Eruvin 34b — the Talmud in English

For

it is obvious:

that even though its depth is one hundred cubits, the entire pit has the status of a private domain [and he has not taught us anything by saying “even if it is one hundred cubits deep”], for

a private domain rises up to the firmament. And just as it rises—

an ordinary domain

of the individual—

above

upward until the firmament,

so too

the private domain in the pit

descends below

and even down to one hundred cubits; and what does the Mishna come to teach us?!

Rather, it is necessary

that the pit

stands in the public domain.

But it is still difficult:

that the one who established the eruv intended

the one who established the eruv

to spend Shabbat—

where?

If above,

in the public domain,

why

does it help?

But

he

his Shabbat residence] is

in one place [in the public domain],

[in the public domain], while

while his eruv is in another place [in the pit, which is a private domain, as we said].

[in the pit, which is a private domain, as we said].

And

if

he intended to spend Shabbat

below—

it is obvious

that it helps, for

“he and his eruv are in one place”?!

And we explain:

it is necessary

that our Mishna teach that it is an eruv only in the case of a pit

that stands in a karmelit,

such as the fields in a valley,

and he intended to spend Shabbat above

in a karmelit.

And it is Rabbi’s [opinion], who says: Anything that is on account of שבות—

such as bringing the eruv from the pit, which is a private domain, into a karmelit—

they did not decree against it during twilight.

And this is the novelty of the Mishna: that he and his eruv are considered to be in one place.

Mishna:

They placed

his eruv of boundaries

at the top of a reed or at the top of a kondes

when it is [the reed and the kondes, according to Maimonides and Rashi; but according to the Raavad, this applies only to the reed, since the kondes is always detached]

[the reed and the kondes, according to Rambam and Rashi; according to the Raavad, this refers only to the reed, since the kondes is always detached]

detached and stuck into the ground [but not planted, as the Gemara explains]

[but not when it is rooted, as the Gemara explains],

even if it is one hundred cubits high, this is an eruv,

if its top is four handbreadths wide.

For we hold in accordance with Rabbi Judah [above, page 33b] that we require the eruv to be upon a place four handbreadths wide, Rashi.

Gemara:

Rav Adda bar Matna raised an objection to Rava

concerning the Mishna, which teaches: When it is

“detached and stuck into the ground,”

his eruv is an eruv.

Infer from it:

Detached and stuck in, yes.

Not detached and stuck in—

but rather planted, so that his eruv is on a tree—

no,

it is not an eruv.

And the reason is: because he is using the tree if he removes it from there, and therefore it is not an eruv, [as above, page 32b].

Whose

Mishna is this?

It must be that

it is the Rabbis’ [opinion], who say: Anything that is on account of שבות,

such as using a tree,

they decreed against it

even during

twilight,

at the time of acquiring the eruv.

Now it is difficult:

But you said, [above on this page], that the

[earlier on this page], that the

first clause

of this Mishna—“They placed it in a pit, even if it is one hundred cubits deep, this is an eruv”—

is Rabbi’s [opinion],

who holds that they did not decree against shevut during twilight.

And would we say:

the first clause is Rabbi’s [opinion]

and

and the latter clause is the Rabbis’ [opinion]?!

?!

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Adda bar Matna:

Rami bar Hama already raised

this very contradiction of yours

to Rav Hisda.

And Rav Hisda answered him,

Rav Hisda answered Rami bar Hama: Indeed, so it is:

the first clause is Rabbi’s [opinion], and the latter clause is the Rabbis’ [opinion].

Ravina

answers differently and

said: The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi’s [opinion].

And the latter clause,

where we say that if they placed it on an attached reed his eruv is not an eruv, is because it is forbidden to take the eruv from the tree,

lest he cut it off.

That is to say: he will certainly cut it off, since the reed is soft, and he is liable for it on account of reaping.

And what was not permitted during twilight was only using a tree, which the Sages prohibited as a decree lest one climb and detach [a branch]; and during twilight, which is a period of doubt, they did not decree.

A certain royal troop

[the king’s army]

came to Nehardea,

and as a result the place became crowded for Rav Nahman’s students, and they had to go outside the city.

Rav Nahman said to them

to his students on the eve of Shabbat:

Go out and make woven structures in the marsh, [go out to the marsh—to prepare a place there for your sitting on Shabbat—and bend many reeds over one another, like chairs on which to sit; see the Ritba for the reason they had to do this on the eve of Shabbat],

[go out to the marsh to prepare a place where you can sit there on Shabbat, and bend many reeds over one another, like chairs to sit on],

and tomorrow we will go and sit upon them [and tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit upon them].

[Tomorrow, on Shabbat, we will go and sit on them.]

Rami bar Hama raised an objection to Rav Nahman,

who permitted using reeds on Shabbat, from our Mishna, which teaches: When it is

“detached and stuck into the ground.”

And it implies:

Detached and stuck in, yes; not detached

(and not,

Rashi did not have this version)

stuck in, no.

Since it is forbidden to use them on Shabbat, [as we said].

It follows that even reeds are like a tree—and not like a vegetable—and they are included in the Sages’ decree not to use a tree?!

He said to him,

Rav Nahman:

There,

in our Mishna, which proves that it is forbidden to use reeds, it is referring

to hardened reeds

reeds that have already hardened], whose law is like that of a tree!

But as long as the reeds are soft, they are vegetables, and the Sages did not decree a prohibition against using a vegetable.

And we explain:

And from where do you say that we distinguish between hardened reeds,

which are trees,

and those that are not hardened reeds,

which are vegetables?

And we explain:

For it was taught

one [beraita]:

The kanin, the atadin, and the hagin

[a type of thorns]

are a species of tree, and they are not forbidden mixtures in a vineyard,

for the mixtures of a vineyard apply only to grain and vegetables.

And it was taught in another [beraita]: The reeds, the kidan

[a fragrance called keda]

and the urbanin are a species of vegetable, and they are forbidden mixtures in a vineyard!

But

they conflict,

reeds with reeds

with one another,

for in one beraita it says that they are a species of tree, and in one beraita it says that they are a species of vegetable?!

Rather,

it must be

infer from it

as we said:

here,

where they are considered trees,

it is with hardened reeds; here,

where they are considered vegetables,

it is with those that are not hardened reeds.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it!

And incidentally, since we brought the beraita that teaches that the kidan [keda] is a species of vegetable, we are astonished:

And

why,

is keda a species of vegetable?!

But we learned: One may not graft pegam

[a species of vegetable]

onto white keda

because

it is a vegetable on a tree,

and it is forbidden on account of mixtures of trees.

It follows that keda is a species of tree.

Rav Pappa said,

answering:

Ordinary keda is one thing,

and it is a species of vegetable,

and white keda is another thing,

and it is a species of tree!

Mishna:

They placed

his eruv of boundaries

in a tower, and the key was lost,

and it was found that he could not bring his eruv to the place where he intended to spend Shabbat, which was outside the tower, in a private domain; nevertheless,

this is an eruv,

and the Gemara explains the reason.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not an eruv [and even when it is doubtful to him, it is also not an eruv, until he knows that it is in its place. For Rabbi Eliezer holds that an eruv of doubtful status is invalid, Ritba. See Rashi carefully in the Gemara concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s words in the beraita].

[Even when he is merely uncertain about it, it is not a valid eruv until he knows that it is in its place. Rabbi Eliezer holds that an eruv based on uncertainty is invalid, Ritva. See Rashi carefully in the Gemara concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s statement in the beraita.]

Gemara:

And we challenge the first Tanna:

Why

is it an eruv when the key was lost? After all,

he is in one place and his eruv is in another place [and although here the matter concerns two private domains, nevertheless, “since he cannot take it, it is like two places,” Rashi]?!

[Although this case involves two private domains, nevertheless, “since he cannot take it, it is like two places,” Rashi]?!

Rav and Shmuel both said: Here we are dealing with a tower of bricks,

which is easy to dismantle, as the Gemara will explain, for it is referring to bricks that are not stuck together with mortar, so that there is no prohibition in dismantling them.

And

the fact that we permit dismantling them to take the eruv, if he wishes,

is Rabbi Meir’s [opinion], who says:

even

one may diminish

[make an opening]

from the outset, and take it!

For we learned: A house that was filled with produce,

if the house was

sealed

before the Festival and there was no access to the produce inside it without dismantling it,

and it became breached

on the Festival—one may take produce from the place that became breached on the Festival, and he need not be concerned about muktze. For this anonymous Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze.

But one may not make the breach from the outset, because that constitutes dismantling a tent.

Rabbi Meir says:

even

one may make a breach and take [the produce] from the outset.

Since they are not stuck together with mortar—as the Gemara proceeds to explain—it is not the dismantling of a tent.

And the same applies in our Mishna; for this reason it is an eruv, since dismantling them does not involve the prohibition of dismantling a tent.

And it initially entered our minds that our Mishna is dealing with a tower of bricks stuck together with mortar, and therefore we ask:

But Rav Nahman bar Adda said in the name of Shmuel:

Rabbi Meir, who permitted making a breach from the outset, spoke only of a house built

in the air-space of bricks

[bricks arranged one upon another, and not stuck together with mortar].

And if so, in our Mishna it is “he is in one place and his eruv is in another place,” for it is forbidden to dismantle them, since they are stuck together with mortar?!

And we answer:

Here too,

our Mishna is dealing

with the air-space of bricks!

And we are still astonished:

But Rabbi Zeira said

concerning the Mishna of the house that became breached, and according to Rabbi Meir:

Only

on the Festival did they say

that it is permitted to make a breach from the outset,

but not on Shabbat .

And here too, why should it be an eruv on Shabbat?!

And we answer:

Here too,

our Mishna is dealing

with the Festival.

And we challenge these answers:

If so,

that our Mishna is dealing with the Festival, it is difficult:

This is what it teaches there

in the beraita concerning our Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer

[this is Rashi’s version; see the gloss and Rashash]

says: If in the city—

where the tower is—

the key was lost,

the key,

his eruv is an eruv,

and even though he does not know where it is, since when he learns where it is, he can bring it to the tower [the Gemara below will explain how he will bring it to its place].

And if in the field,

where there is a public domain [Korban Netanel, letter shin; see there],

the key was lost,

the key,

his eruv is not an eruv.

For even when he learns where it is, he cannot bring it from the public domain into the private domain, to the place of the tower, in order to open it.

Now it is difficult:

And if it is on the Festival

that the Mishna and the beraita are dealing with—

what difference is there whether it is a city or whether it is a field?

For “even in the field he can bring it, since it is needed for the Festival” [Ritba; see what the Rashash elaborated here]?!