Eruvin

is [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?1 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,2 he would be in one domain and his ‘erub in another;3 and if below,4 [is not the ruling again] obvious seeing that he and his ‘erub are in the same place? 1 - [This ruling was] required only in a case where [the cistern] was situated in a karmelith5 and the man intended to make his abode above;6 [and this ruling]7 represents the view of Rabbi who laid down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure8 is not subject to that prohibition during twilight [on the Sabbath eve].9 MISHNAH. IF IT10 WAS PUT ON THE TOP OF A REED OR ON THE TOP OF A POLE, PROVIDED11 IT HAD BEEN UPROOTED AND THEN INSERTED [IN THE GROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS HIGH, THE ERUB IS EFFECTIVE.12 GEMARA. R. Adda b. Mattena pointed out to Raba the following incongruity: [From our Mishnah it appears that] only13 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].14 Now whose [view is this? Obviously] that of the Rabbis who ruled: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure15 is also forbidden at twilight [on the Sabbath eve].16 But you also said that the first clause17 [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 clauses18 represent the view of Rabbi but [the restriction in] the final clause is a preventive measure against the possibility of nipping [the frail reed].19 An army once came to Nehardea20 and R. Nahman told his disciples, ‘Go out into the marsh and prepare an embankment [from the growing reeds]21 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 only22 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]?23 — The other replied: There24 [it is a case] of hardened reeds.25 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'ayim26 in the vineyard;27 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?28 It must consequently be inferred that the former deals with29 hardened reeds while the latter deals with29 such as are not hardened. This is conclusive. But is cassia a species of herb? Have we not in fact learnt: Rue30 must not be grafted on white cassia because [this act would constitute the mingling of] a herb with a tree?31 — R. Papa replied: Cassia and white cassia are two different species.32 MISHNAH. IF IT WAS PUT IN A CUPBOARD33 AND THE KEY WAS LOST THE ‘ERUB IS NEVERTHELESS EFFECTIVE.34 R. ELIEZER RULED: IF IT IS NOT KNOWN35 THAT THE KEY IS IN ITS PROPER PLACE THE ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE. GEMARA. But why?36 Is not this a case where he37 is in one place and his ‘erub is in another?38 — Both Rab and Samuel explained: We are dealing here with a CUPBOARD of bricks39 and this ruling represents the view of R. Meir who maintains that it is permitted at the outset40 to make a breach41 [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,42 it is permitted to take [the fruit out] through the breach;43 and R. Meir ruled: It is permitted at the outset to make a breach41 in order to take [the fruit out].44 But did not R. Nahman b. Adda state in the name of Samuel [that the reference there44 is] to a pile of bricks?45 — Here46 also [the reference is] to a pile of bricks. But did not R. Zera maintain that [the Rabbis]47 spoke only of a festival but not of a Sabbath?48 — Here49 also [the ‘erub is one that was prepared] for a festival. If that were so,50 would it have been justified to state51 in reference to this [Mishnah that] ‘R. Eliezer52 ruled: If [the key] was lost in town the ‘erub is effective53 but if it was lost in a field54 it is not effective’ .55 Now if it was on a festival56 there is no difference in this respect between a town and a field? 57 the Sabbath eve. 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. growing plant. also at twilight. Such possibility need not be provided for in [the case of a tree which is hard and strong. embankment made of growing reeds? the category of herb, may, therefore, be used. made at the outset in a cupboard, the bricks in whose walls are presumably firmly built up? belong to the same class of domain. 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).