Eruvin 69

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני נתנו במגדל ונעל בפניו ואבד המפתח הרי זה עירוב במה דברים אמורים ביום טוב אבל בשבת אין עירובו עירוב נמצא המפתח בין בעיר בין בשדה אין עירובו עירוב רבי אליעזר אומר בעיר עירובו עירוב בשדה אין עירובו עירוב

- [Some words] indeed are missing [from the Baraitha] and this is the proper reading: If it was put In a cupboard and locked up and the key was lost the 'erub is effective. This ruling, however, applies only to a festival but on a Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is forbidden to break into the cupboard and the 'erub is consequently inaccessible.');">¹</span> the 'erub is ineffective. [Even] if the key was found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">²</span>

בעיר עירובו עירוב כר' שמעון דאמר אחד גגות ואחד חצירות ואחד קרפיפות רשות אחת הן לכלים ששבתו בתוכן בשדה אין עירובו עירוב כרבנן

whether in town or in a field, the 'erub is ineffective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Tanna being in disagreement with R. Simeon who (infra 89a) permits the carrying of a key by way of courtyards and roofs.');">³</span> R'Eliezer ruled: [If it was found] in town the 'erub is effective; if in a field it i ineffective.' In town the 'erub is effective' in agreement with R'Simeon who laid down that roofs, courtyards as well as karpafs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of karpaf (v. Glos.) .');">⁴</span> have the status of the same domain in respect of objects that rested in them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the Sabbath began with the twilight of Friday eve. Hence it is possible for the key to be carried to the cupboard in the way described and thus to obtain the 'erub.');">⁵</span>

רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו הכא במגדל של עץ עסקינן דמר סבר כלי הוא ואין בנין בכלים ואין סתירה בכלים ומר סבר אהל הוא

In a field i is ineffective in agreement with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Who differ from R. Simeon infra 95b and forbid the carrying of an object in relays from a field to a town (R. Han.) .] The last sentence is rightly omitted by Bah,. On the difficulties it presents cf. Strashun.');">⁶</span> Both Rabbah and R'Joseph explained:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difficulty supra 34b: 'Is not he in one place etc.'');">⁷</span> We are dealing here with a wooden CUPBOARD, one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna of our MISHNAH:');">⁸</span> being of the opinion that it [has the status of] a vessel to which the prohibition of building or demolition does not apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and there is no building in vessels and no demolition in vessels'. Since the cupboard, therefore, may be broken open the 'erub is accessible and effective.');">⁹</span>

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתנן הקיש על גבי שידה תיבה ומגדל טמאין רבי נחמיה ורבי שמעון מטהרין

while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer.');">¹⁰</span> is of the opinion that it [has the status of] a tent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the prohibitions mentioned do apply'. The 'erub, therefore, is inaccessible and ineffective.');">¹¹</span> And do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer in our Mishnah and the first Tanna.');">¹²</span> then differ on the same principle as the following Tannas?

מאי לאו בהא קמפלגי מר סבר כלי הוא ומר סבר אהל הוא

For we learned: [If a Zab]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> beat [his fist]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was covered, for instance, with a glove which prevented it from coming in direct contact with the object struck and from imparting uncleanness to it by 'touch'.');">¹⁴</span> upon a chest, a box or a cupboard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or turret.');">¹⁵</span> they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the blow caused them to move, however slightly, from their position.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר אביי ותיסברא והתניא אהל וניסט טמא כלי ואינו ניסט טהור וקתני סיפא ואם היו ניסוטין טמאים זה הכלל ניסט מחמת כחו טמא מחמת רעדה טהור

become levitically unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the law of hesset (v. Glos.) .');">¹⁷</span> but R'Nehemiah and R'Simeon declare them clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zab. Iv, 3.');">¹⁸</span> Now, do not these differ on the following principle: One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna of the Mishnah just cited.');">¹⁹</span> is of the opinion that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cupboard or any of the other mentioned objects.');">²⁰</span>

אלא אמר אביי דכ"ע היסט מחמת כחו טמא מחמת רעדה טהור והכא ברעדה מחמת כחו עסקינן ובהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר הוי היסט ומר סבר לא הוי היסט

[is regarded as] a vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is subject to the laws of uncleanness through hesset.');">²¹</span> while the other Masters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nehemiah and R. Simeon.');">²²</span> are of the opinion that it [is regarded as] a tent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the uncleanness mentioned does not apply. It thus follows that the Tannas in the Mishnah of Zabim differ on the same principle as that on which the Tannas in our Mishnah differ.');">²³</span> - Said Abaye: And how do you understand it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah from Zabim just cited.');">²⁴</span>

ומתניתין במאי מוקמינן לה אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו במנעול וקטיר במתנא עסקינן ובעי סכינא למיפסקיה

Was it not in fact taught: 'If it was a tent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not having been firmly fixed.');">²⁵</span> that can be shaken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the indirect touch of a zab.');">²⁶</span> it is unclean; if it is a vessel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was firmly fixed or exceedingly heavy.');">²⁷</span> that cannot be shaken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the indirect touch of a zab.');">²⁸</span>

תנא קמא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר כל הכלים ניטלין בשבת חוץ ממסר הגדול ויתד של מחרישה

it is clean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because its shaking by the zab does not shift it from its place. This obviously proves that the determining factor in the conveyance of uncleanness by shaking is the shifting of the object from its place and that the question of 'tent' or 'vessel' does not at all arise.');">²⁹</span> And, furthermore, in the final clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Baraitha corresponding to the Mishnah from Zabim.');">³⁰</span> it was taught: 'But if they were shifted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the indirect touch of a zab.');">²⁸</span> they become unclean; this being the general rule: [If the object] is shifted from its place as a direct result of the zab's strength,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for instance, by his beating on it with his gloved fist or a piece of wood.');">³¹</span>

ורבי אליעזר סבר לה כרבי נחמיה דאמר אפי' טלית אפי' תרווד אין ניטלין אלא לצורך תשמישן:

it becomes unclean, [but if it moved from its place] on account of the vibration [of an object on which it rested]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the zab, for instance, stamped upon the ground and the shaking of the floor caused the object to shift from its place, so that the movement is the result of the vibration of the floor and only the indirect result of the zab's strength.');">³²</span> it remains clean'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which again proves that the determining factor is the movement of the object from its place by the direct strength of the zab, and that the question of its status as a tent or a vessel does not come at all under consideration. It cannot therefore be suggested that the Tannas in the Mishnah of Zabim differ on the question of the status of the cupboard as a vessel or tent.');">³³</span> Rather, said Abaye, all agree [that an object that] moved from its place as a direct result of the zab's strength is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it was a tent.');">³⁴</span> [but if it moved as] a result of the shaking [of another object on which it rested] it is clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was a vessel.');">³⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נתגלגל חוץ לתחום נפל עליו גל או נשרף תרומה ונטמאת מבעוד יום אינו עירוב משחשיכה הרי זה עירוב

but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah from Zabim under discussion.');">³⁶</span> we are dealing [with an object], the vibration of which was the direct result of the zab's strength.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, for instance, he struck the object with his gloved fist or a piece of wood (so that there was no direct 'touch') and the object only vibrated but did not move from its place.');">³⁷</span> And it is this principle on which they differ. The Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna.');">³⁸</span>

אם ספק ר"מ ור' יהודה אומרים הרי זה חמר גמל

is of the opinion [that such vibration] is regarded as a shifting [of the obje from its place],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling that the object becomes unclean.');">³⁹</span> and the Masters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nehemiah and R. Simeon.');">⁴⁰</span> are of the opinion that it is not so regarded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not a shifting (from its place) '.');">⁴¹</span> How then is our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with the 'erub that was locked in a cupboard.');">⁴²</span>

ר' יוסי ור"ש אומרים ספק עירוב כשר אמר ר' יוסי אבטולמוס העיד משום חמשה זקנים על ספק עירוב שכשר:

to be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the cupboard was big, all would agree that it is subject to the law of 'tent'; how then could the first Tanna maintain that the 'erub is effective? If, however, it was a small one, of a capacity of less than forty se'ah of liquids, all would agree that it has the status of a 'vessel'; how then could R. Eliezer maintain that the 'erub is ineffective?');">⁴³</span> - Both Abaye and Raba replied: We are dealing with a lock that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd., 'and'.');">⁴⁴</span> was tied with a cord for the cutting of which a knife is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being too strong to be broken by the bare hands. Had this been possible even R. Eliezer would have permitted the breaking if the cord (cf. Bezah 31b) ; and, since the cupboard could be opened, the 'erub which would in consequence be accessible, would be effective. Though the breaking of a cord on the Sabbath was permitted in connection with 'vessels' only, and not with structures (such as a tent or a cupboard) that are fixed to the ground, the 'erub here would nevertheless be effective because at the twilight of Friday when the 'erub comes into force, the breaking of the cord, which on the Sabbath itself is forbidden as a Rabbinical measure only, is not even Rabbinically forbidden.');">⁴⁵</span> The first Tanna holds the same view as R'Jose who laid down: All instruments may be moved on the Sabbath except a large saw<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used for the cutting of wood.');">⁴⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נתגלגל חוץ לתחום אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שנתגלגל חוץ לארבע אמות אבל לתוך ד' אמות הנותן עירובו יש לו ד' אמות:

and the pin of a plough,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 123b. Hence he allows the use of a knife for the cutting of the cord, and this results in the accessibility and effectiveness of the 'erub.');">⁴⁷</span> while R'Eliezer holds the same view as R'Nehemiah who laid down: Even a cloak and even a spoon may not be moved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴⁸</span> except for the purpose for which they were made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a knife was not originally made for the purpose of cutting cords it may not be moved on the Sabbath. The 'erub, being in consequence inaccessible, is, therefore, ineffective. In town, however, the 'erub is effective since it is possible to carry the key to the cupboard by way of courtyards, roofs etc. as indicated supra.');">⁴⁹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF THE 'ERUB] ROLLED AWAY BEYOND THE [SABBATH] LIMIT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that more than the permitted distance of two thousand cubits intervened between the 'erub and the man's home and in consequence of which the 'erub was inaccessible to him.');">⁵⁰</span>

נפל עליו גל וכו': קא ס"ד דאי בעי מצי שקיל ליה

OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra in the GEMARA:');">⁵¹</span> OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, therefore, unfit even for a priest.');">⁵²</span> [IF ANY OF THESE ACCIDENTS OCCURRED] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Friday (the Sabbath eve) before twilight; because at the time the Sabbath began the 'erub was either non-existent or inaccessible.');">⁵³</span> IT IS INEFFECTIVE, [BUT IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER DUSK<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Friday (cf. previous note) .');">⁵⁴</span>

לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי דאי כרבי האמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות

THE 'ERUB IS EFFECTIVE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because an 'erub comes into force at twilight on the Sabbath eve and, since at that time the 'erub in question was both in existence and accessible, its subsequent loss or inaccessibility cannot in any way affect the rights it had conferred upon the man in connection with the Sabbath in question.');">⁵⁵</span> IF THIS IS DOUBTFUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is uncertain whether the accident occurred before, or after dusk.');">⁵⁶</span> THE MAN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'behold this (man) '.');">⁵⁷</span> SAID R'MEIR AND R'JUDAH, [IS IN THE POSITION OF BOTH] AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is unable to make any progress. A camel can be led only by pulling its rein and an ass can be driven only from behind. A man who is in charge of both animals can neither lead the two on account of the ass nor can he drive the two on account of the camel. So with the man the validity of whose 'erub is in doubt. If the 'erub is valid he can walk from the place of its deposit two thousand cubits in all directions including two thousand cubits in the direction of his home but not beyond it. If it is invalid he can walk from his home two thousand cubits in all directions including two thousand cubits in the direction of the 'erub but not beyond it. As the validity of the 'erub is in doubt he can only walk two thousand cubits distance between his home and the 'erub but is forbidden to go beyond the 'erub in the one direction and beyond his home in the other direction.');">⁵⁸</span>

אפילו תימא כרבי לא צריכא דבעי מרא וחצינא

R'JOSE AND R'SIMEON RULED: AN 'ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. R'JOSE STATED: ABTOLEMOS TESTIFIED ON THE AUTHORITY OF FIVE ELDERS THAT AN ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[IF AN 'ERUB] ROLLED AWAY BEYOND THE [SABBATH] LIMIT. Raba stated: This was taught only where it rolled away beyond [a distance] of four cubits, but [if it rested] within the four cubits [ is effective, since a person] who deposits his 'erub [in any spot] acquires<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the right of walking two thousand cubits in all directions.');">⁵⁹</span>

וצריכי דאי תנא נתגלגל משום דליתא גביה אבל נפל עליו גל דאיתיה גביה אימא ליהוי עירוב

[an area of] four cubits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is regarded as his abode. As his 'erub did not roll beyond his acquired abode it must be regarded as effective.');">⁶⁰</span> OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT etc. Having been presumed that, if desired, [the 'erub] could be taken out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the use of implements entailing work that is Pentateuchally forbidden on the Sabbath.');">⁶¹</span> must it be assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the 'erub is deemed ineffective on account, apparently, of the Rabbinical prohibition involved in the removal of the stones that covered it.');">⁶²</span> that our Mishnah is not in agreement with Rabbi, for if [it were suggested to be] in agreement with Rabbi [the difficulty would arise]: Did he not lay down that any work that was only Rabbinically prohibited was not forbidden as a preventive measure [on the Sabbath eve] at twilight?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the validity of an 'erub, as explained Supra, is dependent on its efficacy at twilight, when the removal of stones (being only Rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath) is according to Rabbi permitted, the 'erub spoken of in our Mishnah would have been effective.');">⁶³</span>

ואי תנא נפל עליו גל משום דמיכסי אבל נתגלגל זימנין דאתי זיקא ומייתי ליה אימא ליהוי עירוב צריכא:

- It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our MISHNAH:');">⁶⁴</span> may be said to be in agreement even with Rabbi, since it may apply to a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not required (but) '.');">⁶⁵</span> where a hoe or a pick-axe is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the clearance of the heap before access to the 'erub could be obtained. Such work, being Pentateuchally forbidden, may not be performed even at twilight.');">⁶⁶</span> And [both rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of an 'erub (a) that ROLLED AWAY and (b) on which A HEAP FELL.');">⁶⁷</span>

או נשרף תרומה ונטמאת: למה לי תנא נשרף

were] required. For if [only the one relating to an 'erub that] 'ROLLED AWAY' had been taught it might have been presumed [that the 'erub was ineffective] because it was not near the man for whom it had been provided,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at or with him'.');">⁶⁸</span> but that where a heap fell on it, since it is near that man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at or with him'.');">⁶⁸</span> the 'erub is effective. And if [only the ruling] 'IF A HEAP FELL ON IT' had been taught it might have been presumed [that the 'erub was ineffective] because it was covered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And access to it is impossible without desecrating the Sabbath.');">⁶⁹</span> but that where it rolled away, since a wind might sometimes rise and carry it [back to its place], the 'erub might be said to be effective. [Hence both rulings were] required. OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN. What need<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me');">⁷⁰</span> [was there for both these rulings]? - 'IT WAS BURNT' was taught