עירובין 34 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now, why [should this at all be necessary]? Let it rather be land down: Since one could carry it if one wished, [the ‘erub], though one had not actually carried it, is deemed to have been carried? — R. Zera replied: This is a preventive measure against the possibility of [not carrying it even when] a festival occurred on a Sunday. He pointed out to him [another] objection: If a man, intending to acquire his Sabbath abode in a public domain, deposited his ‘erub in a wall lower than ten handbreadths [from the ground], his ‘erub is effective, [but if he deposited it] above [a height of] ten handbreadths [from the ground] his ‘erub is ineffective. If he intended to make his abode on the top of a dove-cote, or on the top of a turret, his ‘erub is valid [if it lay at a height] above ten handbreadths [from the ground; but if it lay at a level] below ten handbreadths [from the ground] his ‘erub is ineffective. but why? Could it not be said here also [that the ‘erub is effective] ‘since one could incline [the dove-cote or the turret] and so lower it to a level of less than ten [handbreadths from the ground]’? — R. Jeremiah replied: Here we are dealing with a turret that was nailed [to the wall]. Raba replied: It may be said to refer even to a turret that was not nailed [to a wall], for we might be dealing with a high turret which, were one to incline it a little, it would project beyond [the original area of] four cubits. But how is one to imagine [the circumstance]? If [the turret] had a window, and a cord [also was available, why should not the ‘erub] be taken up through the window by means of the cord? — This is a case where there was neither window nor cord. IF HE DEPOSITED IT IN A CISTERN EVEN IF IT IS A HUNDRED CUBITS DEEP etc. Where was this CISTERN situated? If it be suggested that it was situated in a private domain,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:The carrying of an ‘erub to the place one wishes to acquire as his Sabbath abode.
^ᵇnote:As was done in the case of the basket, that, since one might incline it etc., it is the same as if one actually did it.
^ᶜnote:To the required spot.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘(the day) after the Sabbath’. In such a case the ‘erub, if it is to be effective for the festival, must be carried to the required spot on the Sabbath eve. It cannot be taken there on the Sabbath when the carrying of objects is forbidden. Consequently, had it not been instituted that an ‘erub must always be carried to the required spot, one might erroneously have formed the opinion that even in the case postulated the carrying of the ‘erub to the required spot is unnecessary; and this would have had the result that the ‘erub could be ineffective, since in this case carrying on the Sabbath being forbidden, the principle, ‘Since it might be carried etc.’ is obviously inapplicable.
^ᵉnote:That was more than four cubits distant from the ‘abode’. If it was within the four cubits the ‘erub is valid in both the following cases as explained supra in the case of a tree.
^ᶠnote:Since it is possible to carry it from the wall to the ‘abode’ in small stages of less than four cubits. Such a mode of carrying is forbidden on the Sabbath proper by a Rabbinical measure only; and, as the twilight of the Sabbath eve is regarded as Sabbath proper also by a Rabbinical measure only and as one Rabbinical measure cannot he imposed upon another, the carrying in small stages has not been forbidden at twilight when the acquisition of the ‘abode’ takes place.
^ᵍnote:So that the erub rested in a private domain.
^ʰnote:Since it is forbidden even at twilight to convey from a private domain (v. previous note) into a public domain (where the man would be standing when taking down the ‘erub from the wall).
^ⁱnote:In the dove-cote or turret.
^ʲnote:Though the man could not carry the ‘erub from its place to his abode, on account of the public domain which intervened between his private domain and that in which the ‘erub lay (cf. Shab. 96a) he could well descend to the level where the ‘erub was deposited and consume it there, since in respect of ‘erub and ‘abode’ all space above ten handbreadths from the ground is regarded as one and the same domain.
^ᵏnote:If the cote or turret, for instance, had several compartments one above the other, and the ‘erub lay in one of the lower ones.
^ˡnote:Since such a place has the status of a karmelith from which it is forbidden to carry the ‘erub to the top of the cote or turret on account of the public domain that intervened between them. Should the man descend to the level of the ‘erub to consume it there, he would be leaving the domain of his abode for another domain which is contrary to the requirement that the ‘erub must be in a positioned from which it can be taken to the abode and eaten there.
^ᵐnote:Should an ‘erub below a level of ten handbreadths be ineffective.
^ⁿnote:As was said by R. Jeremiah (supra 33b ad fin.) regarding the basket.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘to bend it and bring it to within’.
^ᵖnote:By lowering it to that altitude the ‘abode’ would be situated in a public domain into which, as explained supra, that two Rabbinical measures are not imposed upon one another, it is permitted at twilight of the Sabbath eve to carry from a karmelith. This Baraitha obviously represents the view of Rabbi (v. Supra 32b) since its first clause recognizes the validity of an ‘erub that was deposited in a wall below ten handbreadths from the ground though in such circumstances the man's abode is in a public domain while his ‘erub is in a karmelith.
^ᵠnote:Or dove-cote.
^ʳnote:So that it cannot be moved from its position.
^ˢnote:The Baraitha under discussion.
^ᵗnote:One higher than four cubits.
^ᵘnote:To lower its top to an altitude of less than ten handbreadths.
^ᵛnote:On account of its size.
^ʷnote:In which it was originally situated and which constituted the man's abode. An ‘erub cannot be effective unless it call be consumed within four cubits of the original position of the abode.
^ˣnote:Pulling with a cord in such circumstances is only a Rabbinical prohibition which, as explained Supra, does not apply to the twilight if Sabbath eve when the Sabbath abode is acquired. (This note follows Rashi's second, while the previous notes on the passage are based on Rashi's first explanation.)

²is [not this ruling, it may be objected,] obvious, seeing that a private domain rises up to the sky, and as it rises upwards so it descends downwards? If, on the other hand, it be suggested that it was situated in a public domain, where [it may again be objected] did the man intend to have his Sabbath abode? If above, he would be in one domain and his ‘erub in another; and if below, [is not the ruling again] obvious seeing that he and his ‘erub are in the same place? - [This ruling was] required only in a case where [the cistern] was situated in a karmelith and the man intended to make his abode above; [and this ruling] represents the view of Rabbi who laid down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is not subject to that prohibition during twilight [on the Sabbath eve]. MISHNAH. IF IT WAS PUT ON THE TOP OF A REED OR ON THE TOP OF A POLE, PROVIDED IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS HIGH, THE ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. GEMARA. R. Adda b. Mattena pointed out to Raba the following incongruity: [From our Mishnah it appears that] only if IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND is the ‘erub effective, but if it was] not first uprooted and then inserted [in the ground the ‘erub would] not [have been effective]. Now whose [view is this? Obviously] that of the Rabbis who ruled: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is also forbidden at twilight [on the Sabbath eve]. But you also said that the first clause [represents the view of] Rabbi. [Would then] the first clause [represent the view of] Rabbi and the final clause [that of the] Rabbis? — The other replied: Rami b. Hama has already pointed out this incongruity to R. Hisda who answered him that the first clause was indeed the view of Rabbi while the final one was that of the Rabbis. Rabina said: Both clauses represent the view of Rabbi but [the restriction in] the final clause is a preventive measure against the possibility of nipping [the frail reed]. An army once came to Nehardea and R. Nahman told his disciples, ‘Go out into the marsh and prepare an embankment [from the growing reeds] so that to-morrow we might go there and sit on them’. Rami b. Hama raised the following objection against R. Nahman or, as others say: R. ‘Ukba b. Abba raised the objection against R. Nahman: [Have we not learnt] that only if IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND is the ‘erub effective, [from which it follows, if it was] not first uprooted and then inserted [in the ground the ‘erub is] not [effective]? — The other replied: There [it is a case] of hardened reeds. And whence is it derived that we draw a distinction between hardened, and unhardened reeds? — From what was taught: Reeds, thorns and thistles belong to the species of trees and are not subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim in the vineyard; and another- [Baraitha] taught: Reeds, cassia and bulrushes are a species of herb and subject to the prohibition of kil'ayim in the vineyard. [Now are not the two Baraithas] contradictory to each other? It must consequently be inferred that the former deals with hardened reeds while the latter deals with such as are not hardened. This is conclusive. But is cassia a species of herb? Have we not in fact learnt: Rue must not be grafted on white cassia because [this act would constitute the mingling of] a herb with a tree? — R. Papa replied: Cassia and white cassia are two different species. MISHNAH. IF IT WAS PUT IN A CUPBOARD AND THE KEY WAS LOST THE ‘ERUB IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF IT IS NOT KNOWN THAT THE KEY IS IN ITS PROPER PLACE THE ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE. GEMARA. But why? Is not this a case where he is in one place and his ‘erub is in another? — Both Rab and Samuel explained: We are dealing here with a CUPBOARD of bricks and this ruling represents the view of R. Meir who maintains that it is permitted at the outset to make a breach [in a structure] in order to take [something out of it]. For we learned: If a house that was filled with fruit was closed up but a breach accidentally appeared, it is permitted to take [the fruit out] through the breach; and R. Meir ruled: It is permitted at the outset to make a breach in order to take [the fruit out]. But did not R. Nahman b. Adda state in the name of Samuel [that the reference there is] to a pile of bricks? — Here also [the reference is] to a pile of bricks. But did not R. Zera maintain that [the Rabbis] spoke only of a festival but not of a Sabbath? — Here also [the ‘erub is one that was prepared] for a festival. If that were so, would it have been justified to state in reference to this [Mishnah that] ‘R. Eliezer ruled: If [the key] was lost in town the ‘erub is effective but if it was lost in a field it is not effective’ . Now if it was on a festival there is no difference in this respect between a town and a field? 57^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^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ

^ʸnote:Why then should the obvious be stated?
^ᶻnote:Outside the cistern in the public domain.
^ᵃᵃnote:In which case the ‘erub should be ineffective, while according to our Mishnah it is effective.
^ᵃᵇnote:In the cistern.
^ᵃᶜnote:For instance, in a stretch of fields.
^ᵃᵈnote:So that his abode was in a karmelith while his ‘erub lay in a private domain.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which assumes the permissibility of movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain at twilight on the Sabbath eve.
^ᵃᶠnote:As is that of carrying the ‘erub from the private domain into the karmelith.
^ᵃᵍnote:When the acquisition of the abode takes place.
^ᵃʰnote:An ‘erub.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘at the time’.
^ᵃʲnote:If it rested on a platform of no less than four handbreadths by four, that was attached to the top of the reed or the pole.’ Such a platform, though it conforms to the size of a private domain, cannot be regarded as a private domain proper on account of the base on which It rests which is narrower than the prescribed size of four handbreadths.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵃˡnote:Obviously because the ‘erub could not be removed from its place on account of the prohibition of making use of a growing plant.
^ᵃᵐnote:Such as the use of a tree on the Sabbath.
^ᵃⁿnote:Supra 30b.
^ᵃᵒnote:The preceding Mishnah supra 32b.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘all of it’.
^ᵃᵠnote:When removing the ‘erub from it. The nipping of a piece of reed is Pentateuchally forbidden and hence prohibited also at twilight. Such possibility need not be provided for in [the case of a tree which is hard and strong.
^ᵃʳnote:And apparently took up the quarters that were used by R. Nahman and his disciples for their studies.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., by bending growing reeds over each other.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵃᵘnote:Obviously because it is forbidden to use a growing reed. How then could R. Nahman permit the use of an embankment made of growing reeds?
^ᵃᵛnote:The ruling in our Mishnah.
^ᵃʷnote:Which are regarded as trees the use of which on the Sabbath is forbidden. Soft reeds, however, which come under the category of herb, may, therefore, be used.
^ᵃˣnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃʸnote:Tosef. Kil.III.
^ᵃᶻnote:In the former Baraitha reeds are classed as a species of tree and in the latter as a species of herb.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘here
^ᵇᵇnote:Pigam, Gr. **.
^ᵇᶜnote:Kil. I, 8.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘Cassia alone and white cassia alone’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Or TURRET. Var. lec. ‘and it was locked up’ (J.T. MS.M. and Asheri).
^ᵇᶠnote:The Gemara infra explains under what circumstances.
^ᵇᵍnote:So MS. M. Cur. edd., ‘if he does not know’.
^ᵇʰnote:Is the ‘erub NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE.
^ᵇⁱnote:The man for whom the ‘erub was prepared.
^ᵇʲnote:Since the man cannot get at the ‘erub without a key.
^ᵇᵏnote:Which can easily be broken into (as will be explained infra).
^ᵇˡnote:Even on a day when mukzeh (v. Glos.) is forbidden.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘to diminish’, ‘to hollow out’.
^ᵇⁿnote:Even if this happened on the very festival.
^ᵇᵒnote:And the fruit nevertheless is not regarded as mukzeh (v. Glos.).
^ᵇᵖnote:Bezah 31b.
^ᵇᵠnote:Loosely put together with no cement or mortar between them. What proof then is there that a breach may also be made at the outset in a cupboard, the bricks in whose walls are presumably firmly built up?
^ᵇʳnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵇˢnote:In the Mishnah quoted from Bezah.
^ᵇᵗnote:Whereas the ‘erub in our Mishnah is presumably applicable to Sabbaths is well as festivals.
^ᵇᵘnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵛnote:That our Mishnah deals with an ‘erub for a festival only.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘that is it which he taught?’
^ᵇˣnote:var. lec. ‘Eleazar’.
^ᵇʸnote:Because it is possible to carry the key to the cupboard by way of courtyards, roofs and similar places all of which belong to the same class of domain.
^ᵇᶻnote:From which it is forbidden to carry it to the cupboard.
^ᶜᵃnote:Tosef. ‘Er. 11.
^ᶜᵇnote:When the carrying of objects is permitted.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lit., ‘what to me etc.’ At this stage it may be explained. three different views have been recorded: (i) That of the first Tanna of our Mishnah who rules the ‘erub to be effective whether the key of the cupboard was lost in town or in a field, since in his view it is permitted to break into the cupboard to get to the ‘erub; (ii) That of R. Eliezer of our Mishnah who rules that the ‘erub is not effective irrespective of whether the key was lost in town or in a field, since in his opinion the cupboard may not be broken into (contrary to the view of R. Meir) nor may the key be carried by way of courtyards, roofs and the like because these (contrary to the view of R. Simeon) are not regarded as one domain; and (iii) that of R. Eliezer of the Baraitha who agrees with R. Simeon. Aliter: R. Eliezer of our Mishnah refers to a key lost in a field and thus upholds the view of R. Eliezer of the Baraitha (Rashi).