Parallel
עירובין 34:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
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? 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, he would be in one domain and his ‘erub in another; and if below, [is not the ruling again] obvious seeing that he and his ‘erub are in the same place? - [This ruling was] required only in a case where [the cistern] was situated in a karmelith and the man intended to make his abode above; [and this ruling] represents the view of Rabbi who laid down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is not subject to that prohibition during twilight [on the Sabbath eve]. MISHNAH. IF IT WAS PUT ON THE TOP OF A REED OR ON THE TOP OF A POLE, PROVIDED IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS HIGH, THE ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. GEMARA. R. Adda b. Mattena pointed out to Raba the following incongruity: [From our Mishnah it appears that] only 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]. Now whose [view is this? Obviously] that of the Rabbis who ruled: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is also forbidden at twilight [on the Sabbath eve]. But you also said that the first clause [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 represent the view of Rabbi but [the restriction in] the final clause is a preventive measure against the possibility of nipping [the frail reed]. An army once came to Nehardea and R. Nahman told his disciples, ‘Go out into the marsh and prepare an embankment [from the growing reeds] 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 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]? — The other replied: There [it is a case] of hardened reeds. 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 in the vineyard; 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? It must consequently be inferred that the former deals with hardened reeds while the latter deals with such as are not hardened. This is conclusive. But is cassia a species of herb? Have we not in fact learnt: Rue must not be grafted on white cassia because [this act would constitute the mingling of] a herb with a tree? — R. Papa replied: Cassia and white cassia are two different species. MISHNAH. IF IT WAS PUT IN A CUPBOARD AND THE KEY WAS LOST THE ‘ERUB IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT THE KEY IS IN ITS PROPER PLACE THE ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE. GEMARA. But why? Is not this a case where he is in one place and his ‘erub is in another? — Both Rab and Samuel explained: We are dealing here with a CUPBOARD of bricks and this ruling represents the view of R. Meir who maintains that it is permitted at the outset to make a breach [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, it is permitted to take [the fruit out] through the breach; and R. Meir ruled: It is permitted at the outset to make a breach in order to take [the fruit out]. But did not R. Nahman b. Adda state in the name of Samuel [that the reference there is] to a pile of bricks? — Here also [the reference is] to a pile of bricks. But did not R. Zera maintain that [the Rabbis] spoke only of a festival but not of a Sabbath? — Here also [the ‘erub is one that was prepared] for a festival. If that were so, would it have been justified to state in reference to this [Mishnah that] ‘R. Eliezer ruled: If [the key] was lost in town the ‘erub is effective but if it was lost in a field it is not effective’ . Now if it was on a festival there is no difference in this respect between a town and a field? 57
—