Eruvin

— [Some words] indeed are missing [from the Baraitha] and this is the proper reading: If it was put In a cupboard and locked up and the key was lost the ‘erub is effective. This ruling, however, applies only to a festival but on a Sabbath1 the ‘erub is ineffective. [Even] if the key was found,2 whether in town or in a field, the ‘erub is ineffective.3 R. Eliezer ruled: [If it was found] in town the ‘erub is effective; if in a field it is ineffective. ‘In town the ‘erub is effective’ in agreement with R. Simeon who laid down that roofs, courtyards as well as karpafs4 have the status of the same domain in respect of objects that rested in them.5 In a field it is ineffective in agreement with the Rabbis.6 Both Rabbah and R. Joseph explained:7 We are dealing here with a wooden CUPBOARD, one Master8 being of the opinion that it [has the status of] a vessel to which the prohibition of building or demolition does not apply,9 while the other Master10 is of the opinion that it [has the status of] a tent .11 And do they12 then differ on the same principle as the following Tannas? For we learned: [If a Zab]13 beat [his fist]14 upon a chest, a box or a cupboard15 they16 become levitically unclean,17 but R. Nehemiah and R. Simeon declare them clean.18 Now, do not these differ on the following principle: One Master19 is of the opinion that it20 [is regarded as] a vessel21 while the other Masters22 are of the opinion that it [is regarded as] a tent?23 — Said Abaye: And how do you understand it?24 Was it not in fact taught: ‘If it was a tent25 that can be shaken26 it is unclean; if it is a vessel27 that cannot be shaken28 it is clean’?29 And, furthermore, in the final clause30 it was taught: ‘But if they were shifted28 they become unclean; this being the general rule: [If the object] is shifted from its place as a direct result of the zab's strength,31 it becomes unclean, [but if it moved from its place] on account of the vibration [of an object on which it rested]32 it remains clean’ ?33 Rather, said Abaye, all agree [that an object that] moved from its place as a direct result of the zab's strength is unclean34 [but if it moved as] a result of the shaking [of another object on which it rested] it is clean;35 but here36 we are dealing [with an object], the vibration of which was the direct result of the zab's strength.37 And it is this principle on which they differ. The Master38 is of the opinion [that such vibration] is regarded as a shifting [of the object from its place],39 and the Masters40 are of the opinion that it is not so regarded.41 How then is our Mishnah42 to be explained?43 — Both Abaye and Raba replied: We are dealing with a lock that44 was tied with a cord for the cutting of which a knife is required.45 The first Tanna holds the same view as R. Jose who laid down: All instruments may be moved on the Sabbath except a large saw46 and the pin of a plough,47 while R. Eliezer holds the same view as R. Nehemiah who laid down: Even a cloak and even a spoon may not be moved48 except for the purpose for which they were made.49 MISHNAH. [IF THE ‘ERUB] ROLLED AWAY BEYOND THE [SABBATH] LIMIT,50 OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT,51 OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN,52 [IF ANY OF THESE ACCIDENTS OCCURRED] WHILE IT WAS YET DAY,53 IT IS INEFFECTIVE, [BUT IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER DUSK54 THE ‘ERUB IS EFFECTIVE.55 IF THIS IS DOUBTFUL56 THE MAN,57 SAID R. MEIR AND R. JUDAH, [IS IN THE POSITION OF BOTH] AN ASS-DRIVER AND A CAMEL-DRIVER.58 R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON RULED: AN ‘ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. R. JOSE STATED: ABTOLEMOS TESTIFIED ON THE AUTHORITY OF FIVE ELDERS THAT AN ERUB [WHOSE VALIDITY IS] IN DOUBT IS EFFECTIVE. GEMARA. [IF AN ‘ERUB] ROLLED AWAY BEYOND THE [SABBATH] LIMIT. Raba stated: This was taught only where it rolled away beyond [a distance] of four cubits, but [if it rested] within the four cubits [it is effective, since a person] who deposits his ‘erub [in any spot] acquires59 [an area of] four cubits.60 OR IF A HEAP FELL ON IT etc. Having been presumed that, if desired, [the ‘erub] could be taken out,61 must it be assumed62 that our Mishnah is not in agreement with Rabbi, for if [it were suggested to be] in agreement with Rabbi [the difficulty would arise]: Did he not lay down that any work that was only Rabbinically prohibited was not forbidden as a preventive measure [on the Sabbath eve] at twilight?63 — It64 may be said to be in agreement even with Rabbi, since it may apply to a case65 where a hoe or a pick-axe is required.66 And [both rulings67 were] required. For if [only the one relating to an ‘erub that] ‘ROLLED AWAY’ had been taught it might have been presumed [that the ‘erub was ineffective] because it was not near the man for whom it had been provided,68 but that where a heap fell on it, since it is near that man,68 the ‘erub is effective. And if [only the ruling] ‘IF A HEAP FELL ON IT’ had been taught it might have been presumed [that the ‘erub was ineffective] because it was covered,69 but that where it rolled away, since a wind might sometimes rise and carry it [back to its place], the ‘erub might be said to be effective. [Hence both rulings were] required. OR IF IT WAS BURNT, [OR IF IT CONSISTED OF] TERUMAH THAT BECAME UNCLEAN. What need70 [was there for both these rulings]?- ‘IT WAS BURNT’ was taught and roofs. in the way described and thus to obtain the ‘erub. The last sentence is rightly omitted by Bah,. On the difficulties it presents cf. Strashun. open the ‘erub is accessible and effective. and from imparting uncleanness to it by ‘touch’. on the same principle as that on which the Tannas in our Mishnah differ. the conveyance of uncleanness by shaking is the shifting of the object from its place and that the question of ‘tent’ or ‘vessel’ does not at all arise. place, so that the movement is the result of the vibration of the floor and only the indirect result of the zab's strength. the zab, and that the question of its status as a tent or a vessel does not come at all under consideration. It cannot therefore be suggested that the Tannas in the Mishnah of Zabim differ on the question of the status of the cupboard as a vessel or tent. the object only vibrated but did not move from its place. maintain that the ‘erub is effective? If, however, it was a small one, of a capacity of less than forty se'ah of liquids, all would agree that it has the status of a ‘vessel’; how then could R. Eliezer maintain that the ‘erub is ineffective? breaking if the cord (cf. Bezah 31b); and, since the cupboard could be opened, the ‘erub which would in consequence be accessible, would be effective. Though the breaking of a cord on the Sabbath was permitted in connection with ‘vessels’ only, and not with structures (such as a tent or a cupboard) that are fixed to the ground, the ‘erub here would nevertheless be effective because at the twilight of Friday when the ‘erub comes into force, the breaking of the cord, which on the Sabbath itself is forbidden as a Rabbinical measure only, is not even Rabbinically forbidden. effectiveness of the ‘erub. being in consequence inaccessible, is, therefore, ineffective. In town, however, the ‘erub is effective since it is possible to carry the key to the cupboard by way of courtyards, roofs etc. as indicated supra. and in consequence of which the ‘erub was inaccessible to him. non-existent or inaccessible. both in existence and accessible, its subsequent loss or inaccessibility cannot in any way affect the rights it had conferred upon the man in connection with the Sabbath in question. behind. A man who is in charge of both animals can neither lead the two on account of the ass nor can he drive the two on account of the camel. So with the man the validity of whose ‘erub is in doubt. If the ‘erub is valid he can walk from the place of its deposit two thousand cubits in all directions including two thousand cubits in the direction of his home but not beyond it. If it is invalid he can walk from his home two thousand cubits in all directions including two thousand cubits in the direction of the ‘erub but not beyond it. As the validity of the ‘erub is in doubt he can only walk two thousand cubits distance between his home and the ‘erub but is forbidden to go beyond the ‘erub in the one direction and beyond his home in the other direction. of the stones that covered it. stones (being only Rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath) is according to Rabbi permitted, the ‘erub spoken of in our Mishnah would have been effective. forbidden, may not be performed even at twilight.