Eruvin 32b — the Talmud in English

d

Rabbi ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

held: it is referring to the same member of the fellowship -

“He may eat it, and he need not tithe it.” For that member of the fellowship certainly tithed it

first

the homeowner

with regard to it,

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 member of the fellowship -

until he tithes it, because members of the fellowship were not suspected of separating tithes from produce that is not in the same place as the produce for which it is being tithed.

And Rabbi said to him: It is preferable that members of the fellowship be suspected

of separating tithes from produce that is not in the same place, rather than that they feed

the

ammei ha-aretz -

who, in the homeowner’s view, will eat it -

untithed produce.

This was explained according to Rashi’s understanding: We say that the member of the fellowship must tithe the produce only when he thinks that an am ha-aretz will eat it, as Rashi said: Since the member of the fellowship gives it and “the am ha-aretz gathers it,” the giver is concerned that he may eat it in its untithed state.

However, the Meiri wrote: If the one who says this is a member of the fellowship—whether he said it to another member of the fellowship or to an am ha-aretz—and another member of the fellowship hears him, this member of the fellowship may eat from the produce without tithing it. His presumption is that the first one separated the tithes, and so on.

See there in the Meiri his explanation of the words of the Gemara, “What is he doing there?” According to Rashi, the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, does not explain, according to Rabbi, what the law is when one member of the fellowship says this to another member of the fellowship. Apparently, Rabbi would agree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that the latter must certainly tithe the produce.

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

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi holds: It is preferable to the member of the fellowship that he himself perform a minor transgression

a minor prohibition, separating tithes from produce that is not in the same place

rather than that the am ha-aretz perform a major transgression

a serious prohibition, eating untithed produce.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to the member of the fellowship that the am ha-aretz perform a major transgression, while he himself should not perform even a minor transgression.

Mishna:

If they placed

an eruv for the Shabbat limits

on a tree.

If they placed it

above ten handbreadths -

the

eruv is not valid.

If it was 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

the pit

one hundred cubits deep -

the eruv is valid

as the Gemara explains.

Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna:

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

and sat together with them,

and they sat and said,

these three amoraim, sages of the era of the Gemara, to explain the Mishna:

This tree

of the Mishna -

where is it standing

where does it stand?

If you say that it is standing in a private domain -

what difference is there whether it is above

ten handbreadths

or whether it is below

ten handbreadths?!

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

a private domain -

in which the tree is located -

extends upward to the sky,

and the entire area is one domain.

Rather,

necessarily,

the tree is standing

the tree

in a public domain,

and therefore, if the eruv is on the tree at a height of ten handbreadths, the eruv is in a private domain. This is referring to a case where the tree is four handbreadths wide, since anything that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide is a private domain, whereas the tree itself stands in a public domain.

And the Gemara clarifies:

where did he intend to establish his place of rest

where did the one who placed the eruv intend to acquire his place of rest?

If you say that he intended to establish his place of rest

on the tree

above,

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

For

he,

the person establishing the eruv [or “the place of his rest,” according to Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishna]

and his eruv -

are in one place?!

Whenever “he and his eruv are in one place,” he acquires his place of rest there.

Rather,

here we are dealing with a case

where the person establishing the eruv intended

the person establishing the eruv

to establish his place of rest below,

"in the public domain. His place of rest is wherever he intended to establish it. Thus, “he [or the place of his rest] is in one place [in the public domain], and 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 the place of rest for him, namely, twilight—he could not take it, because he would be bringing it from a private domain into a public domain, his eruv is not valid.” These are Rashi’s words.

And the Talmud raises a difficulty against this explanation [the Gaon Yaakov, according to Rashi’s method; see further there]:

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

For he cannot bring his eruv to his place of rest, since

he is using the tree

when he brings the eruv down from the tree, and using a tree is a rabbinic prohibition. And whenever he cannot bring it there, it is not a valid eruv?!

And we answer:

Actually, the tree is standing

the tree

in a public domain. And the person establishing the eruv intended

the person establishing the eruv

to establish his place of rest below

in the public domain [as these amoraim explained].

And this is Rabbi’s opinion, as he says: Any act that is prohibited as a rabbinic prohibition -

the Sages did not prohibit it during twilight,

since twilight is a period of uncertainty.

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

And since twilight is the time when the eruv acquires the place of rest, “since at that time he can take it, it follows that the meal is available to him at that time, and we are no longer concerned.” These are Rashi’s words.

Rav Naḥman said to these three amoraim

to these three amoraim:

Correct,

indeed, it is as you say,

and so

also

Shmuel said

the same as you.

The amoraim said to him

these amoraim said to Rav Naḥman: is it indeed the case that

you have explained the entire matter in this way

do you, Rav Naḥman, and Shmuel explain all of this in the Mishna?! And we raise a difficulty about this: Why were these amoraim surprised? After all,

they themselves explain it in precisely this way

in the Mishna?!

And we explain

rather, as follows

they said to him:

Did you

establish

this explanation

in the Gemara

so that this explanation would be transmitted as a tradition?

Rav Naḥman

Rav Naḥman

said to them: Yes!

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

which is

ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and he intended to establish his place of rest below.

And this is Rabbi’s opinion, as he says: The Sages did not prohibit during twilight any act that is prohibited as a rabbinic prohibition!

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

Rava said: They taught this -

that if he placed the eruv above ten handbreadths and intended to establish his place of rest below, the eruv is not valid because he cannot bring it to his place of rest -

only with regard to a tree standing outside the extension of the city.

That is, it stands entirely outside the city and is not even within the city’s extension, which consists of seventy cubits and fractions surrounding the city. [This is called “the extension of the city” 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, where another city was within two thousand cubits of the city of the person placing the eruv, and he placed his eruv even within the extension of that city [but this cannot be explained as referring to the extension of the city in which he lives, since an eruv placed there would accomplish nothing; 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 a tree

above ten handbreadths

and intended to establish his place of rest below in the public domain,

it is a valid eruv.

Although he cannot bring it down from the tree to himself, because carrying it from a private domain into a public domain is prohibited, nevertheless we say

that the city

the city and its extension -

is considered as though it were filled

with earth

in this regard!

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

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

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

And we raise a difficulty:

If so -

if you say that the city is considered as though it were filled, and it is therefore considered as though he established his place of rest above in a private domain—then even if he placed the eruv

outside the extension of the city -

also

it should be effective, even if he placed the eruv above in a private domain while he establishes his place of rest in a public domain.

For in any event, “he and his eruv are in one place

since Rava said: One who places his eruv—

”

since Rava said: One who places his eruv - has four cubits!

The four-cubit area surrounding the eruv “is considered as though surrounded by partitions” [Rava said this concerning the Mishna below, 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 the Shabbat limits,

and a private domain -

extends upward to the sky .

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

outside four cubits

from its trunk

we are dealing with,

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