Eruvin 30b — the Talmud in English

The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai:

And

do you not concede ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location of amud")

that one establishes an eruv

even

for an adult on Yom Kippur,

even though it is not fit for him, since it is fit for a minor who is not subject to punishment?!

They said to them

the House of Shammai:

But

[it is] true!

The House of Hillel said to them

the House of Hillel:

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

And

the Gemara explains that

the House of Shammai

make a distinction:

There—

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

there is a meal fit from before the day

of the eve of Yom Kippur, even for the adult who established the eruv [and this is like the one who says—below, page 36a—that at the end of the day preceding Shabbat the eruv acquires the place, and not at twilight. Ritva].

Here—

regarding a nazirite and teruma—

there is no meal fit from before the day

for the one who establishes the eruv.

And we interpret the beraita as disputing whether the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel permit an eruv that is forbidden to one and permitted to another; and it follows that regarding the basic placing of an eruv of food, the House of Shammai agree:

According to whom

is this beraita

not like Hanania

in the opinion of the House of Shammai?!

As it was taught: Hanania says: The House of Shammai did not at all agree regarding an eruv

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

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 interpret:

According to whom does this teaching go: “If one established an eruv”

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

at

the time when he was wearing

black

he did not go out

outside the תחום of his city

in

clothing

white.

If he established an eruv in

clothing

white—

he did not go out in black

[and it proceeds to explain this]?

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

And we raise an objection to it:

And

is it so that

according to Hanania—

if he established an eruv in white, only

in black is it that he does not go out,

that is, if he was accustomed to go out in black, or if he knew before Shabbat that he would need black, it is in them that he does not go out, since he did not take them out there.

But in white

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

he goes out?!

And

does he not say

Hanania: he 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 knew he needed

there?

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

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna in the beraita

said:

He established an eruv in white, and needed black,

because he was accustomed to this, or because he knew that he needed them—

even in white he did not go out,

because his eruv is not an eruv!

According to whom

does this beraita go?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is Hanania, and according to the House of 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

regarding what the Sages say, that one establishes an eruv

for a nazirite with wine, he does not dispute

Sumakhos, saying that one does not establish an eruv with it, despite the fact that it is not fit for the one making the eruv himself!

What is the reason

of Sumakhos?

And we explain: because wine for a nazirite is called “fit” for establishing an eruv, since

it is possible that he will have his nazirite vow annulled

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

And we raise an objection:

If so,

with

teruma also

the Israelite should be permitted to establish an eruv, since

it is possible that he will have it annulled,

for one may ask about teruma?!

And we answer:

If he has it annulled—

it returns to being untithed produce

[if he asks about the teruma, all the produce, including the teruma itself, returns to being untithed produce, which is forbidden to eat], and his inquiry will not help to permit it for eating.

And we raise an objection:

And let him separate upon it.

That is: but he can ask about it, and after he asks, he can separate upon it

from another place,

and he will permit the teruma.

[And therefore he said “from another place,” for if he separates from what he used for the eruv, the measure will be lacking, as he explains below].

And although it is forbidden to separate on Shabbat, since it is merely a rabbinic shevut, they did not decree this upon him at twilight. Thus, at the time when the eruv acquired its place, he was permitted to separate.

And we answer:

Associates were not suspected of separating

their produce

other than from adjoining produce

[but only from produce that is nearby], and at the place where the eruv acquires its place, he has no untithed produce from which to separate for the eruv .

And we raise an objection: In any event, why is he unable to permit the eruv if he wishes?

And let him separate upon it from within itself,

and what remains after separating the teruma will be effective for the eruv?!

And we answer:

There is not in it

[in the eruv]

the measure

of both an eruv and teruma.

And we raise an objection:

But what determination is this!?

That is: what is this answer? Did the tanna determine his statement that a person places his eruv only precisely according to the measure, so that the tanna stated simply, “One establishes an eruv only with non-sacred produce”?

For if he adds a little food beyond the measure of an eruv, he can properly establish an eruv even with teruma, since he can ask about it and afterward separate teruma from it from within itself?!

Rather,

we explain the position of Sumakhos—that he does not permit establishing an eruv with teruma even though he can ask about it and separate upon it from within itself—in another manner:

Sumakhos agrees with the Sages, who say: Everything that is

forbidden

because of

a “shevut”

[rabbinically]—

they decreed upon it at twilight,

as it is forbidden on Shabbat itself. Therefore, he cannot separate at twilight, which is the time when the eruv acquires its place, since through his separating he “prepares” the untithed produce, by making it fit for eating.

And we explain:

According to whom does this teaching that we learned go:

There are

things

that the Sages stated

for them a measure that is not equal for everyone.

Rather,

everything is according to what the person is:

a.

“The fullness of his handful,”

which the koen takes as a handful from the

meal-offering,

in order to burn it on the altar; the measure is according to the size of the handful of the koen who takes the handful.

b.

And “the fullness of his cupped hands,”

incense,

which the High Priest brings on Yom Kippur into the Holy of Holies; the measure is according to the fullness of his own cupped hands.

c.

And one who drinks

a drink in the measure of

“the fullness of his cheek”

of his own

on Yom Kippur,

is liable to karet.

d.

And regarding food for two meals,

one requires the measure of his own meal

for an eruv

[for example, a sick person or an elderly person], and it does not depend on the meal of every person [and below it explains this further].

According to whom

does this Mishna go, which says that the measure of food for an eruv depends on the measure of his 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 says also regarding an eruv, “Everything is according to what the person is,”

disagrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

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

according to the amount of their food.

And

for

a glutton,

who eats more, one measures

with an average meal of every person.

And we do not say regarding a glutton, “Everything is according to what the person is.”

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

Interpret it:

establish the words of the Mishna, “Everything is according to what the person is,”

as referring to a sick person and an elderly person,

who do not need to establish an eruv with the meals of every person. In this Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees, as he says in the beraita.

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

his opinion is nullified in relation to that of every person.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

one establishes an eruv

for a koen in a field of doubtfully located graves,

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

And we explain how the food found in a field of doubtfully located graves is fit for a koen:

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

the dust before his feet in

a field of doubtfully located graves,

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

and he walks

on his way [and with the impurity of the tent of the dead he does not become impure by walking there, because bones without flesh do not impart impurity in a tent].

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda

[a statement, and it does not stand upon the Mishna]:

A field of doubtfully located graves that has been trodden

by the trampling of people’s feet is

pure.

For 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 for imparting impurity through contact and carrying.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a house

[in the Mishna it says]

between

the graves.

Because he can make a barrier and go and eat:

The tanna

in the beraita explains Rabbi Yehuda’s words:

Because he can make a barrier

between himself and the graves,

and go

to his eruv when it is located

in

a

shida

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

chest or cabinet,

a coffin, which are carried upon animals.

And we explain the reason of Rabbi Yehuda:

He holds: “A thrown tent

[movable]—

its name is

‘tent’,”

to form a barrier before impurity.

And

this matter of whether a thrown tent is called a tent or not

is a dispute between these tannaim:

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

[outside the Land of Israel, concerning which the Sages decreed impurity]

in a shida, chest, and cabinet

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

Rabbi declares him impure; Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, declares him pure.

And we explain their dispute:

Over what do they disagree?

One master—

Rabbi—

holds: A thrown tent is not called a tent,

and it does not form a barrier.

And one master—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: A thrown tent is called a tent.

And we raise an objection:

But regarding that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: