Commentary for Eruvin 65:7

האי אילן היכי דמי אי דלית ביה ארבעה מקום פטור הוא ואי דאית ביה ארבעה כי נתנו בכלכלה מאי הוי

[the difficulty would arise:] Does this imply that the Rabbis hold the opinion that [the use of the] sides<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case here where the basket does not rest on the tree but is suspended from its sides.');">²¹</span> [is also] forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this question in fact forms the subject of a dispute in Shab. 154b.');">²²</span> Consequently [it must refer] to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Rabbi stated that an 'erub on a tree below the height of ten handbreadths is effective though it may not be moved on the Sabbath. To this the Sages objected that, though the abode and the 'erub were in the public domain, since the 'erub may not be moved on the Sabbath, on account of the prohibition against the use of the tree, it may not be moved at twilight either, and the 'erub is, therefore, invalid.');">²³</span> But then, what [size of] tree is done to imagine?

Explore commentary for Eruvin 65:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.