עירובין 35

35:1

— [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 the ‘erub is ineffective. [Even] if the key was found, whether in town or in a field, the ‘erub is ineffective. R. Eliezer ruled: [If it was found] in town the ‘erub is effective; if in a field it is ineffective. ‘In town the ‘erub is effective’ in agreement with R. Simeon who laid down that roofs, courtyards as well as karpafs have the status of the same domain in respect of objects that rested in them. In a field it is ineffective in agreement with the Rabbis. Both Rabbah and R. Joseph explained: We are dealing here with a wooden CUPBOARD, one Master being of the opinion that it [has the status of] a vessel to which the prohibition of building or demolition does not apply, while the other Master is of the opinion that it [has the status of] a tent . And do they then differ on the same principle as the following Tannas? For we learned: [If a Zab] beat [his fist] upon a chest, a box or a cupboard they become levitically unclean, but R. Nehemiah and R. Simeon declare them clean. Now, do not these differ on the following principle: One Master is of the opinion that it [is regarded as] a vessel while the other Masters are of the opinion that it [is regarded as] a tent? — Said Abaye: And how do you understand it? Was it not in fact taught: ‘If it was a tent that can be shaken it is unclean; if it is a vessel that cannot be shaken it is clean’? And, furthermore, in the final clause it was taught: ‘But if they were shifted 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, it becomes unclean, [but if it moved from its place] on account of the vibration [of an object on which it rested] it remains clean’ ? Rather, said Abaye, all agree [that an object that] moved from its place as a direct result of the zab's strength is unclean [but if it moved as] a result of the shaking [of another object on which it rested] it is clean; but here we are dealing [with an object], the vibration of which was the direct result of the zab's strength. And it is this principle on which they differ. The Master is of the opinion [that such vibration] is regarded as a shifting [of the object from its place], and the Masters are of the opinion that it is not so regarded. How then is our Mishnah to be explained? — Both Abaye and Raba replied: We are dealing with a lock that was tied with a cord for the cutting of which a knife is required. 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 and the pin of a plough, while R. Eliezer holds the same view as R. Nehemiah who laid down: Even a cloak and even a spoon may not be moved except for the purpose for which they were made. MISHNAH. [IF THE ‘ERUB] ROLLED AWAY BEYOND THE [SABBATH] LIMIT, OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT, OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN, [IF ANY OF THESE ACCIDENTS OCCURRED] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY, IT IS INEFFECTIVE, [BUT IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER DUSK THE ‘ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. IF THIS IS DOUBTFUL THE MAN, SAID R. MEIR AND R. JUDAH, [IS IN THE POSITION OF BOTH] AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER. 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. GEMARA. [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 [it is effective, since a person] who deposits his ‘erub [in any spot] acquires [an area of] four cubits. OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT etc. Having been presumed that, if desired, [the ‘erub] could be taken out, must it be assumed 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? — It may be said to be in agreement even with Rabbi, since it may apply to a case where a hoe or a pick-axe is required. And [both rulings 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, but that where a heap fell on it, since it is near that man, 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, 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 [was there for both these rulings]?- ‘IT WAS BURNT’ was taught

—

35:2

to inform you of the power of R. Jose. and ‘TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN’ was taught to inform you of the power of R. Meir. But is R. Meir of the opinion that in a doubtful case the more restrictive course is to be followed? Have we not in fact learnt: If an unclean person went down to perform ritual immersion and it Is doubtful whether he performed the immersion or not, or even if he did perform the immersion but it is doubtful whether it was done in forty se'ah [of water] or in less; and, similarly, if he performed his immersion in one of two ritual baths, one of which contained forty se'ah [of water] and the other contained less, and he does not know in which one he performed his immersion he, being in a state of doubt, is unclean. This applies only to a major uncleanness but in the case of a minor uncleanness as, for instance, where one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids or where a man immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or three log of drawn water were poured upon his head and the greater part of his body and he then went down to perform immersion and it is doubtful whether he did or did not perform it, and even if he did perform it there is doubt whether the immersion was performed in forty se'ah [of water] or less, and, similarly, if he performed the immersion in one of two ritual baths one of which contained forty se'ah, [of water] and the other contained less, and he does not know in which of the two he performed his immersion he, being in a state of doubt, is clean; so R. Meir; and R.Jose declared him to be unclean? — R. Meir is of the opinion [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal. But does R. Meir uphold the view that [the laws of Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal? Have we not in fact learnt: If he is unable to span it — in connection with this R. Dostai b. Jannai stated in the name of R. Meir: ‘I have heard that hills are [treated as though they were] pierced’ , Now if the idea could be entertained [that the laws of the Sabbath] limits are Pentateuchal [the difficulty would arise:] Is [the method of] piercing allowed [in such a case] seeing that R. Nahman has in fact stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [that the method of] piercing must not [be adopted] in the case of [the measurements around] the cities of refuge, nor in that of the broken-necked heifer because they are [ordinances] of the Torah? — This is no difficulty; one ruling was his own while the other was his master's. A careful examination [of the wording] also [leads to this conclusion]. For it was taught: In connection with this R. Dostai b. Jannai stated in the name of R. Meir, ‘I have heard that hills are [treated as though they were] pierced’. This proves it. A contradiction, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Meir in respect of Pentateuchal laws. For have we not learnt: If a man who touched a body at night was unaware whether it was alive or dead but when rising on the following morning he found it to be dead, R. Meir regards him as clean; and the Sages regard him as unclean because [questions in respect of] all unclean objects [are determined] in accordance with their condition at the time they were discovered? — R. Jeremiah replied: Our Mishnah [refers to terumah] on which a [dead] creeping thing lay throughout the twilight. But if so, would R. Jose have ruled: AN ‘ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE? — Both Rabbah and R. Joseph replied: We are here dealing with two groups of witnesses, one of which testifies that the uncleanness occurred while it was yet day, while the other testifies [that it occurred] after dusk. [

—