Eruvin 17a — the Talmud in English

And we likewise raise a difficulty against it: But the beginning and the end contradict one another! For

the beginning

of Rav Naḥman’s statement—which says: One gives an individual or two people only two beit se’a, according to

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda

, it is! For if it is according to the Rabbis, even to an individual one gives whatever he requires.

And

if so,

the end

of his statement—which says: One gives a caravan whatever it requires—is according to

the Rabbis

! For if it is according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, one gives even a caravan only two beit se’a to each person?!

And we answer:

Yes!

Indeed, regarding the individual, to whom one gives only two beit se’a, Rav Naḥman ruled according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, and not according to the Rabbis,

because

Rabbi Yehuda,

his father

of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, also stood

according to the method

of his son, Rabbi Yosei, as we said above: Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one gives an individual two beit se’a.

But regarding a caravan, Rav Naḥman ruled according to the Rabbis [and according to Rabbi Yehuda], and not according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda!

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: Three

people who surrounded themselves with a partition of vertical or horizontal poles, sometimes even

in

an area of

five

beit se’a within the enclosure, they are also

forbidden!

And sometimes even

in

an area of

seven

beit se’a of the enclosure they are also

permitted!

They said to

Rav Giddel: But

did Rav say this?! [It is possible that Rav would say a surprising statement such as this?! Ritva]

Rav Giddel said to them:

By

the Torah,

by

the Prophets, and

by

the Writings [In the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Writings. And it is an expression of an oath, as though he said that he swore by them]

Рав действительно сказал так!

Rav said this!

Rav Ashi said: What difficulty

is there in Rav’s words?!

Perhaps this is what he said:

If those who made the enclosure

required

only

an

enclosure of

six

beit se’a,

and they enclosed

seven

beit

se’a, so that there is only one beit se’a free here,

even in

the area of all the

seven

they are

permitted!

But where

they did not require

an enclosure

except of five

beit se’a,

and they enclosed

seven

beit

se’a, so that two complete beit se’a are found free—

even

to use

an

area of

five

beit se’a within the enclosure of seven, they are

forbidden,

as we said above in the beraita: One gives them whatever they require, “provided that there is not a free two beit se’a”!

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Ashi, who says that an enclosure of seven beit se’a for three people is not effective if they required only five:

Rather, what of that which it teaches

in the beraita: They make an enclosure whatever they require

provided that there is not a free two beit se’a.

Is it not

saying this: They make an enclosure whatever they require, in two ways:

a. The area which they require for their use, to place their utensils there—even five kur.

b. Even when they do not require all of it for use, one “gives” them all that they require according to the number of people; that is, two beit se’a for each one [Ritva].

Provided that there is not a two beit se’a

free of people

, meaning: free of a person to whom the use of two beit se’a within the enclosure can be attributed.

That is: one “gives” each member of the caravan one two-beit se’a area. And if a complete two beit se’a remains free, then the entire enclosure is not effective. But as long as the number of beit se’a enclosed is no greater than the number of people, the entire enclosure is valid, even when they do not require using all of it, and more than one beit se’a remains free of use.

And now it is difficult: How can Rav Ashi say that if they enclosed seven beit se’a for three people, they are forbidden?

But for three people one “gives” six beit se’a, and there is here only one beit se’a free; why is it not effective?!

And we answer:

No!

The size of the enclosure is not dependent at all on the number of people. Rather, it is only according to what the members of the caravan require for use of their utensils. And if there are three people who require only five, and there are two beit se’a

free of utensils

that they require, they are forbidden throughout the entire enclosure.

And even three people who required only two beit se’a, and enclosed four beit se’a, are forbidden throughout the entire enclosure.

It was stated:

Three

people who are a “caravan,” who enclosed before Shabbat an area as large as required for the three of them,

and one of them died

on Shabbat, leaving an enclosure larger than what is permitted for the remaining two—for according to Rabbi Yehuda, two are permitted to enclose only one two-beit se’a area!

Or

two

who enclosed before Shabbat more than one two-beit se’a area—which according to Rabbi Yehuda they are forbidden to carry in—and

residents were added to them

on Shabbat, until they became a caravan, for whom a large enclosure is permitted [explained according to Rashi’s interpretation; see the Ritva, who explained that the question applies even not according to Rabbi Yehuda].

They disagree about these cases,

Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak:

disagree about these cases:

One said:

The entry of

Shabbat causes it!

Therefore: If there were three before Shabbat and they enclosed a large enclosure lawfully, since Shabbat causes the permission, they are permitted even after two remained [and even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who permits two only one two-beit se’a area].

Conversely, two who enclosed more than what was permitted to them according to Rabbi Yehuda, even though residents were added on Shabbat, are forbidden according to Rabbi Yehuda, since when Shabbat entered it caused them the prohibition of carrying!

And one said: The residents

at the time of carrying

cause it!

Therefore: Three who enclosed on the eve of Shabbat more than one two-beit se’a area, and two remained, are forbidden. And two who enclosed more than one two-beit se’a area, and residents were added to them on Shabbat, are permitted!

And we explain:

It may be concluded

—prove

that it was Rav Huna who said

“Shabbat causes!”

For Rabba said:

Two courtyards between which there is an opening four handbreadths wide by four handbreadths, may make one courtyard eruv, and they are permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other.

And I asked

Rabbi Huna,

and

so

I asked

also

Rabbi Yehuda: One made an eruv through the opening

that existed on the eve of Shabbat,

and the opening became blocked

on Shabbat because a collapse fell there; or he made an eruv

through the window

that was four by four,

and the window became blocked

on Shabbat—

what

is the law regarding carrying from one courtyard to the other through small windows that do not have the measure of four by four between them?

And

Rabbi Huna

said to me: Shabbat, since it was permitted

at its entry,

is permitted!

And here too, we follow the entry of Shabbat, both for permission and for prohibition.

And we conclude:

It may be concluded!

And we raise the question:

Let us say—

whether

Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda?

For we learned: A courtyard

enclosed by partitions before Shabbat,

which was breached

on Shabbat

on two of its sides

into a place to which carrying is forbidden [and in the Gemara below, on page 94b, it explains why it did not say that it was breached on one side. And likewise, how is it possible for the courtyard to require the breaching of two sides in order to become forbidden on Shabbat].

And likewise a house that was breached on two of its sides.

And likewise a lane whose

beam

or cheek was removed

on Shabbat [Rashi here, and on page 94a]—

They are permitted

to carry

for that Shabbat

, since at its entry they were permitted, we say: Since it was permitted, it remains permitted.

And they are forbidden for the future

on other Shabbatot.

The words of Rabbi Yehuda!

Rabbi Yosei says:

They are forbidden even for that Shabbat. For in either case:

If they are permitted for that Shabbat, they are permitted

also for Shabbatot that

will be in the future. And if they are forbidden for the future

, they are forbidden

even

for that Shabbat.

For Rabbi Yosei does not hold that “since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted”!

And now,

let us say that Rav Huna

who holds that “Shabbat causes,”

said according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And

if so,

Rabbi Yitzḥak

who does not hold that it depends on Shabbat,

said according to Rabbi Yosei!

Rav Huna could say to you: I

, who hold that Shabbat causes,

can say

that with regard to partitions that fell, I can hold

even according to Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that we do not say, “Since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted.”

For

Rabbi Yosei said that only there

—that we do not say “since it was permitted, it remains permitted”—

but

specifically there,

where the partitions are absent

, so that the place lacks partitions to permit carrying in it. In such a case we do not say, “Since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted.”

But

here,

regarding an enclosure with a partition of vertical poles, the partitions

are present,

and it is only the lack of residents that causes the prohibition of carrying; therefore it is properly said that we follow the entry of Shabbat.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said

to you:

I can say this even according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that we say, “Since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted.”

For

Rabbi Yehuda said that only there

that we say so,

but the residents are present

and it is the partition that fell. But

here the residents are absent,

and therefore we do not say, “Since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted.”

We learned in the Mishna: Any partition that is not of vertical and horizontal poles is not a partition; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say

it is enough with

one of the two things.

And we raise a difficulty: The Sages—

is that not the first tanna?!

That is: What is the difference between the earlier Rabbis, who say: They spoke of a caravan only regarding the usual case, and even for an individual a partition of vertical or horizontal poles is permitted; and the later Rabbis, who likewise say that one of the two is sufficient?!

And we answer:

The difference between them is an individual in an inhabited place,

whether a partition of vertical or horizontal poles alone is effective for him for all that he requires!

According to the earlier Rabbis, it is not effective, for they say: They spoke of a caravan only regarding the usual case, whose practice is to travel in the wilderness. Therefore, even an individual was permitted to enclose all that he requires only in the wilderness, analogous to a caravan; but in an inhabited place, where he can make a proper partition, an individual was not permitted a partition of vertical or horizontal poles alone, except up to two beit se’a [Ritva].

But according to the later Rabbis, a partition of vertical or horizontal poles is effective for all that an individual requires even in an inhabited place. For the words of the later Rabbis are stated with regard to the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. And he said: A partition that is not of vertical and horizontal poles is not a partition, both in an inhabited place and in the wilderness. And concerning this the later Rabbis say that one of the two things is sufficient, both for a caravan and for an individual, both in an inhabited place and in the wilderness.

And what emerges from the sugya in explaining the four methods in the Mishna:

a. The view of Rabbi Yehuda:

For three people who are a caravan, a partition of vertical or horizontal poles is permitted for all that they require [provided that there is not a two beit se’a area free of utensils that they require]. And for one person or two, only an enclosure of two beit se’a, and no more, is permitted to them.

b. The view of the earlier Rabbis:

In the wilderness: One gives both a caravan and an individual permission to enclose all that they require [provided that there is not a free two beit se’a].

And in an inhabited place: For an individual, one gives two beit se’a [Ritva. And see the glosses of the Bach on the Rif, letter 1]. And for a caravan, all that it requires [Ritva. And examine well Rashi’s wording in the paragraph beginning “The difference between them”].

c. The view of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda:

For a caravan, one gives two beit se’a to each person, and for one person or two, one gives only one two-beit se’a area.

d. The view of the later Rabbis:

Both for a caravan and for an individual, both in an inhabited place and in the wilderness, one gives them all that they require, provided that there is not a free two beit se’a.

Mishna:

Four things were exempted for a camp,

those who go out to war, even to a discretionary war, because they are occupied with conquering the lands [Commentary on the Mishna by Maimonides].

a.

They bring wood

for their needs

from any place,

and they are not concerned about robbery.

b. They are

exempt from washing

[from taking]

the hands

before the meal [and before prayer. And they wipe their hands with earth alone, Rabbeinu Yehonatan].

c.

And

they are

exempt from demai,

meaning: They are permitted to eat demai [produce concerning which it is uncertain whether it was tithed. Since most common people tithe, and it is only a rabbinic stringency that they imposed an obligation to tithe, in a camp they were lenient—based on Rashi on folio 17b].

d.

And

they are

exempt from making

a courtyard eruv: If these enclosed separately and those enclosed separately, and a partition separates between them, and there is an opening between them, they do not need to make an eruv between them in order to carry from one enclosure to the other.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A camp that goes out to a discretionary war [An unspecified war is a discretionary war, from after the war of Joshua onward, since that was a mitzva war]—

they are permitted to take dry wood unlawfully,

because it is preferable; and needless to say, moist wood.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also camp anywhere.

And at the place where they are killed, there they are buried [That is: They are permitted to bury them there—Meiri—even though the place does not belong to them].

It teaches in the beraita:

They are permitted to take dry wood unlawfully:

And we raise an objection: How did you say that only a camp was permitted to take wood unlawfully?

But

this enactment of Joshua existed

to permit it to every person?!

For the Master said: Joshua stipulated ten conditions

with the Children of Israel when he divided the land: a.

That

every person

may pasture

[lead his animals to graze]

in the forests

[in the forest] of his fellow, and the owner of the forest should not object, because it is not designated for cutting.

b.

And

likewise every person

may gather

все люди

wood from their fields

of Israel!

We see, then, that even every person was permitted to gather wood from any place; so how did you say that only a camp was permitted?!

And we answer:

There,

in Joshua’s enactment, it speaks

of thorny shrubs and thistles [inferior wood, close to becoming thorns—Maimonides].

But

here,

in a camp, it is permitted to gather even

other wood!

Alternatively:

There,

in Joshua’s enactment, they permitted specifically

wood

attached

to the ground.

But

here,

in a camp, it is permitted even

wood

that has been detached,

detached, which the owners detached for their needs as fuel, and which constitutes robbery with regard to others; it is permitted to the members of a camp.

Alternatively:

There,

in Joshua’s enactment, it was permitted only

with moist

wood.

Here,

in a camp, it is permitted even

with dry wood.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also camp anywhere, and at the place where they are killed, there they are buried.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

It is obvious,

that at the place where they are killed, there they are buried, for one who is killed in war

is

a

mitzva-dead person, and a

mitzva-dead person acquires his place

to bury him in the place where he died!

And is this law one of the ten conditions that Joshua stipulated when he divided the land?!