Eruvin 35a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There is a deficiency in the wording of the beraita,

and this is how it teaches

and thus it teaches

it:

They placed it

for the eruv

in a tower, and locked it before him, and the key was lost, this is an eruv,

as we explained the Mishna: it is in the air-space of bricks, in which there is no prohibition of demolition by Torah law.

When are these words said? On a Festival.

When one establishes an eruv on the eve of the Festival for the Festival, since it is permitted to demolish the tower on the Festival in order to take out the eruv.

But on Shabbat—

his eruv is not an eruv.

Since “the Sages did not permit him to demolish it” [Rashi].

If the key was found,

not near the tower,

whether in the city or in the field,

even so,

his eruv is not an eruv

on Shabbat. For he cannot bring it to the place of the eruv. Even if he does not carry it through the public domain, but through roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, it is likewise forbidden, since they belong to several people who did not establish a courtyard-eruv among themselves.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

If the key is found

in the city

on Shabbat,

his eruv—

is an eruv,

for he holds that he can bring it, as he proceeds to explain.

But

in the field, his eruv is not an eruv,

since he cannot bring it from the public domain to the private domain.

And all this is when the key was found.

And if the key was lost, Rabbi Eliezer also disagrees with the first tanna. The first tanna permitted demolishing it on a Festival, because he held like Rabbi Meir, as we said above. But Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, holding that it is forbidden to demolish it, as is explained in the Mishna, where Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first tanna, who permitted it on a Festival . And now we explain the reason of Rabbi Eliezer of the beraita, who holds that if the key is found

For the first anonymous tanna permitted dismantling the tower on a Festival because he held in accordance with Rabbi Meir, as we said above. But Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that dismantling it is prohibited, as is explained in the Mishna, where Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the first anonymous tanna, who permitted it on a Festival.

in the city,

his eruv is an eruv

even on Shabbat:

Because he holds that he can bring it through roofs, courtyards, and enclosures, even if they belong to two people who did not establish an eruv between them. For Rabbi Eliezer holds

like Rabbi Shimon [

below, at the beginning of the chapter “All Roofs” ],

who says: both roofs, both courtyards, and both enclosures—

are one domain [

that is, neither a change of ownership of those places nor a change in the use of those places makes them two separate domains, such that it would be forbidden to carry from one to the other; rather, they may carry the objects from one place to the other. The intention of this permission is specifically ]

for objects that spent Shabbat

at the onset of Shabbat

within

these domains, which may be carried from courtyard to courtyard and from a courtyard to an enclosure.

But not

does the permission to carry apply

to objects that spent Shabbat inside the house

and were taken out to a courtyard, roof, or enclosure [even if they were taken out in a permitted manner], for carrying them is forbidden.

Therefore Rabbi Eliezer permits it here as well. Here too, the case concerns a key that did not spend Shabbat in the house [Ritva].

And the reason of Rabbi Eliezer when the key is found

in the field,

that

his eruv is not an eruv—

is because he holds

like the Rabbis .

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say

in answer to the objection that we raised against the first tanna—who holds that when the key was lost it is an eruv—that the person is in one place while his eruv is in another:

Here we are dealing with a tower

that is large,

of wood,

containing forty seah,

we are dealing with such a tower, so that even though the key was lost, he can demolish it, since it is not a tent.

And in this the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer of the Mishna disagree:

One [

the first tanna ]

holds:

despite its size,

it

is an object

and not a tent,

and there is no building of objects and no demolition of objects.

And the other [

Rabbi Eliezer ]

holds:

since it is large, holding forty seah [Ritva],

it is a tent,

and there is demolition in it.

And it is with the dispute of these tannaim

that they disagree:

for we learned:

A man with a flux, who renders objects impure through his shifting them,

who struck

with his fist [and was wearing a glove, and did not touch]

upon a chest, box, or tower [

which are large objects containing forty seah, Ritva ],

they are impure

because of his shifting them.

Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them pure.

Is it not that they disagree in this:

One [

the first tanna ]

holds:

although it contains forty seah,

it is an object,

and it becomes impure through the shifting of the man with a flux.

And the other [

Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon ]

holds:

since they contain forty seah, they have left the status of an object, and the law of

a tent applies to them,

which does not receive impurity.

He

said

concerning this: Abaye said: Can you really maintain this?

that they disagree—concerning the striking of a man with a flux—whether a large object is considered a tent or is not considered a tent?!

But it was taught: If it was

a

tent, and it was shifted

by the man with a flux—

it is impure! If it was

an

object and was not shifted

by the man with a flux because of its heaviness—

it is pure!

We see that even a tent receives impurity if it is merely shifted. If so, it cannot be said that the one who declares a large object pure from the shifting of a man with a flux does so because he considers it a tent.

And

further, this

is taught at the end [

in the Tosefta, concerning that dispute regarding a man with a flux who struck upon a chest, box, or tower ]:

And if they were

able to be

shifted—

the chest, the box, and the tower—

they are impure!

This is the rule:

If it was shifted because of his force

of the man with a flux—“that he actually shifted the object or the tent, dislodging it somewhat from its place”—

it is impure.

If it was shifted

because of trembling—“that he stamped his feet on the ground, and because of the movement of the ground the object was shifted, even though it was shifted from the earth”—

it is pure,

because this is the force of his force.

We see that, according to everyone, even the large objects become impure through the shifting of a man with a flux, and necessarily the reason of the one who declares it fit is not that they are unfit to receive impurity because they are a tent rather than an object, but because of another reason.

Rather, Abaye said

to explain their dispute:

Everyone

holds that

the

shifting

in which the thing moves

because of his force

the direct force of the man with a flux—

is impure.

But shifting in which the thing moves

because of trembling,

in that the man with a flux moved it by applying his force to another thing—

is pure.

And here, it is trembling

that the man with a flux caused the objects to tremble

because of his force

directly

we are dealing with.

He struck them directly. But he did not dislodge them from their places and they were not shifted by him; rather, he merely caused them to tremble in their places.

And in this they disagree:

one—

the first tanna—

holds:

the trembling

is shifting.

And the other—

Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon—

holds:

the trembling

is not shifting.

And now that Abaye has rejected the suggestion that the tannaim disagree concerning the striking by a man with a flux of large objects, whether they are tents or objects, it is no longer reasonable for us to say that the tannaim of our Mishna disagree in this matter. Rather, we maintain that according to everyone large objects are tents.

And therefore we inquire concerning it:

And our Mishna

itself—

with what do we establish it?

Since a large tower is a tent, and there is demolition in it, why is it an eruv when the key was lost?!

And we explain:

Abaye and Rava both say:

Here

with a lock

of the tower

and we are dealing with one tied by a rope [

the lock of the tower is tied with a rope ].

And a knife is needed to cut it,

and cutting the rope involves only a rabbinic prohibition, since it appears like demolishing a tent, and they did not decree this during twilight [Rashi]. [See illustration on the next page]

And the tannaim of the Mishna disagree concerning carrying a knife in order to cut the rope:

The first tanna holds like Rabbi Yose, who says: all objects,

even objects whose work is for a prohibition,

may be carried on Shabbat

for the sake of a permitted matter.

Except for a saw

a saw

large, and a plowshare,

which are muktzeh “because of loss of money.” According to him, it is permitted to carry the knife in order to cut the rope.

And

if

Rabbi Eliezer held like Rabbi Nehemiah, who says: even a cloak, even a ladle [

a large spoon ]

may not be carried

on Shabbat, even for a permitted matter,

except

only

for the purpose of their use

specific to them.

A knife is not designated for cutting rope, and therefore it may be carried only for its designated use, namely, cutting food, and it is forbidden to carry it in order to cut ropes; therefore it is not an eruv .

Mishna:

The reason is as follows:

A. The person establishing a boundary-eruv must stand at twilight within the boundary of the eruv that acquires for him a place of residence.

For if the distance from his eruv to the place where his feet are is greater than the Shabbat limit [according to the laws for measuring the limit from his eruv to his feet], this is not an eruv.

The reason for this is that this was the enactment of the Sages: the person establishing the eruv must stand within the boundary that acquires him. It is not because, at the time of acquiring the eruv, he cannot come to his eruv [because he is standing outside the limit and is forbidden to leave his place].

B. Moreover, even if he intended to spend Shabbat in one place and placed his bread in another place [and he may do so if he can bring his eruv to the place where he spends Shabbat], his feet must also be standing within the “boundary of his bread.”

That is, he must stand also within the boundary that the bread would establish for him, had he intended to acquire a place of residence at the place of the bread. This is so even though now he is not acquiring residence at the place of the bread, but is acquiring residence in another place; rather, he performs the acquisition of residence by placing the bread in the other place.

And although the acquisition of residence is in another place, and he is standing within the boundary of the place of residence, that is not sufficient. For part of the enactment of the Sages was that he must stand also within the “boundary of his bread,” in addition to standing within the “boundary of his feet.”

Therefore, if a person established the place of his residence in a certain place, but placed the eruv bread in another place, and

the eruv rolled—

which had been lying within the “boundary of his feet” of the person establishing the eruv—to

outside the “boundary

of his feet.”

It follows that although the feet of the person establishing the eruv are still standing within the boundary of his eruv and residence, they now stand outside the “boundary of his bread” .

Or a

heap fell upon it,

upon the eruv,

of stones,

in such a manner that removing the heap involves a prohibition by Torah law, as the Gemara explains.

Or it

was

burned,

the eruv.

Or the Israelite placed [the implication of Rashi]

teruma

permitted to kohanim—which is fit for an eruv even for an Israelite—and

it became impure

and was forbidden even to kohanim.

In all these cases, the law of the eruv is:

If

before nightfall

one of these events occurred—

it is not an eruv!

The reason for this is:

In the case of its rolling outside the boundary, because it is not located within the “boundary of his bread.”

In the other matters, because anything that he cannot take and eat during twilight, which is the time of acquiring the eruv, is not an eruv.

And if

after nightfall

one of all these events occurred,

this is an eruv,

for “he already acquired the eruv during twilight. And once Shabbat has been permitted, it has been permitted!” [Rashi].

And if

it is uncertain

for him when one of these events occurred:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say:

Since it is uncertain whether he acquired residence at the place where he placed his eruv in the east, or whether it is not an eruv and he acquired residence in his house in the west, he has only the two thousand cubits between his city and his eruv.

That is, he may walk only within them, by the principle of “either way”: whether he acquired residence in his house, or whether he acquired residence at the place where he placed his eruv, these two thousand cubits are included within his boundary.

But the two thousand cubits eastward from his eruv are forbidden to him, lest he acquired residence in his house. And the two thousand cubits westward from his house are likewise forbidden to him, lest he acquired residence at the place where he placed his eruv!

And

this is

similar to one who is both

a donkey-driver

and

a camel-driver.

For one who leads a donkey walks behind his donkey, whereas one who leads a camel walks before his camel, and it follows that one draws him in front of him and the other draws him behind him.

Here too, his house draws him toward his house, causing him to lose the two thousand cubits from his eruv onward. Whereas his eruv draws him toward it, causing him to lose the two thousand cubits from his house onward.

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: an uncertain eruv—

is valid!

And its law is like that of one who acquired residence at the place where he placed his eruv [Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in the fourth discussion].

Rabbi Yose said: Abtolmos [

the name of a Sage ]

testified in the name of five elders concerning an uncertain eruv, that it is valid [

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara ].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

The eruv rolled outside the boundary

before nightfall, it is not an eruv:

Rava said: They taught this only when it rolled

the eruv

outside the four cubits

from the end of the “boundary of his feet.” For now his feet also stand outside the “boundary of his bread.”

But

if the eruv rolled outside the boundary of his feet, but it was still

within the four cubits

of the boundary of his feet, the eruv acquired for him, and the eruv is not considered to stand outside the “boundary of his bread.”

For:

one who places his eruv—

has four cubits

around it, and only after them does he begin counting the two thousand cubits of his boundary!

And since this is so, even if he were acquiring residence at the place of his bread, his boundary would extend as far as his feet, since there are not more than four cubits between them, together with the two thousand cubits of the boundary. Therefore it is an eruv . [ See illustration on the next page ]

We learned in the Mishna:

A heap of stones fell upon it, etc.

it is not an eruv:

It initially entered our minds

that it is speaking

of a case where, if he wished, he could take it,

the eruv, without a prohibition involving labor by Torah law, but it is not an eruv because, if he wished to take it, he would have to move the stones, and this is forbidden because the stones are muktzeh, and their carrying is forbidden by rabbinic law.

Therefore we say:

Shall we say that our Mishna is not according to Rabbi?

For if it were according to Rabbi, he said: anything that is because of a rabbinic prohibition—

they did not decree concerning it during twilight.

And he could properly take it during twilight, which is the time of acquiring the eruv.

And we reject this:

You may even say

that

according to Rabbi

our Mishna is taught—

it is necessary.

For here, with what are we dealing?

With a case where a spade and a hoe are needed,

a mattock and an ax, in order to clear it, because the heap was large [Rabbeinu Yonatan], “and this is labor of Torah status: in a house, because of building, and in a field, because of plowing. And although he does not intend this [for the building or plowing that he performs incidentally while clearing the heap], it is an inevitable consequence and he cannot avoid it.” [Ritva].

And we explain it:

And they are necessary

these two rulings: it rolled outside the boundary, and a mound fell upon it.

If it taught only that it rolled outside the boundary

I would say: only in such a case is it not an eruv,

because it is not with him [

for his bread is not with the one establishing the eruv], since the one establishing the eruv is outside the boundary of his bread, for this reason it is not an eruv.

But if a mound fell upon it, so that it is with him,

which does not stand outside the boundary of his bread at the time the eruv is acquired,

I would say: let it be an eruv.

For this reason the tannai taught us that even when a mound fell upon it, it does not help.

And if it taught only that a mound fell upon it,

only,

I would say:

only in such a case does it not help,

because it is covered [

the eruv is covered, and it will not become exposed on its own].

But if it rolled, since

sometimes the wind comes and brings it back [

sometimes the wind returns it into the boundary],

I would say: let it be an eruv;

for this reason

it is necessary

to state these two rulings in the Mishna.

We learned in the Mishna:

or it was burned; teruma, and it became impure, etc.:

And we explain:

Why did the tannai teach “it was burned”,

when it is obvious that it is not an eruv?!