Eruvin 68

פשיטא רה"י עולה עד לרקיע וכי היכי דסלקא לעיל ה"נ דנחתא לתחת ואלא דקאי ברשות הרבים

is [not this ruling, it may be objected,] obvious, seeing that a private domain rises up to the sky, and as it rises upwards so it descends downwards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the obvious be stated?');">¹</span> If, on the other hand, it be suggested that it was situated in a public domain, where [it may again be objected] did the man intend to have his Sabbath abode? If above,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Outside the cistern in the public domain.');">²</span> he would be in one domain and his 'erub in another;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the 'erub should be ineffective, while according to our Mishnah it is effective.');">³</span>

דנתכוון לשבות היכא אי למעלה הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא אי למטה פשיטא הוא ועירובו במקום אחד

and if below,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the cistern.');">⁴</span> [is not the ruling again] obvious seeing that he and his 'erub are in the same place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should the obvious be stated?');">¹</span> - [This ruling was] required only in a case where [the cistern] was situated in a karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For instance, in a stretch of fields.');">⁵</span> and the man intended to make his abode above;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that his abode was in a karmelith while his 'erub lay in a private domain.');">⁶</span>

לא צריכא דקאי בכרמלית ונתכוון לשבות למעלה ורבי היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות:

[and this ruling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which assumes the permissibility of movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain at twilight on the Sabbath eve.');">⁷</span> represents the view of Rabbi who laid down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is that of carrying the 'erub from the private domain into the karmelith.');">⁸</span> is not subject to that prohibition during twilight [on the Sabbath eve].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the acquisition of the abode takes place.');">⁹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An 'erub.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתנו בראש הקנה או בראש הקונדס בזמן שהוא תלוש ונעוץ אפילו גבוה ק' אמה הרי זה עירוב:

WAS PUT ON THE TOP OF A REED OR ON THE TOP OF A POLE, PROVIDED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the time'.');">¹¹</span> IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS HIGH, THE ERUB IS EFFECTIVE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it rested on a platform of no less than four handbreadths by four, that was attached to the top of the reed or the pole.' Such a platform, though it conforms to the size of a private domain, cannot be regarded as a private domain proper on account of the base on which It rests which is narrower than the prescribed size of four handbreadths.');">¹²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Adda B'Mattena pointed out to Raba the following incongruity: [From our Mishnah it appears that] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">¹³</span> if IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND is the 'erub effective, but if it was] not first uprooted and then inserted [in the ground the 'erub would] not [have been effective].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously because the 'erub could not be removed from its place on account of the prohibition of making use of a growing plant.');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רמי ליה רב אדא בר מתנא לרבא תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ונעוץ לא מני רבנן היא דאמרי כל דבר שהוא משום שבות גזרו עליו בין השמשות והא אמרת רישא רבי רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

Now whose [view is this? Obviously] that of the Rabbis who ruled: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the use of a tree on the Sabbath.');">¹⁵</span> is also forbidden at twilight [on the Sabbath eve].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 30b.');">¹⁶</span> But you also said that the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The preceding Mishnah supra 32b.');">¹⁷</span>

א"ל כבר רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא ושני ליה רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן

[represents the view of] Rabbi. [Would then] the first clause [represent the view of] Rabbi and the final clause [that of the] Rabbis? - The other replied: Rami B'Hama has already pointed out this incongruity to R'Hisda who answered him that the first clause was indeed the view of Rabbi while the final one was that of the Rabbis. Rabina said: Both clauses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all of it'.');">¹⁸</span> represent the view of Rabbi but [the restriction in] the final clause is a preventive measure against the possibility of nipping [the frail reed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When removing the 'erub from it. The nipping of a piece of reed is Pentateuchally forbidden and hence prohibited also at twilight. Such possibility need not be provided for in [the case of a tree which is hard and strong.');">¹⁹</span>

רבינא אמר כולה רבי היא וסיפא גזירה שמא יקטום:

An army once came to Nehardea<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And apparently took up the quarters that were used by R. Nahman and his disciples for their studies.');">²⁰</span> and R'Nahman told his disciples, 'Go out into the marsh and prepare an embankment [from the growing reeds]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by bending growing reeds over each other.');">²¹</span> so that to-morrow we might go there and sit on them'. Rami B'Hama raised the following objection against R'Nahman or, as others say: R''Ukba B'Abba raised the objection against R'Nahman: [Have we not learnt] that only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">²²</span>

ההוא פולמוסא דאתא לנהרדעא אמר להו רב נחמן פוקו עבידו כבושי כבשי באגמא ולמחר ניזיל וניתיב עלויהו

if IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND is the 'erub effective, [from which it follows, if it was] not first uprooted and then inserted [in the ground the 'erub is] not [effective]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously because it is forbidden to use a growing reed. How then could R. Nahman permit the use of an embankment made of growing reeds?');">²³</span> - The other replied: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our MISHNAH:');">²⁴</span> [it is a case] of hardened reeds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are regarded as trees the use of which on the Sabbath is forbidden. Soft reeds, however, which come under the category of herb, may, therefore, be used.');">²⁵</span> And whence is it derived that we draw a distinction between hardened, and unhardened reeds? - From what was taught: Reeds, thorns and thistles belong to the species of trees and are not subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁶</span>

איתיביה רמי בר חמא לרב נחמן ואמרי לה רב עוקבא בר אבא לרב נחמן תלוש ונעוץ אין לא תלוש ולא נעוץ לא

in the vineyard;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Kil.III.');">²⁷</span> and another- [Baraitha] taught: Reeds, cassia and bulrushes are a species of herb and subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim in the vineyard. [Now are not the two Baraithas] contradictory to each other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former Baraitha reeds are classed as a species of tree and in the latter as a species of herb.');">²⁸</span> It must consequently be inferred that the former deals with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here');">²⁹</span>

א"ל התם בעוזרדין ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עוזרדין לשאין עוזרדין דתניא הקנין והאטדין וההגין מין אילן הן ואינן כלאים בכרם ותניא אידך הקנים והקידן והאורבנין מין ירק הן והן כלאים בכרם קשיא אהדדי

hardened reeds while the latter deals with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here');">²⁹</span> such as are not hardened. This is conclusive. But is cassia a species of herb?

אלא ש"מ כאן בעוזרדין כאן בשאין עוזרדין ש"מ

Have we not in fact learnt: Rue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pigam, Gr. **.');">³⁰</span> must not be grafted on white cassia because [this act would constitute the mingling of] a herb with a tree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. I, 8.');">³¹</span> - R'Papa replied: Cassia and white cassia are two different species.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Cassia alone and white cassia alone'.');">³²</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF IT WAS PUT IN A CUPBOARD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or TURRET. Var. lec. 'and it was locked up' (J.T. MS.M. and Asheri) .');">³³</span>

וקידה מין ירק הוא והתנן אין מרכיבין פגם ע"ג קידה לבנה מפני שהוא ירק באילן אמר רב פפא קידה לחוד וקידה לבנה לחוד:

AND THE KEY WAS LOST THE 'ERUB IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara infra explains under what circumstances.');">³⁴</span> R'ELIEZER RULED: IF IT IS NOT KNOWN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS. M. Cur. edd., 'if he does not know'.');">³⁵</span> THAT THE KEY IS IN ITS PROPER PLACE THE 'ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>But why?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the 'erub NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE.');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתנו במגדל ואבד המפתח הרי זה עירוב ר"א אומר אם אינו יודע שהמפתח במקומו אינו עירוב:

Is not this a case where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man for whom the 'erub was prepared.');">³⁷</span> is in one place and his 'erub is in another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the man cannot get at the 'erub without a key.');">³⁸</span> - Both Rab and Samuel explained: We are dealing here with a CUPBOARD of bricks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which can easily be broken into (as will be explained infra) .');">³⁹</span> and this ruling represents the view of R'Meir who maintains that it is permitted at the outset<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even on a day when mukzeh (v. Glos.) is forbidden.');">⁴⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואמאי הוא במקום אחד ועירובו במקום אחר הוא

to make a breach<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to diminish', 'to hollow out'.');">⁴¹</span> [in a structure] in order to take [something out of it]. For we learned: If a house that was filled with fruit was closed up but a breach accidentally appeared,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if this happened on the very festival.');">⁴²</span> it is permitted to take [the fruit out] through the breach;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the fruit nevertheless is not regarded as mukzeh (v. Glos.) .');">⁴³</span>

רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במגדל של לבנים עסקינן ור"מ היא דאמר פוחת לכתחילה ונוטל דתנן בית שמילאהו פירות סתום ונפחת נוטל ממקום הפחת ר' מאיר אומר פוחת ונוטל לכתחילה

and R'Meir ruled: It is permitted at the outset to make a breach<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to diminish', 'to hollow out'.');">⁴¹</span> in order to take [the fruit out].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bezah 31b.');">⁴⁴</span> But did not R'Nahman B'Adda state in the name of Samuel [that the reference there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bezah 31b.');">⁴⁴</span> is] to a pile of bricks?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Loosely put together with no cement or mortar between them. What proof then is there that a breach may also be made at the outset in a cupboard, the bricks in whose walls are presumably firmly built up?');">⁴⁵</span>

והאמר רב נחמן בר אדא אמר שמואל באוירא דליבני הכא נמי באוירא דליבני

- Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁶</span> also [the reference is] to a pile of bricks. But did not R'Zera maintain that [the Rabbis]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah quoted from Bezah.');">⁴⁷</span> spoke only of a festival but not of a Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the 'erub in our Mishnah is presumably applicable to Sabbaths is well as festivals.');">⁴⁸</span>

והא אמר רבי זירא בי"ט אמרו אבל לא בשבת ה"נ בי"ט

- Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁹</span> also [the 'erub is one that was prepared] for a festival. If that wer so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That our Mishnah deals with an 'erub for a festival only.');">⁵⁰</span> would it have been justified to state<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that is it which he taught?'');">⁵¹</span>

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>