Eruvin

while the man intended to acquire his Sabbath abode at its root;1 and what [is the explanation for the use of the expressions,] ‘above’ and ‘below’?2 That [the branch]3 rises again into a vertical position. But could not the man,4 if he so wished, bring [the ‘erub]5 by way of the upper part of the tree?6 — [This is a case] where many people adjust their burdens7 on it,8 and [this ruling9 is] in agreement with that of Ulla who laid down: If a column, nine handbreadths high,10 was situated in a public domain and many people were adjusting their burdens on it, any man who throws11 an object that comes to rest upon It is guilty.12 What is the source of the dispute between,13 Rabbi and the Rabbis?14 — It was taught: If he deposited it on a tree above [a height] of ten handbreadths, his ‘erub is ineffective;15 [if he deposited it at an altitude] below ten handbreadths his ‘erub is effective, but he must not move it.16 [If the ‘erub was deposited]17 within three [handbreadths from the ground] it is permitted to move it.18 If he put it In a basket and hung it upon the tree his ‘erub is effective even if it was above [a height] of ten handbreadths;19 Rabbi. But the Sages ruled: Wherever it is forbidden to move it the ‘erub is ineffective. Now to what [does the statement,] ‘But the cages ruled’ refer? If it be suggested: To the final clause,20 [the difficulty would arise:] Does this imply that the Rabbis hold the opinion that [the use of the] sides21 [is also] forbidden?22 Consequently [it must refer] to the first clause.23 But then, what [size of] tree is done to imagine? If [it is one] which is less than four [handbreadths in width,] then, surely, it is a spot of exemption;24 and if it was four [handbreadths wide,]25 what is [the use, it may be asked,] that the ‘erub was put in a basket?26 — Rabina replied: The first clause [is a case] where [the tree] had [a width] of four [handbreadths,27 while] the final clause [deals with one] whose width was less than four [handbreadths]28 but the basket supplemented it to four of ten cubits it is possible to carry it in small stages of less than four cubits to the root of the tree which is a private domain only as regards ‘erub but not in respect of forbidding the movement of objects into it from the public domain. If, however, the ‘erub was deposited above the height of ten cubits (so that it rested in a private domain proper) it would not be permitted to carry it to the root of the tree (another private domain) via the public domain. Hence its invalidity. branch, projecting horizontally. In the latter case the expressions, ‘high’ and ‘low’ would be expected. acquire the Sabbath abode. through which it is permitted to carry from the private domain in which the ‘erub lay to the root of the tree which also is a private domain. status of a public domain. It is impossible, therefore, to carry the ‘erub from the upright portion of the branch which is a private domain to the root of the tree which is also a private domain, since the only way possible, viz. the horizontal portion of the branch, constitutes a public domain of all the space above it, and it is forbidden to carry from one private into another private domain via a public domain (cf. Shab. 96a). the ground; from three to nine handbreadths in height, since it is too low for adjusting burdens, it is not deemed a public domain but it has the status of a karmelith (v. Glos.); and one of ten handbreadths in height is deemed to be a private domain. however, the public do not adjust their burdens upon the column it is not deemed a public domain and no guilt is incurred by the man who threw the object because, though he lifted it up in a public domain, it did not come to rest in a public domain, and no guilt for throwing a distance of four cubits in a public domain is incurred unless both the lifting and the resting of the object took place in a public domain. extended horizontally across the public domain to a distance of four cubits and then turned upwards into a vertical position. on the Sabbath. The ‘erub is nevertheless effective since at twilight on Friday, when the ‘abode’ is acquired, the use of the tree, which is only Rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath, is then permitted and the ‘erub, therefore, could then be moved. Sabbath the ‘erub’ may not be moved, on account of the Rabbinical prohibition against the use of a tree, it must not be moved, as a preventive measure, even at twilight of the Sabbath Eve when the ‘erub should come into force, and the ‘erub is consequently ineffective. moved on the Sabbath. To this the Sages objected that, though the abode and the ‘erub were in the public domain, since the ‘erub may not be moved on the Sabbath, on account of the prohibition against the use of the tree, it may not be moved at twilight either, and the ‘erub is, therefore, invalid. permitted, even in Rabbinic law, to move objects from the former into the latter and vice versa. As the tree in question is situated in a public domain it is permitted to move the ‘erub from the one into the other. Why then should the ‘erub be ineffective even where it lay at a height above ten handbreadths? forbidden to carry into the public domain. Hence the invalidity of the ‘erub.