Eruvin

is of the opinion that that Fellow may eat [the fruit] and need not tithe it because it is certain that the first Fellow had duly given the tithe for it, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled that he must not eat [the fruit] before he tithed it because Fellows are not suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [to that for which it is given]. Thereupon Rabbi said to him, ‘It is preferable that Fellows should be suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [with that for which it is given] than that they should give amme ha-arez to eat all sorts of tebel’. On what principle do they1 differ? — Rabbi holds that a Fellow is satisfied to commit a minor ritual offence2 in order that an ‘am ha-arez should not commit a major one,3 while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that a Fellow prefers the ‘am ha-arez to commit a major ritual offence rather than that he should commit even a minor one.4 MISHNAH. IF HE DEPOSITED IT5 ON A TREE ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS,6 HIS ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE; [IF HE DEPOSITED IT AT AN ALTITUDE] BELOW TEN HANDBREADTHS HIS ‘ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. IF HE DEPOSITED IT IN A CISTERN,6 EVEN IF IT IS A HUNDRED CUBITS DEEP, HIS ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi and Raba b. Nathan sat at their studies while R. Nahman was sitting beside them, and in the course of their session they discussed the following. Where could that tree have been standing? If it be suggested that it stood in a private domain, what matters7 it [it may be objected] whether it was ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS or BELOW it, seeing that a private domain rises up to the sky? If, however, [it be suggested] that it stood in a public domain [the question arises] where did the man intend to make his Sabbath abode?8 If it be suggested that he intended to make it on, [the tree] above, are not then he and his ‘erub in the same domain?9 — [The fact,] however, [is that] he intended to make his Sabbath abode below.10 But is he not11 making use of the tree?12 — It may still be maintained that [the tree] stood in a public domain and that the man's intention was to acquire his Sabbath abode below, but13 [this Mishnah] represents the view of Rabbi who land down: Any act that is forbidden14 by a Rabbinical measure15 is not subject to that prohibition during twilight.16 ‘Well spoken!’17 said R. Nahman to them, ‘and so also did Samuel say’. ‘Do you18 explain with it’, they said to him, ‘so much?’ (But did not they themselves explain [their difficulty] thereby? — In fact it was this that they said to him: ‘Did you embody it in the Gemara?)19 — ‘Yes’, he answered them — So it was also stated:20 R. Nahman reporting Samuel said: Here we are dealing with a tree that stood in a public domain, that was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and the man had the intention to acquire his Sabbath abode below. This, furthermore, is the view of Rabbi who land down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure15 is not subject to that prohibition during twilight. 21 Raba stated: This22 was taught only in respect of a tree that stood beyond the outskirts23 of the town, but where a tree stood within the outskirts of the town24 an ‘erub is effective even [if it was deposited] above [a height] of ten handbreadths,25 since a town is deemed to be full.26 If so,27 the same [law should apply to an erub on a tree] beyond the outskirts of a town, for since Raba ruled: ‘A man who deposited his ‘erub [in any spot] acquires [an abode of] four cubits,’28 that spot is a private domain which rises up to the sky?29 — R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya replied: Here we are dealing with a tree whose branches bent over beyond the four cubits on which it lay, being presumably no less than four handbreadths in width has, above a height often handbreadths, the status of a private domain, and carrying from a private domain into the public one, where the man had acquired his abode, is forbidden. how could the ‘erub be deemed valid? the weekday. As the acquisition of a Sabbath abode by ‘erub must take effect at twilight, and since at that time the use of the tree was permitted, the ‘erub in the circumstances mentioned may well be deemed effective. your strength’ implied, ‘may thy (or your) strength be firm’. the first stages of the redaction of the Talmud, v. J.E. XII, p. 15.] neighbouring town, within two thousand cubits distance from this one, who is desirous of going two thousand cubits beyond the outskirts of the latter (Rashi). characteristics of a private domain, as if the ground itself were raised into the space above. Though movement of objects from the tree to the public domain remains forbidden the person's ‘abode’ in respect of the ‘erub is deemed to be level with it, and the ‘erub is consequently valid.