Eruvin

Is then the first clause1 [in agreement with] R. Jose2 and the final clause [only in agreement with the] Rabbis?3 — Yes, because his father4 adopts5 the same line.6 R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: Three [persons are sometimes] forbidden7 in five [beth se'ah, and sometimes] permitted7 [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?8 It is possible that he meant this: If they required six beth se'ah and they surrounded9 an area of seven they are permitted10 even in all the seven;11 and if they required only one of five12 beth se'ah but surrounded9 one of seven13 they are forbidden14 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?15 — No; unoccupied by objects.16 It was stated: [On the question of the extent of the area permitted17 where there were]18 three persons and one of them died,19 or two18 and their number was increased,19 R. Huna and R. Isaac [are in dispute]. One maintains that Sabbath is the determining factor20 and the other maintains that the determining factor is [the number of actual] tenants.21 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 ‘erub22 was laid in reliance on23 a certain door24 and that door was25 blocked up, or on a certain window24 and that window was25 stopped up,26 and he replied: Since permission for the Sabbath was once granted the permissibility continues27 [until the day is concluded]’.28 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 made29 in two sides of a courtyard30 and so also if a breach was made in two sides of a house, or if the cross-beam31 or side-post31 of an alley was removed29 [the tenants] are permitted [their use] for that Sabbath32 but forbidden on future [Sabbaths]; so R. Judah. R. Jose ruled: Whatever33 they are permitted for that Sabbath they are permitted for future [Sabbaths], and whatever33 they are forbidden for future [Sabbaths] they are also forbidden for that Sabbath.34 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?35 — 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?36 — The practical difference between them is the case of an individual in an inhabited area.37 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,38 FROM [THE RESTRICTIONS OF] DEMAI39 AND FROM THE DUTY OF PREPARING AN ‘ERUB.40 GEMARA. Our Rabbis learned: An army that goes out to an optional war41 are permitted to commandeer dry42 wood. R. Judah b. Tema ruled: They may also encamp in any place, and are to be buried where they are killed.43 ‘Are permitted to commandeer dry wood’. Was not this, however, an enactment of Joshua,44 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 woods45 and to gather wood from their45 fields?46 — [The enactment] there related to thorns and shrubs [while the ruling] here refers to other kinds of wood. Or else: There47 [it is a case of trees] that are attached [to the ground,48 while the ruling] here [refers to such] as were [already] detached.49 Or else: There47 [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 this50 obvious, since [a killed warrior is] a meth mizwah39 and a meth mizwah acquires [the right to be buried on] the spot where it is found?51 — [This ruling was] required only [for the following case:] Although he requires. differs from that of the majority? ropes only. 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? but only as many beth se'ah as they actually require plus an area less than two beth se'ah. 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. though when the Sabbath began it was only two, and forbidden if the number was two though it was three when the Sabbath began. 76a), could not be used for the purpose of an ‘erub? until its conclusion. also though they were permitted when the Sabbath began. USUAL OCCURRENCE, so that the same relaxation of the law applied also to an individual. 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. other.