Eruvin 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

And this is what it comes to teach us:

And Rabbi holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

He holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says: “We regard it as though one hollowed out [the object] to complete [the required measure].”

And he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One requires that the eruv be on top of a place measuring four

handbreadths.

That is, Rabbi intended to teach us by specifically stating, “a basket that completes it to four,” that the eruv is considered to be on top of a place measuring four, even though the bottom of the basket itself is not considered a “place measuring four” [although together with the tree there is a place measuring four], because “we regard it as though one hollowed it out to complete [the required measure].”

Since the tree, where it is level with the bottom of the basket, is sealed, this is not a “place measuring four”.

Rather, we say: We regard it as though the tree opposite the bottom of the basket had been hollowed out and removed, and that place, together with the basket, has become a “place measuring four” suitable for placing one’s eruv upon it.

And in order to teach us these two matters, Rabbi stated that the eruv is placed in the basket.

And we explain:

What is the source for Rabbi Yehuda

whom we said above holds that one requires the eruv to be on top of a place measuring four?

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If one drove a beam into the public domain and placed his eruv upon it,

and he himself intended to acquire residence in the public domain—if the beam was

ten

handbreadths

high and four

handbreadths

wide, his eruv is valid.

Since one who places his eruv has four cubits around him, and these are considered a private domain, and since a private domain extends upward to the firmament, it follows that “he and his eruv are in one place.”

But if not, his eruv is not valid.

And it was initially understood that this is what he means: “But if not”—if the beam is not four handbreadths wide, or if it is not ten handbreadths high—even if it is four handbreadths wide, the eruv is not valid.

Therefore we are astonished: It is understandable that Rabbi Yehuda said that if it is not four wide, the eruv is invalid; this is because one requires the eruv to be on top of a place measuring four.

But with regard to his statement that when it is not ten handbreadths high the eruv is invalid, this is difficult:

On the contrary,

when it is not ten handbreadths high,

“he and his eruv are in one place”

he is,

and this is considered even more “he and his eruv are in one place” than in the case of a beam ten high, where it is considered one place only because one who places his eruv has four cubits around him?!

And we answer:

Rather, this is what

Rabbi Yehuda means:

If the beam was

high

and distant

ten

handbreadths from the ground,

there must be at its top

a measure of space for the eruv, namely,

four

handbreadths.

But if the beam

is not

the koreh

ten handbreadths high,

it need not have four

handbreadths at its top.

For when it is not ten handbreadths above the ground, it is considered as though it were lying in the public domain itself, and it is considered as though it were placed on a place measuring four.

And now we return to what Ravina explained concerning the beraita of the basket.

Accordingly, it is explained in the beraita that even when there is a width of four—for we regard it as though one hollowed it out to complete [the required measure]—at a height of ten, it is still not a private domain if there is not a width of four handbreadths all the way down.

And we explain:

In accordance with whom

does this beraita accord?

It is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda!

For Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda said: If one drove a pole into the public domain and placed a taskel

[a basket] four handbreadths wide at its top,

and threw

an object to it from the public domain,

and it came to rest upon it, he is liable

for transferring from the public domain to the private domain. For the top of the taskel is a private domain, even though below it there is no width of four, since with regard to the walls of the taskel we say: “Lower the partition.” We regard the walls of the taskel as though they descended to the surrounding ground.

And we reject this:

You may even say—

it is possible to say that this beraita of the basket—

is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

it is.

For

there,

with regard to the taskel,

the partitions surround

[the partitions of the taskel surround the pole].

Whereas

here,

with regard to the basket,

they do not surround,

they do not surround

the partition

of the basket—the tree.

That is, with regard to the taskel, “when we say, ‘Lower the partitions of the taskel to the ground,’ the pole is found to be enclosed by partitions, and its interior has a width of four, and there is nothing more to say.”

But here, since the basket does not enclose the thickness of the tree, even if we say, “Lower the partition,” that is insufficient until we also say, “We regard it as though one hollowed it out to complete [the required measure],” in order to combine the area of the tree with the area of the basket to reach four handbreadths, and “we do not say both”.

Rabbi Yirmeya

did not answer as Ravina did—in response to the question we raised against the beraita of the basket: If there are four handbreadths at the top of the tree [as is demonstrated by the first clause of the beraita], what difference does it make that it was placed in the basket? For it is “the recesses of a private domain,” and he cannot bring it to his place of residence at the base of the tree—and

said

Rabbi Yirmeya another answer:

Different

is an eruv placed in a

basket,

for although the basket is above ten handbreadths, its eruv is valid,

since he can tilt it—

the basket with the eruv inside it—

and bring it,

bringing one end of it

below ten,

from where he can take the eruv.

For since the basket is long, even if he tilts it to the side, he will not detach it from its suspension on the tree.

Rav Pappa was sitting and stating this tradition

of Rabbi Yirmeya, from which we see that he held that since he can tilt the basket—even though at present he is in one place and his eruv is in another—we consider him as though he had tilted the basket to his place of residence.

Rav bar Sheva raised an objection to Rav Pappa

from what we learned below with regard to a Festival day adjacent to Shabbat, when it precedes it, and one wishes to establish an eruv both for the Festival and for the Shabbat adjacent to it, and the eruv must remain in existence both at the onset of the Festival and at the onset of Shabbat.

How does he do it?

He brings it

the agent of the one establishing the eruv brings the eruv

on

the fifth day,

the first

[on the eve of the Festival], and remains there until nightfall

over it,

remaining in the place where he wishes to acquire residence until the Festival begins, at which point he acquires residence there,

and he takes it

the agent takes the eruv from there, so that the eruv will not be lost before the onset of the Shabbat following the Festival.

And he comes

the agent comes to his home.

And again the agent goes out

on

the fifth day,

the second

[on the eve of Shabbat],

and remains there until nightfall, and

then, after acquiring residence there on behalf of the one who sent him,

he eats it

the agent eats it there, if he wishes. And

he comes

to his home. [But he cannot take it with him on Shabbat].

And now we are astonished: It is explicit in this Mishna [something that we do not find explicitly in another Mishna] that one must bring the eruv to the place where he wishes to acquire his residence.