Eruvin 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

4

Rabbi

held: The same fellow—

“He may eat, and he need not tithe.” For certainly, that first fellow tithed the produce for him

beforehand

[the homeowner]

for him, since he does not know that a ḥaver will eat it; rather, an am ha-aretz will eat it, so that he will not cause him to stumble by the prohibition of untithed produce.

since he does not know that a member of the fellowship will eat them; rather, he assumes that an am ha-aretz, one who is not careful about the laws of tithes, will eat them, and he therefore tithed them so as not to cause him to transgress the prohibition against eating untithed produce.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He may not eat—

that ḥaver—

until he tithes, because ḥaverim are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not nearby.

And Rabbi said to him: It is preferable that ḥaverim be suspected

of separating produce that is not nearby, rather than that they feed

the

ammei ha-aretz—

who, according to the homeowner’s understanding, will eat it—

untithed produce.

[This was explained according to Rashi’s understanding: We do not say that the ḥaver will tithe except when he thinks that an am ha-aretz will eat it, as Rashi said: Since the ḥaver gives it and “the am ha-aretz takes it,” the giver is concerned that he might eat it in its untithed state.

However, the Meiri wrote: This is so if the one who says, “It is for a ḥaver,” said it to a ḥaver, or if he said it to an am ha-aretz and another ḥaver hears him; this ḥaver may eat from it without tithing. It is presumed that he separated the tithes, etc.

See there in the Meiri’s explanation of the Gemara’s statement, “What is he doing there?” According to Rashi, it is not explained in the beraita, according to Rabbi, what the law would be in the case of a ḥaver who said it to a ḥaver; apparently, he would agree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that he must certainly tithe it.]

And we explain the disagreement between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi holds: It is preferable for the ḥaver to commit a minor transgression

[the minor prohibition of separating produce that is not nearby]

rather than for the am ha-aretz to commit a major transgression

[the serious prohibition of eating untithed produce].

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable for the ḥaver to allow the am ha-aretz to commit a major transgression, while he himself should not commit even a minor transgression.

Mishna:

If they placed

an eruv for Shabbat limits

on a tree,

if they placed it

above ten handbreadths—

the

eruv is not valid.

Below ten handbreadths—

the eruv is valid

[as the Gemara explains].

But if

they placed it in a pit,

then

even if the pit is

one hundred

cubits deep—

the eruv is valid

[as the Gemara explains].

Gemara:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Asi, and Rava bar Natan were sitting, and Rav Naḥman was sitting with them

[and Rav Naḥman sat with them], and

they sat and said

these three amoraim, in order to explain the Mishna:

This tree

of the Mishna—

where does it stand

[where is it situated]?

If you say that it stands in the private domain,

what difference is it

whether it is above ten

or what difference is it

whether it is below ten?!

In either case, he is permitted to bring the eruv down from the tree into the domain in which the tree stands, since

the private domain—

in which the tree is located—

extends up to the sky,

and it is all one domain.

Rather,

necessarily,

it stands

the tree

in the public domain.

Therefore, if the eruv is located on the tree at a height of ten handbreadths, it is found that the eruv is in the private domain—for this is a case in which the tree is four handbreadths wide, and anything that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide is a private domain—while the tree itself stands in the public domain.

And the Gemara clarifies:

Where did he intend to establish his Shabbat residence?

[Where did the one who placed the eruv intend to acquire his place of residence?]

If you say that he intended to establish his residence

on the tree

above,

at the place of the eruv—what difference does it make to us that the tree stands in another domain?

For

he—

the person establishing the eruv [or “the place of his residence,” according to Rambam in his commentary on the Mishna]—

and his eruv

are in one place, are they not?!

And whenever “he and his eruv are in one place,” he acquires his Shabbat residence there.

Rather,

here we are dealing with a case in which

he intended

the one establishing the eruv

to establish his residence below, in the public domain. His residence is wherever he intended to establish it. Thus, “he [or the place of his residence] is in one place [in the public domain], while his eruv is in another place [in the private domain].”

“And since, if he wished to take his eruv and eat it—at the time when the eruv acquires its validity for him, namely, during twilight—he would be unable to take it, because he would be bringing it from the private domain into the public domain, his eruv is not valid.” This is Rashi’s wording.

And the Talmud objects to them [the Gaon Yaakov, according to Rashi’s approach; see further there]:

Even if the eruv is located below ten handbreadths, it should likewise not be effective!

For he cannot bring his eruv to the place of his residence, since

he is using the tree

when he brings the eruv down from the tree, and using a tree is a rabbinic shevut. Anything that he cannot bring to his place is not a valid eruv, is it not?!

And we answer:

In fact, it is standing

the tree

in the public domain, and he intended

to establish his residence below,

the one establishing the eruv,

in the public domain [as these three amoraim explained].

And it is Rabbi’s opinion, as he says: With regard to anything that is prohibited as a shevut,

they did not decree against it during twilight,

since it is a period of uncertainty.

Therefore, if he placed the eruv on the tree below ten handbreadths, he may take it during twilight and bring it to its place; there is no prohibition against using the tree during twilight.

Since twilight is the time when the eruv acquires validity, “once at that time he is able to take it, it is considered a meal fit for him at that time, and thereafter we need not concern ourselves with it.” Rashi.

Rav Naḥman said to them

these three amoraim:

Well done,

indeed, this is as you have said,

and so

also

Shmuel said

as you have said .

They said to him

these amoraim said to Rav Naḥman: Surely

you have explained it at such length

[Do you, Rav Naḥman, and likewise Shmuel, interpret the Mishna in all this detail]?! And we are astonished at this: What did these amoraim find surprising? After all,

they too explained it in precisely this manner

[did they not themselves interpret the Mishna this way]?!

And we explain

And we explain

Rather, this is what

they said to him: Did

you establish this interpretation

for this explanation

in the Gemara

[did you establish this interpretation in the Gemara, so that it would be transmitted as a tradition]?

He said to them

Rav Naḥman:

Yes!

It was also stated: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a tree standing in the public domain,

That is, when they said to him, “Have you explained it,” they did not say it as a question of astonishment, but calmly, as people pleased that he had agreed with their view. The Ritva.

which is

ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and he intended to establish his residence below.

And it is Rabbi’s opinion, as he says: With regard to anything that is prohibited as a shevut, they did not decree against it during twilight!

Therefore, if he placed the eruv on the tree below ten handbreadths, he can take it and bring it to its place during twilight.

Rava said: They taught this only

in the case where he placed the eruv above ten handbreadths and intended to establish his residence below, in which case the eruv is not valid because he cannot bring it to the place of his residence—

with regard to a tree standing outside the city’s extension.

That is, it stands completely outside the city and is not even within the city’s extension, which consists of seventy and a fraction cubits around the city. [This is called “the city’s extension” because it is an addition to the city, like a pregnant woman.]

But a tree standing

even

within the extension of another city,

for example, if another city was within two thousand cubits of the city of the person who placed the eruv, and he placed his eruv even within the extension of that city [and one cannot explain this as referring to the extension of the city in which he lives, since his eruv is of no benefit there; even without his eruv, the two thousand cubits are measured from the end of the city’s extension], then

—

even

if he placed it on the tree

above ten

handbreadths and intended to establish his residence below in the public domain—

this is a valid eruv.

Although he cannot bring it down from the tree to himself, since doing so would constitute carrying from the private domain into the public domain, nevertheless we say

that the city—

the city and its extension—

is considered as though it were filled

with earth

and is regarded accordingly!

Rashi wrote that we consider the city as “filled with earth” because it is surrounded by partitions and is not open.

The Ritva added: Although the city’s extension is not surrounded by partitions, nevertheless, since the city’s extension is considered like the city, it is regarded as though the extension were within its partitions, and as though the partitions were a bent wall that bends outward as far as the city’s extension.

Therefore, although he intended to establish his residence below, it is considered as though he intended to establish it at the height, above ten handbreadths, at the place of the eruv, which is a private domain; and the eruv acquires a Shabbat residence for him in its place.

And we object:

If so—

if you say that the city is considered as though it were filled, and it is regarded as though he established his residence above in the private domain—then even if he placed the eruv

outside the city’s extension, it should

also

be effective, even if he placed the eruv above in the private domain while he establishes his residence in the public domain.

For it would always be the case that “he and his eruv are in one place,”

since Rava said: One who places his eruv—

”

has four cubits!

The area of four cubits surrounding the eruv “is considered as though it were enclosed by partitions” [Rava said this concerning the following Mishna, on page 35a, and it will be explained there]. Therefore,

its

place in the public domain is as though it were a

private domain

with regard to an eruv for Shabbat limits, and

a private domain

extends up to the sky .

extends upward to the sky . Although it is not literally a private domain with regard to the Torah prohibition of taking the eruv from the tree to there, since there is no partition, nevertheless, with regard to being considered “he and his eruv in one place,” it is one domain. This is similar to one who places the eruv in the extension of a city, which Rava regards as though it were filled. [Rashi; see carefully in the Ritva.]

And we answer:

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, said: Here—

in the Mishna—

we are dealing with a tree

whose branches

extend

as far as

beyond four cubits

from its trunk;

we are dealing with a case in which he placed his eruv on it more than four cubits from the trunk,

and he placed his eruv on it more than four cubits from the trunk.