Commentary for Eruvin 68:18

אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה ר"א אומר אם בעיר אבד עירובו עירוב ואם בשדה אבד אין עירובו עירוב ואי ביום טוב מה לי עיר מה לי שדה

in reference to this [Mishnah that] R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' var. lec. 'Eleazar'.');">⁵²</span> ruled: If [the key] was lost in town the 'erub is effective<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is possible to carry the key to the cupboard by way of courtyards, roofs and similar places all of which belong to the same class of domain.');">⁵³</span> but if it was lost in a field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is forbidden to carry it to the cupboard.');">⁵⁴</span> it is not effective'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. 'Er. 11.');">⁵⁵</span> Now if it was on a festival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the carrying of objects is permitted.');">⁵⁶</span> there is no difference in this respect between a town and a field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what to me etc.' At this stage it may be explained. three different views have been recorded: (i) That of the first Tanna of our Mishnah who rules the 'erub to be effective whether the key of the cupboard was lost in town or in a field, since in his view it is permitted to break into the cupboard to get to the 'erub; (ii) That of R. Eliezer of our Mishnah who rules that the 'erub is not effective irrespective of whether the key was lost in town or in a field, since in his opinion the cupboard may not be broken into (contrary to the view of R. Meir) nor may the key be carried by way of courtyards, roofs and the like because these (contrary to the view of R. Simeon) are not regarded as one domain; and (iii) that of R. Eliezer of the Baraitha who agrees with R. Simeon. Aliter: R. Eliezer of our Mishnah refers to a key lost in a field and thus upholds the view of R. Eliezer of the Baraitha (Rashi) .');">⁵⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 68:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.