render justice to the question, I have decided to elaborate more.

You asked: "The laws of dalet reshuyot ("the four domains") and the laws of hotza ("moving objects from one domain to another"), are both fundamental (Torah) laws of Shabbat, and discussed mainly in the first chapter of meseches Shabbat. Why is it then that in the Tur and Shulhan Arukh they are discussed mainly under the title of "Hilchot Eruvin?"

The laws of Eruvin (extending one's domain) were first made by King Solomon, as it says in the Talmud (Eruvin 21b). There are two primary types of Eruvin related to the Sabbath laws: The first, the extension of one's domain in a courtyard shared by multiple tenants (Heb. עירוב חצרות); The second, the extension of one's Sabbath-day's journey, permitting him to go beyond 2,000 cubits from the purlieu or verge of his village on a given Sabbath day (עירוב תחומים).

In a real sense, the extension of one's domain in a courtyard shared by multiple tenants was made for appearance sake only. The court-yard is really a "Private Domain," as all our commentators say. Yet, by reason of its being shared by multiple tenants, it could easily have been mistaken for a public domain. King Solomon made an enactment to gather bread from each of the households in order to affirm thereby that the courtyard is the mutual dwelling place of them all. It, therefore, became plain to all tenants that carrying forth objects from one's house into the courtyard was the same as carrying objects from room to room within a house - a thing plainly permitted.

So, going back to your question, "why put the bulk of laws about Public and Private Domains or about 'Hotza'ah' (הוצאה) - carrying forth objects - in a treatise that speaks on Eruvin?" The act of carrying forth objects from one domain to another is directly related to Eruvin, for which reason Solomon saw fit to make the enactment in the first place.

Sincerely,
David

B"H
Joseph,

Along the same lines of that which we have been discussing here, since the vast majority of those laws in Hilchot Eruvin treat on open and closed alley-ways, and on thoroughfares, and specifically, on how to render these places fit for carrying forth objects within them from an adjacent Public or Private Domain, or vice-versa - how to render them fit to take out objects from them and bring them into an adjacent Public or Private Domain, it seemed to him (the author of the Tur) logical to have the bulk of those laws treating on the "four domains" and on "hotza'ah" (carrying forth objects) written about in Hilchot Eruvin.

Rabbi Yoseph Karo simply followed in the footsteps of the Tur when arranging his Shulhan Arukh. Yet, even so, it is mainly a matter of preference to have these laws grouped under the category of Eruvin. What does it matter to us if we find these laws in "Hilchot Shabbat" (where Maimonides put them) or find them in "Hilchot Eruvin?"

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Maimonides brings down the bulk of these laws under the Sabbath laws. So why one posek brings them under Eruvin and another under Shabbat, I think just might be a matter of taste

That maimonidies speacks about these laws in hilchot shabbat only seems to strenghtn the question.
Even though it may be a matter of "taste", im sure the Tur has a very good reason. Isent that our goal in learning, to try and peek, even ever so slightly, into the minds of the great Talmidai Chachamim!
(Interestingly, taste and reason being the same word in hebrew - Ta'am).

Rav Chaim: I think Dovid has already posted somthing simialr to the answer you gave. It also wouldent explain why the tur put the law of hotza in hilchot euruvin, which i have a feeling is connected to the first question. Just a hunch though.

B"H
Joseph,

Count two posts before this current one. There, you will find an answer to your question.

David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H
Joseph,

Count two posts before this current one. There, you will find an answer to your question.

David

Im sorry but i dont see the answer. Perhaps i not being understood. The emphasis of my question in the tur is why would we make the primamry torah laws secondary to the rabbinic decree of euruvin? This is also the thrust of my first question, why wouldent we include the "sub catogrey" of euruvin in the main work of shabas, as in done with all the other rabbinic decrees of shabbat?

I was just thinking, perhaps the tikkun of euruvin is differnant than other rabbinic decrees, in that King Solomon enacyed it (as duvid mentioned before), where as most other rabbinic decrees we enacted in the second temple era. This then would give it more "time" and "weight"(from a historical perspective) over other decrees, therefore granting it a tracte for itself.
Just a thought.

keep in mind Talmud is the orders from the Mishnah. the Mishnah if you will are notes of R' Yahudah HaNasi. the purpose of these said notes were to make easy to find matters.

for if you wanted to know matters dealing with blessing you don't first look in Niddah you would look in Berachot etc. Eruv deals soley not with all the laws of shabbat but it's focus is on borders or limits of ones traveling. whereas shabbat main focus is dealing with forbidden labor.