Eruvin 33

רישא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה וסיפא רבנן

Is then the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling accepted by R. Nahman in his exposition.');">¹</span> [in agreement with] R'Jose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who allows an individual no more than two beth se'ah. According to the Rabbis he should be allowed all the space he requires.');">²</span> and the final clause [only in agreement with the] Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Jose allows only an area of six beth se'ah. Now, would R. Nahman agree with an individual opinion when it differs from that of the majority?');">³</span>

אין משום דקאי אבוה בשיטתיה

- Yes, because his father<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah.');">⁴</span> adopts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stands'.');">⁵</span> the same line.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He also allows an individual no more than two beth se'ah where a partition is made of vertical or horizontal stakes or ropes only.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב גידל אמר רב שלשה בחמש אסורין בשבע מותרין אמרו ליה אמר רב הכי אמר להו אורייתא נביאי וכתיבי דאמר רב הכי

R'Giddal stated in the name of Rab: Three [persons are sometimes] forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.');">⁷</span> in five [beth se'ah, and sometimes] permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.');">⁷</span> [even] in an area of seven.'

אמר רב אשי מאי קשיא דילמא הכי קאמר הוצרכו לשש והקיפו בשבע אפי' בשבע מותרין לא הוצרכו אלא לחמש והקיפו בשבע אפי' בחמש אסורין

Did Rab', they asked him, 'really say so? ' - '[By] the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, [I can answer]', he said to them, 'that Rab did say, so'. Said R'Ashi: But what is the difficulty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That caused them to doubt that Rab had made the statement.');">⁸</span> It is possible that he meant this: If they required six beth se'ah and they surrounded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With stakes only, i.e., with the vertical, and not with the horizontal parts of an enclosure.');">⁹</span>

ואלא הא דקתני ובלבד שלא יהא בית סאתים פנוי מאי לאו פנוי מאדם לא פנוי מכלים

an area of seven they are permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.');">¹⁰</span> even in all the seven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the unoccupied area is less than two beth se'ah.');">¹¹</span> and if they required only one of five<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a variant reading, v. Elijah Wilna's glosses.');">¹²</span>

איתמר שלשה ומת אחד מהן שנים ונתוספו עליהן רב הונא ורבי יצחק חד אמר שבת גורמת וחד אמר דיורין גורמין

beth se'ah but surrounded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With stakes only, i.e., with the vertical, and not with the horizontal parts of an enclosure.');">⁹</span> one of seven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that two beth se'ah remained unoccupied, and the barrier was consequently invalid.');">¹³</span> they are forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.');">¹⁴</span>

תסתיים דרב הונא הוא דאמר שבת גורמת דאמר רבה בעאי מרב הונא ובעאי מרב יהודה עירב דרך הפתח ונסתם הפתח דרך החלון ונסתם החלון מהו ואמר לי שבת הואיל והותרה הותרה תסתיים

even the five beth se'ah. But then what of what was taught: 'Provided there be no two beth se'ah unoccupied', does not this mean: Unoccupied by human beings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Three persons, e.g., each being entitled to an area of two beth se'ah only, would not jointly be allowed the use of (3 X 2 + 2 =) eight beth se'ah, since, after allowing the (3 X 2 =) six to which they are jointly entitled there still remain two beth se'ah without an occupier; but if the area measured only seven beth se'ah all of it is permitted to them since only (7 - 3 X 2 =) one beth se'ah remains unoccupied. How then is Rab's statement that 'three persons are sometimes forbidden in five', to be explained?');">¹⁵</span> - No; unoccupied by objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even several persons are not entitled to use an area of twice as many beth se'ah as their number (cf. previous note) but only as many beth se'ah as they actually require plus an area less than two beth se'ah.');">¹⁶</span>

לימא רב הונא ורבי יצחק בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבי יהודה קמיפלגי דתנן חצר שנפרצה משתי רוחותיה וכן בית שנפרץ משתי רוחותיו וכן מבוי שניטלו קורותיו או לחייו מותרין לאותה שבת ואסורין לעתיד לבא דברי רבי יהודה

It was stated: [On the question of the extent of the area permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a defective enclosure.');">¹⁷</span> where there were]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Sabbath began.');">¹⁸</span> three persons and one of them died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">¹⁹</span>

ר' יוסי אומר אם מותרין לאותה שבת מותרין לעתיד לבא ואם אסורין לעתיד לבא אסורין לאותה שבת

or two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Sabbath began.');">¹⁸</span> and their number was increased,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">¹⁹</span> R'Huna and R'Isaac [are in dispute].

לימא רב הונא דאמר כר' יהודה ורבי יצחק דאמר כר' יוסי

One maintains that Sabbath is the determining factor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The extent of the area permitted is dependent on the number of persons alive at the moment Sabbath began. If at that time the three were alive the survivors may continue to use the full area throughout the Sabbath even according to R. Judah. If, however, two persons only were present when the Sabbath began and they enclosed an area larger than two beth se'ah they are, according to R. Judah, forbidden its use even if their number had been augmented during the Sabbath.');">²⁰</span> and the other maintains that the determining factor is [the number of actual] tenants.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an area larger than two beth se'ah had been enclosed its use is permitted if the number of tenants was three, though when the Sabbath began it was only two, and forbidden if the number was two though it was three when the Sabbath began.');">²¹</span> You may conclude that it is R'Huna who held that the determining factor was the Sabbath.

אמר לך רב הונא אנא דאמרי אפי' לר' יוסי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם אלא דליתנהו למחיצות הכא איתנהו למחיצות

For Rabbah stated: 'I enquired of R'Huna (and also of Rab Judah) as to what [was the law where] an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²²</span> was laid in reliance on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'by the way of'.');">²³</span> a certain door<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That communicated between two courtyards inhabited by different tenants.');">²⁴</span>

ור' יצחק אמר אנא דאמרי אפי' לר' יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר ר' יהודה התם אלא דאיתנהו לדיורין הכא ליתנהו לדיורין:

and that door was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the collapse of some structure on the Sabbath.');">²⁵</span> blocked up, or on a certain window<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That communicated between two courtyards inhabited by different tenants.');">²⁴</span> and that window was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the collapse of some structure on the Sabbath.');">²⁵</span>

וחכמים אומרים אחד משני דברים: היינו ת"ק

stopped up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it permissible to carry objects through any other window that, measuring less than four handbreadths (v. infra 76a) , could not be used for the purpose of an 'erub?');">²⁶</span> and he replied: Since permission for the Sabbath was once granted the permissibility continues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is permitted'.');">²⁷</span> [until the day is concluded]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 93b.');">²⁸</span>

איכא בינייהו יחיד ביישוב:

This is conclusive. Must it be assumed that R'Huna and R'Isaac differ on the same principle as that on which R'Jose and R'Judah differed? For we learned: If a breach was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Sabbath.');">²⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ארבעה דברים פטרו במחנה מביאין עצים מ"מ ופטורין מרחיצת ידים ומדמאי ומלערב:

in two sides of a courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra 94b. uh,urue');">³⁰</span> and so also if a breach was made in two sides of a house, or if the cross-beam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sing. So Rashi's MS. supported by Tosaf. s.v. a.l. Cur. edd. use the pl.');">³¹</span> or side-post<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sing. So Rashi's MS. supported by Tosaf. s.v. a.l. Cur. edd. use the pl.');">³¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר מחנה היוצאת למלחמת הרשות מותרין בגזל עצים יבשים ר' יהודה בן תימא אומר אף חונין בכל מקום ובמקום שנהרגו שם נקברין:

of an alley was removed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Sabbath.');">²⁹</span> [the tenants] are permitted [their use] for that Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which the accident occurred. Since these were permitted when the Sabbath began their permissibility continues until its conclusion.');">³²</span> but forbidden on future [Sabbaths]; so R'Judah.

מותרין בגזל עצים יבשים: האי תקנתא דיהושע הוה דאמר מר עשרה תנאים התנה יהושע שיהו מרעין בחורשין ומלקטין עצים משדותיהן

R'Jose ruled: Whatever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if' (v. next note) .');">³³</span> they are permitted for that Sabbath they are permitted for future [Sabbaths], and whatever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if' (v. next note) .');">³³</span> they are forbidden for future [Sabbaths] they are also forbidden for that Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 94a, i.e., (as explained infra 5a) as they are forbidden for future Sabbaths so are they forbidden for that one also though they were permitted when the Sabbath began.');">³⁴</span>

התם בהיזמי והיגי הכא בשאר עצים

Must it then be assumed that R'Huna is of the same opinion as R'Judah while R'Isaac is of that of R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely, however, that Amoras would be merely repeating a dispute of Tannas?');">³⁵</span> - R'Huna can tell you, 'I can maintain my view even in accordance with that of R'Jose; for R'Jose maintained his view there only because there were no partitions, but here there are partitions'. And R'Isaac can tell you,'I can maintain my view even in agreement with R'Judah; for R'Judah upheld his view there only because the tenants were in existence, but here there was not a [sufficient number of] tenants'.

אי נמי התם במחוברין הכא בתלושין

AND THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. Is not this ruling precisely the same as that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis, who, earlier in the Mishnah, stated THEY SPOKE OF A CARAVAN ONLY BECAUSE . . A USUAL OCCURRENCE, so that the same relaxation of the law applied also to an individual.');">³⁶</span> - The practical difference between them is the case of an individual in an inhabited area.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna a defective partition is permitted to an individual only where he, like a CARAVAN, finds himself underways where he cannot procure the materials for a proper one. According to the Sages, however, who objected to the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah, according to whom a defective partition is invalid both for a caravan and an individual, underways and in an inhabited area, such a partition is valid both for a caravan and an individual, underways and in an inhabited area.');">³⁷</span>

אי נמי התם בלחין הכא ביבשים:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[OF] FOUR OBLIGATIONS WAS EXEMPTION GRANTED [TO WARRIORS] IN A CAMP: THEY MAY BRING WOOD FROM ANYWHERE, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE WASHING OF THE HANDS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before a meal.');">³⁸</span> FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁹</span> AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN 'ERUB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a door communicated between two enclosures in the camp and it was desired to carry objects from one into the other.');">⁴⁰</span>

ר' יהודה בן תימא אומר אף חונין בכל מקום ובמקום שנהרגים שם נקברים: פשיטא מת מצוה הוא ומת מצוה קונה מקומו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis learned: An army that goes out to an optional war<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. any war other than those against the peoples of Canaan in the days of Joshua.');">⁴¹</span> are permitted to commandeer dry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And much more so fresh.');">⁴²</span> wood.

לא צריכא אף על גב

R'Judah B'Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. 'Er. II.');">⁴³</span> 'Are permitted to commandeer dry wood'. Was not this, however, an enactment of Joshua,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he entered Canaan.');">⁴⁴</span> for a Master stated that Joshua laid down ten stipulations [which included the following:] That [people] shall be allowed to feed their cattle in the woods<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of other people.');">⁴⁵</span> and to gather wood from their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of other people.');">⁴⁵</span> fields?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 80bf.');">⁴⁶</span> - [The enactment] there related to thorns and shrubs [while the ruling] here refers to other kinds of wood. Or else: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enactment of Joshua.');">⁴⁷</span> [it is a case of trees] that are attached [to the ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such trees are permitted to all.');">⁴⁸</span> while the ruling] here [refers to such] as were [already] detached.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner having cut them for fuel. Such wood is permitted to an army only.');">⁴⁹</span> Or else: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The enactment of Joshua.');">⁴⁷</span> [it is a case] of fresh, and here [it is one] of dry [wood]. R'Judah B'Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed'. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second ruling of R. Judah b. Tema.');">⁵⁰</span> obvious, since [a killed warrior is] a meth mizwah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁹</span> and a meth mizwah acquires [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its place'. This is another of the ten enactments of Joshua. Sot. 45b, B.K. 81a, Sanh. 47b.');">⁵¹</span> - [This ruling was] required only [for the following case:] Although