עירובין 17:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Is then the first clause [in agreement with] R. Jose and the final clause [only in agreement with the] Rabbis? — Yes, because his father adopts the same line. R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: Three [persons are sometimes] forbidden in five [beth se'ah, and sometimes] permitted [even] in an area of seven. ‘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? It is possible that he meant this: If they required six beth se'ah and they surrounded an area of seven they are permitted even in all the seven; and if they required only one of five beth se'ah but surrounded one of seven they are forbidden 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? — No; unoccupied by objects. It was stated: [On the question of the extent of the area permitted where there were] three persons and one of them died, or two and their number was increased, R. Huna and R. Isaac [are in dispute]. One maintains that Sabbath is the determining factor and the other maintains that the determining factor is [the number of actual] tenants. You may conclude that it is R. Huna who held that the determining factor was the Sabbath. For Rabbah stated: ‘I enquired of R. Huna (and also of Rab Judah) as to what [was the law where] an ‘erub was laid in reliance on a certain door and that door was blocked up, or on a certain window and that window was stopped up, and he replied: Since permission for the Sabbath was once granted the permissibility continues [until the day is concluded]’. 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 in two sides of a courtyard and so also if a breach was made in two sides of a house, or if the cross-beam or side-post of an alley was removed [the tenants] are permitted [their use] for that Sabbath but forbidden on future [Sabbaths]; so R. Judah. R. Jose ruled: Whatever they are permitted for that Sabbath they are permitted for future [Sabbaths], and whatever they are forbidden for future [Sabbaths] they are also forbidden for that Sabbath. 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? — 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’. AND THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. Is not this ruling precisely the same as that of the first Tanna? — The practical difference between them is the case of an individual in an inhabited area. MISHNAH. [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, FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: An army that goes out to an optional war are permitted to commandeer dry wood. R. Judah b. Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed. ‘Are permitted to commandeer dry wood’. Was not this, however, an enactment of Joshua, 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 and to gather wood from their fields? — [The enactment] there related to thorns and shrubs [while the ruling] here refers to other kinds of wood. Or else: There [it is a case of trees] that are attached [to the ground, while the ruling] here [refers to such] as were [already] detached. Or else: There [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 obvious, since [a killed warrior is] a meth mizwah and a meth mizwah acquires [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found? — [This ruling was] required only [for the following case:] Although^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃnote:The ruling accepted by R. Nahman in his exposition.
^ᵇnote:Who allows an individual no more than two beth se'ah. According to the Rabbis he should be allowed all the space he requires.
^ᶜnote: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?
^ᵈnote:R. Judah.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘stands’.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote:The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.
^ʰnote:That caused them to doubt that Rab had made the statement.
^ⁱnote:With stakes only, i.e., with the vertical, and not with the horizontal parts of an enclosure.
^ʲnote:The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.
^ᵏnote:Since the unoccupied area is less than two beth se'ah.
^ˡnote:For a variant reading, v. Elijah Wilna's glosses.
^ᵐnote:So that two beth se'ah remained unoccupied, and the barrier was consequently invalid.
^ⁿnote:The carrying of objects on the Sabbath.
^ᵒnote: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?
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote:In the case of a defective enclosure.
^ʳnote:When the Sabbath began.
^ˢnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote: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.
^ᵛnote:V. Glos.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘by the way of’.
^ˣnote:That communicated between two courtyards inhabited by different tenants.
^ʸnote:Owing to the collapse of some structure on the Sabbath.
^ᶻnote: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?
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘is permitted’.
^ᵃᵇnote:Infra 93b.
^ᵃᶜnote:During the Sabbath.
^ᵃᵈnote:This is explained infra 94b.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sing. So Rashi's MS. supported by Tosaf. s.v. uh,urue a.l. Cur. edd. use the pl.
^ᵃᶠnote:On which the accident occurred. Since these were permitted when the Sabbath began their permissibility continues until its conclusion.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘if’ (v. next note).
^ᵃʰnote: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.
^ᵃⁱnote:Is it likely, however, that Amoras would be merely repeating a dispute of Tannas?
^ᵃʲnote: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.
^ᵃᵏnote: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.
^ᵃˡnote:Before a meal.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃⁿnote:If a door communicated between two enclosures in the camp and it was desired to carry objects from one into the other.
^ᵃᵒnote:Sc. any war other than those against the peoples of Canaan in the days of Joshua.
^ᵃᵖnote:And much more so fresh.
^ᵃᵠnote:Tosef. ‘Er. II.
^ᵃʳnote:When he entered Canaan.
^ᵃˢnote:Of other people.
^ᵃᵗnote:B.K. 80bf.
^ᵃᵘnote:The enactment of Joshua.
^ᵃᵛnote:Such trees are permitted to all.
^ᵃʷnote:The owner having cut them for fuel. Such wood is permitted to an army only.
^ᵃˣnote:The second ruling of R. Judah b. Tema.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘its place’. This is another of the ten enactments of Joshua. Sot. 45b, B.K. 81a, Sanh. 47b.