Commentary for Eruvin 102:10

והוינן בה מאי שנא איהו ומאי שנא אינהו ואמר רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שיש לו שני בתים ושני תחומי שבת ביניהן

and on the following day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was the Sabbath.');">³³</span> got up early and proceeded to their destination.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now the poor men in question, having come from their own homes, were presumably in possession of some bread that sufficed for the two meals prescribed for an 'erub . They were, in consequence, subject, as far as the preparation Of an 'erub is concerned, to the same restrictions as those imposed upon a 'rich man'. Yet it was not by a deposit of bread but by their personal attendance at the place they desired to appoint as their Sabbath base that their 'erub was effected. Thus it follows that the ruling in practice is in agreement with R. Nahman's interpretation of R. Judah's view, viz. that a person's presence at the very spot he wishes to acquire as his Sabbath base is the essence of an 'erub .');">³⁴</span> R'Ashi said: An inference from the wording of a Mishnah also supports this view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman's, viz. that R. Judah does not allow a rich man to acquire a Sabbath base without an 'erub of bread if he is not personally in attendance at that base, and that his disagreement with R. Meir is restricted to such a case only where the person concerned was in attendance at the place he desired to acquire.');">³⁵</span> for it was stated: If man left [his home]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a Sabbath eve.');">³⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 102:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.