Eruvin 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

We also raise an objection to this: Do not the beginning and the end contradict one another? For

the beginning

of Rav Naḥman’s statement—which says: One may provide an individual or two people with only a beit se’a—is in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda

! For if it were in accordance with the Rabbis, even an individual would be provided with as much as he requires.

And

if

the end

of his statement—which says: One provides a caravan with as much as it requires—is in accordance with

the Rabbis

! For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, even a caravan would be provided with only one beit se’atayim for each person?!

And we answer:

Yes!

Indeed, regarding the individual, to whom Rav Naḥman grants only one beit se’atayim, Rav Naḥman ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, and not in accordance with the Rabbis,

because

Rabbi Yehuda,

his father

of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, also followed

the approach

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

But with regard to a caravan, Rav Naḥman ruled in accordance with the Rabbis [and Rabbi Yehuda], and not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda!

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Three

people who enclosed an area with a partition of vertical or horizontal poles are sometimes forbidden to use even

an

area of

five

beit se’a within the enclosure,

and

sometimes they are permitted to use even

an

area of

seven

beit se’a within the enclosure,

and are permitted!

They said to

Rav Giddel: Did

Rav really say this?! [Could Rav have stated something as astonishing as this?! Ritva]

Rav Giddel said to them:

In

the Torah,

in

the Prophets, and

in

the Writings [in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. This is an oath formula, as though he had sworn by them],

Rav said this!

Rav Ashi said: What difficulty

is there in Rav’s statement?!

Perhaps this is what he said:

If those making the enclosure

required

only

an

enclosure of

six

beit se’a,

but enclosed

an area of

seven

beit se’a, so that only one beit se’a remains unused,

even an

area of the entire

seven

is

permitted to them.

But where they

did not require

an enclosure

of five

beit se’a,

and enclosed

an area of

seven

beit se’a, so that two complete beit se’a remain unused—

even

to use

an

area of

five

beit se’a from within the enclosure of seven,

they are forbidden,

as we said above in the beraita: One provides them with as much as they require, “provided that there is not a vacant beit se’atayim.”

We raise an objection to Rav Ashi, who said that an enclosure of seven se’a for three people is ineffective if they required only five:

But if so, what of that which is taught

in the beraita: They may make an enclosure as large as they require,

provided that there is not a vacant beit se’atayim.

Does this not mean that

the statement is to be understood in two ways?

a. The amount of space they require for their use, to place their belongings there—even five kor.

b. Even when they do not need the entire area for use, they are “provided” with all the space required by the number of people. That is, one beit se’atayim for each person [Ritva].

Provided that a beit se’atayim is not

vacant of people—that is, vacant of a person to whom the use of a beit se’atayim within the enclosure can be attributed.

That is: one “provides” each member of the caravan with one beit se’atayim. If a complete beit se’atayim remains vacant, the entire enclosure is ineffective. But as long as the number of beit se’atayim enclosed does not exceed the number of people, the entire enclosure is valid, even when they do not need to use all of it, and more than one beit se’atayim remains unused.

Now this is difficult: How could Rav Ashi say that if they enclosed seven se’a for three people, they are forbidden?

For three people are “provided” with six beit se’a, and only one beit se’a remains vacant. Why, then, is it not effective?!

And we answer:

We answer:

No!

The size of the enclosure does not depend at all on the number of people. Rather, it is determined only by the amount required by the members of the caravan for using their belongings. If there are three people who require only five beit se’a, and there are two beit se’a

vacant of belongings

that they require, they are forbidden to use the entire enclosure.

And even if three people required only two beit se’a and enclosed four beit se’a, they are forbidden to use the entire enclosure.

It was stated:

Three

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

and one of them died

on Shabbat, leaving an enclosure larger than what is permitted for the two who remain, since according to Rabbi Yehuda two people may enclose only one beit se’atayim!

Or

two

people who enclosed before Shabbat more than one beit se’atayim—which, according to Rabbi Yehuda, they are forbidden to carry within—

and additional residents joined them

on Shabbat, until they became a caravan, for whom a larger enclosure is permitted [this has been explained according to Rashi’s interpretation; see the Ritva, who explains the question even without reference to Rabbi Yehuda].

Rav Huna and

Rabbi Yitzḥak

disagree about these cases:

One says:

The onset of

Shabbat determines the matter!

Therefore, if there were three people before Shabbat and they made a properly large enclosure, since the onset of Shabbat causes the permission, they are permitted even if only two remain [even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who permits two people only one beit se’atayim].

Conversely, if two people enclosed more than is permitted to them according to Rabbi Yehuda, then although additional residents joined them on Shabbat, they remain forbidden according to Rabbi Yehuda, since when Shabbat began it caused them to be forbidden to carry.

And one says: The residents

at the time of carrying

determine the matter!

Therefore, if three people enclosed more than one beit se’atayim on the eve of Shabbat and two remain, they are forbidden. But if two people enclosed more than one beit se’atayim and additional residents joined them on Shabbat, they are permitted!

And we explain:

It can be established—

prove

that it is Rav Huna who said

“Shabbat determines.”

For Rabba said:

Two courtyards that have an opening between them four handbreadths wide by four handbreadths high may make one courtyard eruv, and they are permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other.

And I asked

Rav Huna,

and

so

I asked

Rav Yehuda as well:

If they made an eruv through an opening

that existed on the eve of Shabbat,

and the opening became blocked

on Shabbat because a mound of rubble fell there, or if they made an eruv

through a window

that was four by four handbreadths,

and the window became blocked

on Shabbat—

what is

the ruling regarding carrying from one courtyard to the other through small windows that are not four by four handbreadths?

And Rav Huna said to me:

Rav Huna said:

Since Shabbat, when it was permitted

at its onset,

was permitted, it remains permitted!

Here too, we follow the onset of Shabbat, whether for permitting or for prohibiting.

And we conclude:

It can be established!

We inquire:

Shall we say

whether

Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda?

As we learned: A courtyard

surrounded by partitions before Shabbat,

whose partitions were breached

on Shabbat

on two of its sides

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

And likewise, a house whose two sides were breached.

And likewise, a mavוי whose

beam or side-post

was removed

on Shabbat—

They are permitted

to carry

on that Shabbat,

since they were permitted when Shabbat began; we say: Since it was permitted, it remains permitted.

But they are forbidden in the future

on other Shabbatot.

This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda!

Rabbi Yosei says:

They are forbidden even on that Shabbat. For in either event:

If they are permitted on that Shabbat, they are permitted

also on Shabbatot

in the future. But if they are forbidden in the future

they are forbidden

even

on that Shabbat.

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

Now,

shall we say that Rav Huna,

who holds that “Shabbat determines,”

spoke in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

And

if

Rabbi Yitzḥak, who does not hold that the matter depends on Shabbat,

does not agree with this—

he spoke in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

Rav Huna could say to you: I,

who hold that Shabbat determines,

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 it was permitted when Shabbat began, it remains permitted.”

For

Rabbi Yosei stated his position only there,

where we do not say that since it was permitted, it remains permitted,

but

specifically there,

where the partitions are absent,

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

But

here,

in the case of an enclosure made with a partition of vertical poles,

the partitions are present;

it is only the absence of residents that causes the prohibition against carrying, and therefore it is proper to say that we follow the onset of Shabbat.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said

to you:

I can say this even according to Rabbi Yehuda,

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

For

Rabbi Yehuda stated his position only there,

where we say so,

but only when the residents are present

and it is the partition that fell. But

here the residents are absent,

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

We learned in the Mishna: Any partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal elements is not a partition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say

that it is sufficient to have

one of the two elements.

We raise an objection: The Sages—

is that not the first tanna?!

That is: What is the difference between the earlier Rabbis, who say that they spoke of a caravan only because that is the typical case, and therefore even an individual is permitted to use a partition of vertical or horizontal poles, and the later Rabbis, who likewise say that one of the two elements suffices?!

And we answer:

The difference between them concerns an individual in an inhabited area,

whether a partition of only vertical or horizontal poles is effective for him for as much space as he requires.

According to the earlier Rabbis, it is not effective, for they say: They spoke of a caravan only because that is the typical case, since a caravan normally travels in the wilderness. Therefore, an individual too is permitted to make an enclosure as large as he requires only in the wilderness, analogous to a caravan. But in an inhabited area, where he can make a proper partition, an individual is not permitted to use only a partition of vertical or horizontal poles, except for an area of one beit se’atayim [Ritva].

But according to the later Rabbis, a partition of vertical or horizontal poles is effective for an individual for as much space as he requires, even in an inhabited area. For the statement of the later Rabbis is directed against the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda. He said: A partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal elements is not a partition, whether in an inhabited area or in the wilderness. And concerning this the later Rabbis say that one of the two elements suffices, whether for a caravan or for an individual, whether in an inhabited area or in the wilderness.

The conclusion of the sugya, explaining the four opinions in the Mishna, is as follows:

a. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda:

For three people who constitute a caravan, a partition of vertical or horizontal poles is permitted for as much space as they require [provided that a beit se’atayim of the belongings they require is not left vacant]. But for one or two people, only an enclosure of one beit se’atayim is permitted, and no more.

b. The opinion of the earlier Rabbis:

In the wilderness: Both a caravan and an individual are provided with an enclosure as large as they require [provided that a beit se’atayim is not left vacant].

In an inhabited area: An individual is provided with one beit se’atayim [Ritva; see the glosses of the Bach on the Rif, letter 1]. A caravan is provided with as much space as it requires [Ritva; see carefully Rashi’s wording in his commentary beginning “The difference between them”].

c. The opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda:

A caravan is provided with one beit se’atayim for each person, while one or two people are provided with only one beit se’atayim in total.

d. The opinion of the later Rabbis:

Whether for a caravan or for an individual, and whether in an inhabited area or in the wilderness, they are provided with as much space as they require, provided that a beit se’atayim is not left vacant.

Mishna:

The Sages exempted a camp from four matters,

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

a.

They may bring wood

for their needs

from anywhere,

and they need not be concerned about theft.

b.

They are exempt from washing [from washing]

their hands

before a meal [and before prayer. They may wipe their hands with earth alone, Rabbenu Yehonatan].

c.

And

they are exempt

from demai—that is, they are permitted to eat demai [produce concerning which it is uncertain whether tithes were taken. Since most unlearned people do take tithes, the obligation to tithe demai is merely a rabbinic stringency; in a camp, the Sages were lenient—based on Rashi on the following amud].

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 establishing

a courtyard eruv. If these people enclosed separately from those people, with a partition separating them, and there is an opening between them, they need not establish 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 [Ordinarily, a war is a discretionary war, from the time after Joshua’s war onward, whereas Joshua’s war was a mitzva]—

they are permitted to take dry wood unlawfully,

as it is preferable, and all the more so moist wood.

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

And 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 is taught in the beraita:

They are permitted to take dry wood unlawfully.

And we challenge this: How can you say that it was only for a camp that it was permitted to take wood unlawfully?

But

this ordinance of Joshua was

to permit it to everyone?!

For the Master said: Joshua made ten conditions

with the Jewish people when he divided the land among them: a.

That

everyone

may pasture [lead his animals to graze]

in wooded areas [in the forest] belonging to another person, and the owner of the forest may not object, because it is not designated for harvesting.

b.

And

likewise, everyone

may gather

wood from the fields

of the Jewish people!

We see, then, that everyone was permitted to gather wood from anywhere. How, then, can you say that it was permitted only for a camp?!

And we answer:

There,

in Joshua’s ordinance, the reference is

to hazmei and higei [inferior wood, nearly thorns—Maimonides].

But

here,

in the case of a camp, it is permitted to gather even

other types of wood!

Alternatively:

There,

in Joshua’s ordinance, they permitted specifically

wood

that was attached to the ground.

But

here,

in the case of a camp, it is permitted even to take

wood

wood

that has been detached,

wood that the owners detached for their own use as fuel and whose taking by others would constitute theft; it is nevertheless permitted to members of the camp.

Alternatively:

There,

in Joshua’s ordinance, only

moist wood was permitted.

Here,

in the case of a camp, it is permitted even

dry wood.

with dry wood.

We learned in a beraita:

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

We challenge this:

It is obvious

that where they are killed, there they are buried, since one who is killed in war

is

a dead person whose burial is a mitzva.

A dead person whose burial is a mitzva

acquires his place

to be buried where he died!

Is this, then, one of the ten conditions that Joshua made when he divided the land?!