Eruvin 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

and intended to establish residence at its base

of the tree in the public domain.

And it turns out that the eruv is placed beyond the four cubits granted to anyone who places his eruv [for the four cubits granted to him as though enclosed by partitions are at his place of residence, and not at the place of his eruv].

Therefore: If he placed it on the branch above ten handbreadths, where he cannot bring it to his place of residence—for if he lowers it below, he would be transferring an object from the private domain to the public domain—it is not a valid eruv.

But when the eruv is found below ten handbreadths, and is not in the private domain, he can bring it to the base of the tree by lowering it into the public domain and bringing it to his place of residence by carrying it in intervals of less than four cubits at a time, and it is a valid eruv.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what we said, that the eruv is on the branch:

What do “above” and “below” mean?!

Since the eruv is on the branch, which extends sideways in a level manner, “above” would mean if the branch is high, and “below” would mean if the branch is low. If so, the baraita should have taught “high and low,” and not “above and below,” as this terminology applies only to an upright object that has an upper and lower part.

And we explain: Indeed, the branch extends entirely to the side, but sometimes, at the end of its lateral extension—

it turns upright,

it rises upward.

Here we are dealing with a case where the branch extended sideways below ten handbreadths, and after four cubits the branch turned upright and rose above ten handbreadths.

Therefore, if he placed it on the lateral extension, or at the beginning of its upright portion, below ten handbreadths—that is placement “below.” And if he placed it above, on its upright portion, above ten handbreadths—that is “above.”

And we raise a difficulty: Even if he placed it above ten handbreadths, let it be a valid eruv.

For although he cannot bring it to the base if he lowers it from the place where the eruv is located, since that would be transferring an object from the private domain to the public domain, nevertheless:

But if he wishes, he can bring it

bring his eruv

through it [

by first taking it from the place where it is located [above ten handbreadths on the tree, which is a private domain], and bringing it along the branches of the tree, at the place where the branch extends [where this is not a private domain, since it is not ten handbreadths high, and it is not the public domain], without lowering it, until he brings it opposite the base of the tree.

And there, the place opposite the base of the tree would be one domain together with his place of residence below. Since the person establishing an eruv has four cubits around his place of residence at the base of the tree, and they are considered like a private domain, which extends up to the sky, it is considered as though he and his eruv are in one place, and his eruv should acquire residence for him?!

And we answer: Here we are dealing

when

at the place where the branch extends sideways—

many people use it as a shoulder [

people in the public domain adjust the loads they carry on their shoulders at the place where the tree extends], so that place is considered the public domain.

And this is like the statement of Ulla.

For Ulla said: A pillar

high

nine

handbreadths that is located

in the public domain, and many people use it as a shoulder, and one threw

an object a distance of four cubits in the public domain,

and it came to rest upon it—

he is liable,

as this is transferring an object four cubits in the public domain and placing it in the public domain. [

But if people did not use it as a shoulder, it would be a “place of exemption” if it were not four handbreadths wide; and if it were four handbreadths wide, it would be a karmelit].

And since this is so, he cannot bring the eruv along the lateral extension, since that would be transferring it from the private domain [where his eruv is placed] to the public domain.

Rashi added: He also cannot bring it through the airspace of that place to a position opposite the base, because that would be “passing” an object from one private domain to another private domain through the airspace of the public domain, which is prohibited even if he passes it above ten handbreadths from the public domain itself [and although the public domain does not extend above ten handbreadths], as explained in Shabbat, page 96.

And now we explain:

What is Rabbi

who said that with regard to an act prohibited due to shevut, they did not decree against it during twilight—

and what is the opinion of the Rabbis?

As it was taught in a baraita: If he placed

the eruv

on a tree,

if he placed it

above ten handbreadths, his eruv is not a valid eruv. Below ten handbreadths, his eruv is a valid eruv,

as we explained it above.

And it is prohibited to take it

from the tree, as that would be using the tree, which is prohibited due to shevut.

Nevertheless, it is a valid eruv, for with regard to every shevut, they did not decree against it during twilight.

But if it was

within three

handbreadths of the ground,

it is permitted to take it,

as in every case of less than three handbreadths, even with regard to a tree they did not decree against it, since it is considered solid ground, as we learned below, on page 99.

And if he

placed

the eruv

in a basket [

a basket]

and hung it on a tree [

from the side, with the opening of the basket level with the top of the tree, and its bottom three handbreadths away from the top of the tree, as baskets are ordinarily hung on trees; Tosafot and the Ritva]—

even

if he placed the eruv in a basket that was

above ten handbreadths—

his eruv is a valid eruv, the words of Rabbi.

And we explain this shortly.

And the Sages say: Wherever it is prohibited to take it

the eruv from there—

his eruv is not a valid eruv,

as will be explained, as to what they disagree about.

In any event, the reason of the Sages is: Since it is prohibited to take it—even though this is only a shevut—they decreed against it during twilight, whereas Rabbi permits it.

This is the opinion of Rabbi, and this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

And we inquire about it: With regard to that which we learned,

“And the Sages say” -

with regard to what

do the words of the Sages apply?

If you say that they apply to the latter clause, where Rabbi says that if he placed it in a basket, even above ten handbreadths, his eruv is a valid eruv, and the Sages disagree with this and maintain that since it is prohibited to take it from there—as this is using the tree—it is not a valid eruv,

then

this cannot be said.

For would it be possible to

say

that

the Sages maintain

that although “he does not use the tree itself [when he takes it from there], but uses the basket, which is the side of the tree”—this is the wording of Rashi; and Rabbeinu Hananel wrote: “The basket that is suspended from the tree is at the side of the tree”—even so, it is prohibited to take it from there, because also the

sides

of the tree

are prohibited

for use on Shabbat?!

If so, this would provide support for the one who maintains, in Shabbat, page 154b, that even the sides of a tree are prohibited, and this is how we rule there [see the passage there concerning what is called the “sides”].

Rather,

the Sages

disagree with the first clause

.

For it teaches there: Below ten handbreadths, his eruv is a valid eruv, but it is prohibited to take it. And the Sages disagree with this and maintain that since it is prohibited to take it—even though this is due to shevut—it is not a valid eruv. For they also decreed that it is prohibited to take it during twilight, which is a period of uncertainty.

And now we explain the first clause of the baraita:

This tree—

with which the baraita is dealing here—

what are its circumstances?

If it does not have

a width of

four

handbreadths at the top of the tree, this is difficult: Why is the eruv not valid when he placed it above ten handbreadths—because it constitutes transferring an object from the private domain to the public domain, as we said? Since it is not four handbreadths wide, it is not a private domain but a place of exemption [when it is three handbreadths above the ground, it is a place of exemption if it is not four handbreadths wide].

And if it does have

at the top of the tree

four

handbreadths, so that above ten handbreadths it is a private domain—

when he placed

the eruv

in a basket, what is the law?!

For the basket suspended at the side of the tree has the status of “recesses of the private domain,” since the opening of the basket reaches the top of the tree, and it is prohibited to transfer from it to the public domain. Why, then, is it a valid eruv?! [Tosafot]

Rabbi

explained it:

Ravina:

The first clause,

which says that if he placed it on a tree above ten handbreadths his eruv is not a valid eruv, because the eruv stands in the private domain, is dealing with a case

where it has

within the tree itself a width of

four

handbreadths. And when it is at a height of ten handbreadths, it is prohibited to transfer it from there, and therefore it is not a valid eruv.

But

the latter clause,

which says that when he placed it in a basket it is permitted, is dealing with a case

where it does not have

in the tree

four

handbreadths in the width of the tree itself; rather, the

basket

is what

completes it to four.

That is, the thickness of the tree at its midpoint and the area of the bottom of the basket combine to form an area of four handbreadths. Consequently, the basket does not have the status of “recesses of the private domain,” since the tree itself is not a private domain, and therefore it has no recesses.

Nor do the tree and the basket together—which are jointly four handbreadths wide—have the status of a private domain, since beneath the basket there is no width of four handbreadths. In any such case, this is not a private domain. Therefore, it is properly a valid eruv, since there is no Torah prohibition against transferring from the basket to his place of residence in the public domain.

And since Rabbi stated that when the eruv is placed in a basket it is acceptable, and did not say that if the eruv is placed on a tree whose width at its height is four handbreadths, while at the bottom of the tree its width is less than four handbreadths, it is a valid eruv, it necessarily follows that he came to teach us some novel point in this matter [Tosafot].