Eruvin 33
וְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִשְׁבּוֹת בְּעִיקָּרוֹ. וּמַאי ״לְמַעְלָה״ וּמַאי ״לְמַטָּה״ — דַּהֲדַר זָקֵיף.
and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence at its base. And what is the meaning of the terms above and below, as we said that this tree extends horizontally to the side, which indicates that it remains at a uniform height? After the tree leans horizontally beyond four cubits from the place of its roots, it rises once again in an upright position, and therefore the terms above and below are applicable.
וְהָא אִי בָּעֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ דֶּרֶךְ עָלָיו!
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it true that even if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, if one wants, he can remove it from where it was deposited and bring it by way of the tree’s leaves, i.e., its branches that are above ten handbreadths, to within four cubits of the place where he intended to establish his Shabbat residence? Therefore, the eiruv should be valid even though it is above ten handbreadths.
כְּשֶׁרַבִּים מְכַתְּפִין עָלָיו, וְכִדְעוּלָּא. דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: עַמּוּד תִּשְׁעָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְכַתְּפִין עָלָיו, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו — חַיָּיב.
The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a unique situation where the horizontal section of the tree is used by the masses to shoulder their burdens on it, i.e., to temporarily rest their loads on it, so that they can adjust them and easily lift them up again; and the halakha in that case is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: With regard to a pillar that is nine handbreadths high and situated in the public domain, and the masses use it to shoulder their loads upon it, and someone threw an object from a private domain and it came to rest upon it, he is liable, as this pillar has the status of a public domain. Consequently, in the case of the tree, one may not bring the eiruv by way of the tree’s branches, as the horizontal section of the tree has the status of a public domain, and one may not carry from one private domain to another via a public domain.
מַאי רַבִּי, וּמַאי רַבָּנַן?
The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree is not prohibited during the twilight period. The Gemara now attempts to clarify the matter: What is the source that originally cites Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, and what is the source which cites the opinion of the Rabbis?
דְּתַנְיָא: נְתָנוֹ בְּאִילָן, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, וְאָסוּר לִיטְּלוֹ. בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה — מוּתָּר לִיטְּלוֹ. נְתָנוֹ בְּכַלְכַּלָּה וּתְלָאוֹ בְּאִילָן, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסוּר לִיטְּלוֹ — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.
The Gemara cites the source of the disagreement: As it was taught in the Tosefta: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he placed it below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, but he is prohibited to take it on Shabbat in order to eat it because it is prohibited to use the tree on Shabbat. However, if the eiruv is within three handbreadths of the ground, he is permitted to take it because it is considered as though it were on the ground and not in a tree. If one placed the eiruv in a basket and hung it on a tree, even above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis disagree and say: In any situation in which the eiruv was placed in a location where it is prohibited to take it, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא — לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן, צְדָדִין אֲסוּרִין?! אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא.
The Gemara clarifies: With regard to which statement did the Rabbis state their opinion? If you say they were referring to the latter clause with respect to the basket hanging from the tree, let us say that the Rabbis hold that using even the sides of a tree is prohibited, as making use of the basket is considered using the sides of a tree. Rather, the Rabbis’ statement must refer to the first clause, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if one put the eiruv below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is valid, but he is prohibited to move it.
הַאי אִילָן הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה — מְקוֹם פְּטוּר הוּא. וְאִי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה, כִּי נְתָנוֹ בְּכַלְכַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי?
The Gemara clarifies further: This tree, what are its circumstances? If it is not four by four handbreadths wide, it is an exempt domain, i.e., a neutral place with respect to the laws of carrying on Shabbat, from which an object may be carried into any other Shabbat domain. In that case, the eiruv should be valid even if it was placed higher than ten handbreadths in the tree. And if it is four by four handbreadths wide, when one places it in a basket, what of it? What difference does it make? In any event it is in a private domain.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: רֵישָׁא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה, סֵיפָא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה וְכַלְכַּלָּה מַשְׁלִימָתוֹ לְאַרְבָּעָה.
Ravina said: The first clause is referring to a case where the tree is four by four handbreadths wide. The eiruv is not valid if it was placed above ten handbreadths because the tree at that height constitutes a private domain, and the eiruv cannot be brought to the public domain below, where one wishes to establish his Shabbat residence. The latter clause, however, is referring to a case where the tree is not four by four handbreadths wide, and the basket completes the width of the tree at that spot to four.
וְרַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר חוֹקְקִין לְהַשְׁלִים.
The Gemara clarifies: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said the following in the case of an arched gateway in which the lower, straight-walled section is three handbreadths high, and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high: Even if, at the height of ten handbreadths, the arch is less than four handbreadths wide, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the arch has the legal status as though it were actually enlarged to a width of four handbreadths. Similarly, in our case the basket is taken into account and enlarges the tree to a width of four handbreadths.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר בָּעִינַן עֵירוּב עַל גַּבֵּי מְקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה, וְלֵיכָּא.
And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: We require that the eiruv rest on a place that is four by four handbreadths wide, and here there is not a width of four handbreadths without taking the basket into account.
מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נָעַץ קוֹרָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ עֵירוּבוֹ עָלֶיהָ, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.
The Gemara now asks: What is the source of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one stuck a cross beam into the ground in the public domain and placed his eiruv upon it, if the cross beam is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it has the status of a private domain, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if not, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.
אַדְּרַבָּה, הוּא וְעֵירוּבוֹ בִּמְקוֹם אֶחָד! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּרֹאשָׁהּ אַרְבָּעָה, אֵין גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה — אֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בְּרֹאשָׁהּ אַרְבָּעָה.
The Gemara expresses surprise: On the contrary, if the cross beam is not ten handbreadths high, why shouldn’t his eiruv be valid? He and his eiruv are in the same place, i.e., in the public domain. Rather, this is what he said: If the cross beam is ten handbreadths high, it is necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide, so that it can be considered its own domain; but if it is not ten handbreadths high, it is not necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide because it is considered part of the public domain.
כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נָעַץ קָנֶה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ טְרַסְקָל, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו — חַיָּיב!
The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ravina offer his explanation, which maintains that we are dealing with a basket that completes the dimension of the tree to four handbreadths and yet it is not treated as a private domain? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If one stuck a reed into the ground in the public domain, and placed a basket [teraskal] four by four handbreadths wide on top of it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable for carrying from a public domain to a private domain. According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, if a surface of four by four handbreadths rests at a height of ten handbreadths from the ground, this is sufficient for it to be considered a private domain. Ravina’s explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position, however, does not appear to accept this assumption.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָתָם — הָדְרָן מְחִיצָתָא. הָכָא — לָא הָדְרָן מְחִיצָתָא.
The Gemara refutes this and claims that this proof is not conclusive: Even if you say that Ravina’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a distinction can be made: There, in the case of the basket resting on a reed, the sides of the basket constitute partitions that surround the reed on all sides, and we can invoke the principle of: Lower the partition, according to which the partitions are viewed as extending down to the ground. Consequently, a kind of private domain is created within the public domain. Here, in the case of the basket hanging from the tree, the partitions of the basket do not surround the tree, and so they do not suffice to create a private domain.
רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי כַּלְכַּלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לִנְטוֹתָהּ וְלַהֲבִיאָהּ לְתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה.
Rabbi Yirmeya said that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the Tosefta can be explained in an entirely different manner: A basket is different, since one can tilt it and in that way bring it to within ten handbreadths of the ground. Without moving the entire basket, one can tilt it and thereby remove the eiruv in order to eat it, without carrying it from one domain to another.
יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָא אָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב בַּר שַׁבָּא לְרַב פָּפָּא: כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? מוֹלִיכוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּמַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו, וְנוֹטְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ. בַּשֵּׁנִי, מַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו וְאוֹכְלוֹ, וּבָא לוֹ.
Rav Pappa sat and recited this halakha. Rav bar Shabba raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the following mishna: What does one do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, i.e., the eve of the Festival, and stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it does not become lost before Shabbat begins, in which case he would not have an eiruv for Shabbat. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his Shabbat residence; and then he may then eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires.
