Eruvin 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

And

this is

“a donkey”—

“a camel”.

That is, like a donkey and a camel together, [as explained above in the Mishna on page 35a].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, say:

Certainly, it is one sanctity. And if

he established an eruv with his feet on the first day, he need not establish an eruv—

that is, he need not establish an eruv—

with his feet

on the second day. And if

his eruv was consumed on the first day, he may rely upon it on the

second

day.

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with these four elders

mentioned shortly,

and in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer

in our Mishna; that is, they hold like Rabbi Eliezer

who said: There are two sanctities!

And these are the four

e

elders:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda the Anonymous

this is his appellation, because in many places Rabbi anonymously taught the Mishnayot in accordance with his opinion. Other tannaim whose opinions Rabbi taught anonymously in this manner are likewise called by this appellation].

Some say: One of them was the anonymous Rabbi Elazar

who was Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua,

and he excludes

and removes from the four]

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda the Anonymous!

We raise a difficulty concerning Rav’s statement, in which he counted among the four elders who hold that there are two sanctities Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka:

But concerning Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, we heard the opposite—

in the earlier beraita—and they hold that it is one sanctity?!

And we answer:

Reverse

their statements in the beraita. They did not say: “He does not establish an eruv with his feet” on the second day, and “he may rely upon it” on the second day. Rather, this is what they said: He establishes an eruv with his feet on the second day, but he may not rely upon it on the second day; rather, he is like the residents of his city even with regard to the leniency, for certainly there are two sanctities.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, this is the opinion of Rabbi

in the beraita, who likewise holds this way; and in what do they disagree with him?!

And we answer:

Say instead: And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, also said: If he established an eruv with his feet on the first day, he establishes an eruv with his feet on the second day; if his eruv was consumed on the first day, he may not rely upon it on the second day!

And we raise another difficulty concerning Rav:

And he should also count

among the elders who hold that there are two sanctities

Rabbi,

who holds this way in the earlier beraita?!

And we answer:

Rabbi taught it

in the beraita—that one is entirely like the residents of his city if he did not establish another eruv on the second day—in order to explain the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, that there is no concern here of uncertainty,

but he did not hold by it;

for he himself holds in accordance with the Rabbis.

We raise a difficulty concerning this: If you say that Rabbi appears only to explain the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,

the Rabbis—

that is, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka—should we not say

as well that they taught it

in the beraita in order to explain Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, that one is like the residents of his city even with regard to the leniency,

but

nevertheless

they do not hold by it

like him?!

And we answer:

Rav received it as a tradition

[that he received it from his teacher]: Rabbi included it only to explain Rabbi Eliezer’s statement, but did not hold by it, whereas the Rabbis taught it in the beraita as their own opinion.

When Rav Huna died

[when Rav Huna died],

Rav Hisda entered

[Rav Hisda entered the study hall]

to challenge Rav with one statement of Rav

[to raise a difficulty from one statement of Rav against another statement of Rav], and this is how he challenged him:

But

did Rav say that the halakha is in accordance with these four elders, and in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who said: There are two sanctities?!

But it was stated: With regard to Shabbat and a Festival

that are adjacent to one another—and it is established that an egg laid on Shabbat or on a Festival is prohibited on that day—

Rav said: One laid on this day is prohibited

also

on this one.

And it was initially understood that his reason is that they are one sanctity and are considered like one long day; but then Rav’s statements contradict one another?!

Rabba said: There

where it is prohibited, it is prohibited

because of preparation

and that is why it is prohibited.

That is, an egg laid today was completed yesterday in the hen’s womb. Therefore, when it was laid on Shabbat, this egg was “prepared” on Shabbat for eating on the Festival, and it is consequently prohibited on the Festival.

And

as it was taught:

It is written:

“And it shall be on the sixth day, and they shall prepare

what they bring.” This means that one must “designate” it, as when one says: “From this I will eat tomorrow.”

And it is written, “on the sixth day,” and an unspecified sixth day is a weekday. The Merciful One therefore regarded the meal of Shabbat as requiring that it be designated while it is still day, and on a weekday.

From here they derived: A

weekday prepares for Shabbat, and a

weekday

prepares for a Festival. But a Festival does not prepare for Shabbat,

and Shabbat does not prepare for a Festival .

in our Mishna:

And we raise a difficulty:

Abaye said to Rabba:

According to your view, that an egg is prohibited because of preparation,

but as for that which we learned

in our Mishna:

What does he do

on a Festival adjacent to Shabbat?

He carries it

to the end of the Shabbat limit

on the first day and remains there until dark; he then takes it and returns. On the second day he remains there until dark, eats it, and returns.

How is it permitted to do this?

And

here,

when he acquires his place of residence at the end of the Festival day for Shabbat,

is he not preparing from the Festival for Shabbat?!

the end of the day

He said

in reply

to him, Rabba: Do you think

that ordinarily

the end of the day

of the eve of Shabbat is when he

acquires his eruv,

so that you would say that he acquired his place of residence on the Festival for Shabbat?!

That is not so!

Rather,

the beginning of the day

is when he

acquires his eruv, and Shabbat prepares for itself;

it is not the Festival that prepares for Shabbat.

And Abaye raises a difficulty against Rabba:

If so, since the eruv is acquired at the beginning of the day, consider the Mishna that we cited above, on page 36a: A jug that is a “t’vul yom,” which he filled from a barrel of untithed produce [for the tithe of the tithe], and he said: “This is the tithe of the tithe when it becomes dark” [after the jug becomes pure at sunset]—his statement is valid [for the teruma has not become disqualified].

And if he said: “Establish an eruv for me with this,” he has said nothing! [Since during the day it is untithed produce and is not then fit to eat].

But according to your view, that the eruv is acquired at the beginning of the day—when the untithed produce has already been rectified—

let them establish the eruv with the jug?!

let them establish an eruv with the jug?!

It necessarily follows that the eruv is acquired at the end of the day, when it was still untithed produce [as we likewise said above: “This indicates that the eruv is acquired at the end of the day”].

And Rabba answered [as we likewise rejected the matter above: “This indicates”]:

There, it is because

we require a meal that is fit from while it is still day, and there is none,

for while it is still day it is nevertheless untithed produce.

And Abaye raises a difficulty against Rabba, who said that we require a meal that is fit from while it is still day:

But as for that which we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: “When a Festival is adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a person establishes two eruvin,”

on the Festival toward the east and on Shabbat toward the west!

This is difficult: How does the eruv that he places at the end of two thousand cubits to the west take effect for Shabbat?

And

here too, we require a meal that is fit from while it is still day,

so that he can go to his eruv while it is still day. Since during the day his place of residence is still at the end of two thousand cubits to the east, he cannot come during the day to the end of two thousand cubits to the west to eat his eruv, for it is outside his limit;

and

it follows that

there is no

meal fit from while it is still day. How, then, does the eruv take effect? !

And Rabba answered him:

Do you think

that it is referring to a case

in which he places

the Festival eruv

at the end of two thousand cubits

from the city

in this direction

to the east],

and

he places his Shabbat eruv

at the end of two thousand

cubits in this direction [to the west], so that he cannot go on the Festival from one eruv to the other because it is outside his limit?!

No,

that is not so.

Rather, what are we dealing with here? A case

in which he places

the Festival eruv

at the end of one thousand cubits

from the city

in this direction

to the east; that is, he need travel only three thousand cubits beyond the city].

And

he places his Shabbat eruv

at the end of one thousand cubits

from the city

in this direction

to the west; that is, on Shabbat he need travel only three thousand cubits beyond the city].

It follows that there are only two thousand cubits between the two eruvin, with the city in the middle. And the case is one in which he returned and spent the Festival night in the city, for in such a case the entire city in which he spent the night is considered only four cubits, and he can go during the day to his eruv in the west.

Abaye still raises a difficulty against Rabba:

But as for that which Rav Yehuda said: If he established an eruv with his feet on the first day

[on the Festival] toward the east,

he establishes an eruv with his feet

on the second day

toward the east;

if he established an eruv with bread on the first day

toward the east,

he establishes an eruv with bread on the second day

toward the east! [Rav Yehuda’s statement will be explained more fully at the end of the sugya].

And now this is difficult: How can he establish an eruv with his feet on the Festival for the second day, which is Shabbat?!

For it was initially understood that an eruv takes effect silently only when one establishes it with bread on the second day, but when one establishes it with his feet, he must make a declaration, saying: “My place of residence is in my place.” Since he cannot know when the beginning of the day—the time when the eruv is acquired—will be, he must make this declaration while it is still day. This is difficult:

Is he not preparing

through his declaration

from the Festival for Shabbat?!

See the Ritva, s.v. Ela, which explains the distinction between an eruv with bread and an eruv with one’s feet .

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

Do

you

think

that it is necessary

for him to go and say something?!

That is not so.

Rather,

he goes, remains silent, and sits

[he goes, sits, and remains silent], for no declaration is required. And since the act of establishing one’s place of residence itself takes effect only at the beginning of the day, as we said, there is no issue of preparation here.

We inquire concerning this:

In accordance with whom

did Rabba say that no declaration is required?

Is it

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who said: Ownerless objects acquire a place of residence?

As we learned below, on page 45a: “One who was sleeping on the road and did not know that it had become dark has two thousand cubits in every direction; this is the statement of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. But the Sages say: He has only four cubits.”

And we said concerning it in the Gemara there, according to one explanation, that Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that “ownerless objects”—that is, utensils that have no owners—that were in one place when it became dark, acquire a place of residence there even though no person intended to establish their place of residence there; rather, they acquire a place of residence on their own, and it is prohibited to carry them beyond their limit.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri compares utensils for which no person intended to establish a place of residence to a person who did not intend to establish a place of residence.

And should we likewise say that Rabba holds that no declaration is required for this reason, because he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri?!

And we answer:

You may even say

that Rabba’s statement is in accordance with

the Rabbis,

despite the fact that there they disagree with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

For

the Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri only with regard to one who was sleeping, since he cannot say

“My place of residence is in my place,” and therefore he does not acquire a place of residence while he is asleep.

But when he is awake, since if he wished to say it he could say it,

it is not necessary for him to say it explicitly. Rather,

although he did not say it, he is

considered as though he said it.

Rabba bar Rav Hanin said to Abaye,

concerning Rabba’s statement—that if a declaration had been required for an eruv, it would have been prohibited to acquire an eruv on the Festival for Shabbat, but nevertheless, since no declaration is required, there is no concern with his walking to acquire an eruv for Shabbat while it is still day:

If the Master had heard

[Rabba]

that which was taught:

It is written: “And you shall honor it by not performing your ways, by not pursuing your affairs,” teaching that engaging in one’s “affairs” is prohibited on Shabbat. Therefore:

A person may not walk

on Shabbat

to the end of his field, to ascertain what it

[the field]

needs

after Shabbat;