Eruvin 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:

And is it so that

you do not agree

that one may establish an eruv

even

for an adult on Yom Kippur,

despite the fact that it is not fit for him, since it is fit for a minor, who is not subject to punishment?!

They said to them,

Beit Shammai:

But [

indeed]!

Beit Hillel said to them,

Beit Shammai:

Just as one establishes an eruv for an adult on Yom Kippur, so too one establishes an eruv for a nazirite with wine, and for an Israelite with teruma!

And

the Gemara explains that

Beit Shammai

make a distinction:

There,

on Yom Kippur, the reason is not that it is fit for a minor, but because

there is a meal that is fit from before the day

of Yom Kippur, even for the adult who established the eruv [and this is in accordance with the opinion that will be stated below, on page 36a, that the eruv acquires its place of residence at the end of the day preceding Shabbat, and not at twilight. Ritva].

Here,

with regard to a nazirite and teruma,

there is no meal that is fit from before the day

for the one establishing the eruv.

And we explain the beraita as referring to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning an eruv that is forbidden to one person and permitted to another. This indicates that, with regard to the basic establishment of an eruv with food, Beit Shammai agree:

In accordance with whose opinion

is this beraita

not in accordance with Hanania

in his understanding of the opinion of Beit Shammai?!

As it was taught: Hanania says: Beit Shammai did not agree at all with regard to an eruv

that one may place his food at the place where he establishes his residence, because it does not acquire a place of residence for him

until he takes out his bed and all his utensils

that he needs for Shabbat [Ritva]

there [

to the place where he wishes to acquire residence] .

We further explain:

In accordance with whose opinion does this teaching go: One who established an eruv

—that is, he went out on Friday and sat at the end of the techum until he acquired residence there when the day became sanctified. And he did so

while

wearing

black

did not go out

outside the techum of his city

while wearing

clothing

white.

If he established an eruv while wearing

clothing

white—

he may not go out wearing black [

and the matter is explained as it proceeds]?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is Hanania, and it is according to the opinion of Beit Shammai.

We raise an objection to this:

And

is it so that

according to Hanania,

if he established an eruv while wearing white, it is specifically

wearing black that he may not go out,

that is, if he was accustomed to go out wearing black, or knew before Shabbat that he would need black clothing, he may not go out in them, since he did not take them there;

but wearing white

—the clothing in which he established the eruv, although he was not accustomed to go out in them and did not intend to go out in them—

he may go out?!

And

did

Hanania not say that one does not acquire a place of residence

until he takes out his bed and his utensils

that he is accustomed to use, or that he knows he will need,

there?

Since he did not take the black clothing out, he did not acquire his eruv at all! [Explained according to the Ritva below].

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna of the beraita

said:

He established an eruv while wearing white, but needed black clothing,

because he was accustomed to wearing them, or knew that he would need them—

he may not go out even wearing white,

because his eruv is not an eruv!

In accordance with whose opinion

does this beraita go?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is Hanania, and it is according to the opinion of Beit Shammai.

We learned in the Mishna: One establishes an eruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma.

Sumakhos says,

one establishes an eruv for an Israelite

with non-sacred produce.

And we infer:

But

with regard to what the Sages say, that one establishes an eruv

for a nazirite with wine, Sumakhos does not disagree,

to say that one may not establish an eruv with it, despite the fact that it is not fit for the one establishing the eruv himself!

What is the reason

of Sumakhos?

And we explain: It is because wine is considered “fit” for a nazirite for the purpose of an eruv, since

it is possible that he will have his nazirite vow dissolved [

since he can ask a Sage to permit his nazirite vow] .

We raise an objection:

If so,

with

teruma as well,

the Israelite should be permitted to establish an eruv, since

it is possible that he will have it dissolved,

as one can ask to have teruma annulled?!

And we answer:

If he has it dissolved,

it reverts to tevel [

if he asks to have the teruma annulled, all the produce, including the teruma itself, reverts to being tevel, which is forbidden to eat], and his request will not render it permitted for consumption.

We raise an objection:

Then let him designate teruma from it.

That is, he can ask to have it annulled, and afterward designate teruma from it

from another place,

thereby permitting the teruma. [

This is why it says “from another place”: If he designates teruma from the food with which he established the eruv, the requisite amount will be lacking, as the Gemara explains below].

Although it is forbidden to designate teruma on Shabbat, since this is merely a rabbinic shevut, they did not issue a decree against it at twilight. Consequently, at the time the eruv acquired its status, he would have been permitted to designate teruma.

And we answer:

The ḥaverim are not suspected of designating teruma

from their produce

other than from produce in proximity [

but only from adjacent produce], and at the place where the eruv is acquired, he has no tevel from which to designate teruma for the eruv .

We raise an objection: In any event, why can he not permit the eruv if he wishes?

Let him designate teruma from it itself,

and let whatever remains after designating the teruma serve as the eruv?!

And we answer:

It does not contain [

the eruv]

the requisite amount

for both an eruv and teruma.

We raise an objection:

But what basis is there for this conclusion?!

That is, what kind of answer is this? Did the tanna determine that a person gives his eruv only exactly according to the minimum measure, so that the tanna stated without qualification, “One establishes an eruv only with non-sacred produce”?

After all, if he adds a little food beyond the requisite measure for an eruv, he can certainly establish an eruv even with teruma, since he can ask to have it annulled and afterward designate teruma from it itself?!

Rather,

we explain Sumakhos’s position—that he does not permit establishing an eruv with teruma even though one can ask to have it annulled and designate teruma from it itself—in a different manner:

Sumakhos follows the opinion of the Sages, who say: Any matter that is

forbidden

because of

a “shevut” [

rabbinically]—

they issued a decree against it at twilight,

just as it is forbidden on Shabbat itself. Therefore, one cannot designate teruma at twilight, which is the time when the eruv acquires its status, since through his designation he “rectifies” the tevel by making it fit for consumption.

And we explain:

In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned:

There are

matters

for which the Sages stated

a measure that is not the same for everyone.

Rather,

everything is according to the nature of the person:

1.

“The full handful,”

which the priest takes as a fistful from the

meal-offering

in order to burn it on the altar—the measure is according to the size of the handful of the priest taking the fistful.

2.

And “the full cupped handful” of

incense

that the High Priest brings into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur—the measure is the amount that fills his own cupped hands.

3.

And one who drinks

a beverage in the measure of

“the fullness of his cheek”

of his own

on Yom Kippur is

liable to karet.

4.

And with regard to food for two meals,

one requires the measure of his own meal

for the eruv [

for example, a sick or elderly person], and it does not depend on the meal of an ordinary person [and below the matter is explained more fully].

In accordance with whose opinion

does this Mishna go, which states that the measure of food for an eruv depends on the measure of his own meal and not on the measure of the meal of every person?

Rabbi Zeira said: It is Sumakhos, who says: Whatever is “fit for him,”

we require

for the eruv, and what is fit for others is not effective .

And we explain:

Let us say that this Mishna, which states with regard to an eruv as well, “Everything is according to the nature of the person,”

is

in disagreement with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

As it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One establishes an eruv for a sick or elderly person

according to the amount of food he requires.

And

for

a glutton,

who eats more, one measures

according to the average meal of every person.

And we do not say in the case of a glutton, “Everything is according to the nature of the person.”

And we explain: The Mishna can also be understood as agreeing with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Explain it

by applying the Mishna’s statement, “Everything is according to the nature of the person,”

to a sick or elderly person,

who do not need to establish an eruv with the meals of ordinary people. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with this, as he said in the beraita.

But in the case of a glutton, even according to the tanna of the Mishna, we do not say, “Everything is according to the nature of the person,” since

his opinion is disregarded in comparison with that of ordinary people.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

one establishes an eruv

for a priest in a beit haperas,

even according to Sumakhos, who maintains that the eruv must be fit for consumption by the person establishing the eruv himself.

And we explain how the food located in a beit haperas is fit for a priest:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A person may blow

the dust before his feet, in

a beit haperas,

to see whether there is a bone there, so that he will not move it and become impure through carrying it,

and he may proceed

on his way [and he does not become impure through the impurity of a tent from a corpse, since bones without flesh do not impart impurity in a tent].

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda [

this is a statement, and it is not referring to the Mishna]:

A beit haperas that has been trampled

by the feet of people is

pure,

because the bones in it have already been trampled and reduced to less than the size of a barley-grain, which is the measure of a bone that imparts impurity through contact and carrying.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a house [

the Mishna states:

between]

the graves,

because he can create a barrier and go eat:

The tanna

in a beraita explains the statement of Rabbi Yehuda:

Because he can create a barrier

between himself and the graves,

and go

to his eruv while he is

inside

a

shida [

a women’s carriage made like a box], or inside

a chest or a tower,

a cabinet, which are carried on animals.

And we explain the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda:

He holds that a “thrown tent [

a movable tent]—

its name is

“tent”,”

and it can create a barrier against impurity.

And

this matter—whether a thrown tent is considered a tent or not—

is subject to the dispute between these tanna’im:

As it was taught: One who enters the land of the nations [

outside Eretz Yisrael, concerning which the Sages decreed impurity]

in a shida, chest, or tower

that create a barrier between him and the ground of the land of the nations—

Rabbi deems him impure; Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda deems him pure.

And we explain their dispute:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One

—Rabbi—

holds: A thrown tent is not called a tent,

and it does not create a barrier.

And the other

—Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: A thrown tent is called a tent.

And we challenge this:

But that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: