Eruvin

and Rabbi adopts the same view as that of R. Meir and also the same as that of R. Judah. He adopts the same view as that of R. Meir who ruled: ‘Excavation may be imagined so that [the prescribed measurements] may be obtained’,1 and he also adopts the same view as that of R. Judah who ruled: It is necessary that the ‘erub [shall rest] on a spot that is four [handbreadths wide]’, which is not the case here.2 What [is the source of the ruling of] R. Judah? — It was taught: R. Judah ruled: If a man inserted a pole in [the ground of] a public domain and deposited his ‘erub on it, his ‘erub is effective [if the pole was] ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide;3 otherwise4 his ‘erub is ineffective. On the contrary! Are not he and his ‘erub [in the latter case]5 in the same domain?6 It is this rather that he7 meant: [If the pole8 was] ten [handbreadths] high it is necessary9 that at its top it shall be four [handbreadths wide],10 but if it was not tell [handbreadths] high it is not necessary for its top to be four [handbreadths wide].11 In agreement with whose view?12 — [It is apparently] not in agreement with that of R. Jose son of R. Judah, seeing that it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: If a man inserted a reed in [the ground of] a public domain and on the top of it he fixed a basket,13 any one who threw14 something which came to a rest on the top of it incurs guilt?15 — It16 may be said [to be in agreement] even [with that of] R. Jose son of R. Judah, for there17 the sides18 surround [the reed],19 but here20 the sides18 do not surround [the tree].21 R. Jeremiah22 replied:23 A basket is different24 since one might incline it and so25 lower it within ten [handbreadths from the ground].26 R. Papa sitting at his studies was discoursing on this traditional teaching,27 when Rab b. Shaba pointed out to him the following objection: [We learned, he said]: How is one28 to proceed?29 He arranges [for the ‘erub’] to be carried [by a deputy30 to the required spot] on the first day,31 and, having remained there with it until dusk,32 he takes it [with him]33 and goes away.34 On the second day35 he [again] comes [with it] and keeps it there until dusk32 when he may consume it36 and go away.37 the latter the status of a private domain. It is not regarded, however, as a private domain in all respects since the prescribed width does not extend below the basket where the width of the tree is less than four handbreadths. the base of the pole, is in respect of the ‘erub regarded as a private domain which extends from the earth to the sky and in consequence of which he may move his ‘erub’ from the top of the pole, which is a private domain, to its base at the side of which he made his abode. than ten handbreadths. is less than four handbreadths the ‘erub, resting in no ‘domain’ and being suspended, so to speak, in the air, must be ineffective. handbreadths from the ground is deemed to be resting on the ground itself. prescribed size of four handbreadths, the status of a private domain cannot be imparted to that portion unless the full height of the tree from the ground to that Spot was four handbreadths wide. prescribed width. Is it likely, however, that Rabina's view is in disagreement with that of R. Jose son of R. Judah? of the reed may, therefore, be regarded as a private domain. postulated, that (a) the tree is imagined to be cut away so as to make up with the basket the prescribed area of four handbreadths and (b) that the sides of the basket descended to the ground. The assumption of two such processes, however, is inadmissible even according to R. Jose son of R. Judah. (For another interpretation v. Rash s.v., harpns ,htu a.l.). breadths wide. one did not actually incline the basket. Sabbath commenced and the man, though provided for during the festival at the commencement of which the ‘erub was in existence, would remain unprovided for during the Sabbath day. festival, since carrying in a public domain is forbidden on the Sabbath.