Eruvin 34a — the Talmud in English

And you should ask: according to Rabbi Yirmeya, who holds that we say “since” —

why

is it necessary at all to carry the eruv to the place of the Shabbat residence?

Let us say: since, if he wishes,

the one who places the eruv can

carry it

to bring the eruv to the place where he wishes to acquire his Shabbat residence,

he can

he is able

bring it

to bring it; if so, by the principle of “since” it is said:

even though he did not bring it

to the place of his Shabbat residence —

it is considered as though he brought it,

it is considered as though he brought it there, and it is properly the case that he and his eruv are in one place.

And just as Rabbi Yirmeya said concerning the basket: since he is able to incline it, therefore, even if he did not incline it, it is considered as though he inclined it, and by the principle of “since” he is considered to be in one place with his eruv. The same is true of one who is able to bring his eruv to the place of his Shabbat residence: it is sufficient that he is able to do so for him to be considered to be in one place with his eruv, and he does not need actually to carry the eruv to the place of the Shabbat residence.

Said

he answered

Rabbi Zeira:

The reason that the Sages required everyone who places an eruv to carry the eruv to the place of his Shabbat residence is

a decree, on account of a Festival that occurs immediately after Shabbat.

For if his eruv will not be in the place of his Shabbat residence on the eve of the Festival, it is impossible to say “since,” because, since it is Shabbat, he is unable to bring it, and there is no “since.” [

The following discussion is explained according to Rashi’s second interpretation.]

He raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya, who said “since”:

Whoever

intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the public domain and

placed his eruv

outside his four cubits [which every person who places an eruv has, as Rav said above, page 32b]

in a wall.

If he placed it

below ten handbreadths, his eruv is an eruv.

For he is able to bring it to the place of his Shabbat residence by carrying it less than four cubits at a time. Although this is prohibited by rabbinic decree, since it is a shevut, they did not impose the decree upon him at twilight, in accordance with Rabbi’s view.

But if he placed it in the wall

above ten handbreadths,

which is a private domain,

his eruv is not an eruv,

for he is unable to take it from the private domain and bring it into the public domain.

But if he

intended to establish his Shabbat residence at the top of a dovecote or at the top of a tower

[a large chest], and he placed his eruv in the wall adjacent to the tower or to the dovecote, the law is the opposite:

If he placed it

above ten handbreadths —

his eruv is an eruv.

For the tower and the dovecote are also private domains.

And if he placed it in the wall

below ten handbreadths,

that is, he placed it above the ninth handbreadth, upon which the many shoulder their burdens, which is a public domain [as we said above, page 33a] —

his eruv is not

an eruv,

because he is unable to bring the eruv from the public domain to the private domain.

And it was initially assumed that this was speaking of a tower that he could incline, and therefore we challenge Rabbi Yirmeya:

And why

is his eruv not an eruv when he placed the eruv above the ninth handbreadth?

But

here too

here

let us say: since he is able to incline it

to the tower

and bring it within ten

handbreadths, and then the tower would have the status of a karmelit, since it is within ten handbreadths and its width is four [handbreadths].

For if he inclines the tower into the height below ten handbreadths and brings his eruv to it, he would be bringing it from the public domain [at the ninth handbreadth] to the tower, which is now a karmelit, and there is only a shevut involved [which is not prohibited at twilight, in accordance with Rabbi], and he is able to eat his eruv at the place of his Shabbat residence, in the tower.

If so, the question arises: according to Rabbi Yirmeya, let his eruv be an eruv by the principle of “since he has the ability to incline it”?!

Said

he answered

Rabbi Yirmeya: Here we are dealing

[with a tower fixed with nails in the wall]

with a tower fixed with nails,

which he is unable to incline.

Rava

answered and

said: Even if you say that it is a tower that is not fixed with nails.

And here, we are dealing

with a long tower, much longer than four cubits [Rashi]

we are dealing.

For

if he brings it a little,

if he inclines it to the side and brings it even slightly below ten handbreadths, then, because of the length of the tower,

its head goes out

[Bach] the head of the tower goes out

beyond four cubits

from the place of his eruv.

That is, the distance from the place of the eruv in the wall to the head of the tower, which is the place of his Shabbat residence, will be more than four cubits. And if he wishes to bring his eruv from its place in the wall to the head of the tower, he would be carrying four cubits in the public domain, and he is not permitted to bring it to him.

And therefore it is not an eruv.

And we still challenge Rabbi Yirmeya, who holds “since” [according to the meaning of the Tosafot, s.v. “if”]:

What are the circumstances

of that which we say: when he intended to establish his Shabbat residence in a tower and placed it in the wall at the ninth handbreadth, it is not an eruv, since he is unable to bring it from the wall — which is a public domain — to the top of the tower?

If there is

in the tower

a window

[an opening],

and a cord

[a rope] extends from the window of the tower, and the eruv is tied to the rope, while the rope is held by the person placing the eruv, who is in the tower at twilight and acquires his Shabbat residence there.

If so, even though the eruv is in the public domain, let his eruv be an eruv. Because

he can bring it

the person placing the eruv is able to bring the eruv to the place of his Shabbat residence at the top of the tower

through the window and the cord.

That is: by means of the cord, through the window.

Since the eruv is tied to his hand, he is able to bring it to himself even though he is in the private domain and the eruv is in the public domain. There is no prohibition against carrying out by Torah law here, but only a mere shevut [as we learned below, page 96b], and they did not impose the decree upon him at twilight; let his eruv be an eruv?!

And we explain: here we are dealing

with one who does not have a window and a cord.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he placed it in a pit, even if it is one hundred cubits deep,

his eruv is an eruv:

And we explain:

This pit —

where does it stand

[where is it located]?

If you say that it stands in the private domain

and he intended to acquire his Shabbat residence there, then his [Shabbat residence] is in the private domain, and his eruv — which is in a pit that is ten [handbreadths] deep and four [handbreadths] wide — is also in the private domain; and what does it teach us that this is effective?!