Eruvin 39a (לט.) — the Talmud in English

Similarly

A person may not stroll

Rashi’s wording indicates that we should read

“until”]

the entrance of the state

on Shabbat or on a Festival close to nightfall

in order to enter the bathhouse—

the one located there—

immediately

when night falls.

Apparently, although he is merely walking and has said nothing, it is nevertheless prohibited.

And since that is so, had Rabba heard this beraita, he would have

retracted his statement. For if, when it involves speech—saying: “My Shabbat residence is in my place”—it is prohibited because of preparation, then when it involves silence it should likewise be prohibited.

For if making the statement, “My place of residence for the Shabbat boundary is where I am,” is prohibited because of preparation, then remaining silent should also be prohibited.

And we reject this:

That is not so!

In fact,

Rabba did hear

this beraita.

And

nevertheless

he did not retract his statement.

For there,

in the beraita,

the matter is evident

that he went there in order to determine what his field required, and the Torah said: “from finding your business”; and the same applies at the entrance of the state.

But

here, when one goes outside the city as far as the Shabbat limit,

it

is not evident

that he is going in order to establish an eruv for the following day.

For

if he is a Torah scholar, we say:

surely

a halakhic discussion drew him along [

he is contemplating words of Torah and is not paying attention to his surroundings].

And if he is an ignoramus, we say:

surely

his donkey has gone missing [

his donkey was lost].

The substance of the matter: Rav Yehuda said: If one established an eruv with his feet on the first day, he may establish an eruv with his feet on the second day; if one established an eruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eruv with bread on the second day;

and if

he established an eruv with bread on the first day,

he can

establish an eruv with his feet on the secon

d; but

if he established an eruv with his feet on the first day, he may not establish an eruv with bread on the second day, as one may not establish an eruv initially

on a Festival for Shabbat

with bread.

That is, when he did not establish an eruv with bread on the preceding day for the Festival. And the reason is because of preparation, “as he now assigns it the status of an eruv” [the wording of Rashi. Apparently, the intention is that anything done initially requires a verbal declaration, and anything requiring a verbal declaration involves preparation, as we said above; see also Rashi, s.v. “This too is precise”].

And we explain Rav Yehuda’s statement:

“If one established an eruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eruv with bread on the second day.”

Shmuel said: And this is specifically with that same bread.

For otherwise, one may not initially establish an eruv with bread.

Rav Ashi said: This too is precise [

that specifically with the same bread, over which he assigned the status of an eruv on the preceding day and is now silent, is it permitted. But it is not permitted to establish an eruv on the second day with different bread, since he must now assign it the status of an eruv]—from

our Mishna,

which

teaches:

How does he do so? He brings it on the first day and remains with it until nightfall, then takes it and returns to his place; on the second day, he remains with it until nightfall, eats it, and returns to his place.

We see that he must establish the eruv on the second day with the same bread with which he established it on the preceding day. Therefore, it states: “He remains with it until nightfall, then takes it and returns to his place,” and the reason is because of preparation, as we said.

And

the Gemara explains the reason of

the Sages [

Abaye and Rabba bar Ḥanan, who earlier questioned Rabba’s principle of preparation], who did not heed this inference:

Perhaps there,

in our Mishna,

it is teaching us good advice

so that he will not lose and forfeit his bread and have to trouble himself to bring other bread; but in fact, if he wishes, he may establish an eruv even with other bread.

Mishna:

The preceding Mishna dealt with whether Shabbat and a Festival that are adjacent to one another constitute a single sanctity and one extended day, or two sanctities.

Our Mishna clarifies the status of the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, with regard to the practical consequence for their Shabbat-boundary eruvin.

According to Rashi, our Mishna refers to the period when two days of Rosh HaShana were observed only outside Eretz Yisrael, whereas in Eretz Yisrael only one day was observed, in accordance with the sanctification of the new moon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to Rosh HaShana, when one was afraid that it might be extended,

one who was in the Diaspora and feared that the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem might extend the month of Elul, thereby postponing Rosh HaShana—according to his calculation—by one day, and for this reason he had to observe two days with the sanctity of a Festival, and had to go in one direction on the first day and in the other direction on the second day:

A person may establish two eruvin,

to the east and to the west, and say:

“My eruv

that is on the eastern side shall acquire for me a Shabbat residence

on

day one

to the east, and

my eruv that is on the western side shall acquire for me a Shabbat residence

on

day

two to the west.”

Or he may say [according to the direction in which he wishes to go]:

“On the first day to the west, and on the second day to the east.”

Or he may place one eruv [when he wishes to go in only one direction on one of the days] and say:

“My eruv shall apply on the first day, and on the second day I am like the residents of my city.”

Or

“My eruv shall apply on the second day, and on the first day”

I am

like the residents of my city.

But the Sages did not agree with him,

as the Gemara explains their reasoning.

Rabbi Yehuda further said:

One who had on Rosh HaShana a basket [a basket] of untithed produce, which he was prohibited to prepare on the Festival [as teruma may not be separated on a Festival, since it is a rabbinic shevut, as stated in tractate Beitza], if he wishes to prepare it,

a person may stipulate

and separate teruma and ma’aser from it

for the entire basket on the first Festival day

of Rosh HaShana, and say: “If today is a weekday [because the court extended Elul], then these are teruma and ma’aser. But if today is sacred [because they did not extend it], my words have no effect.”

On the following day, the second day, he stipulates again and says: “If yesterday was sacred and my separation did not take effect, then today they are teruma and ma’aser [for if yesterday was sacred, today is a weekday]. And if yesterday was a weekday and the teruma and ma’aser already took effect, all the better.”

And he eats

the fruit of the basket

on

the

second

Festival day of Rosh HaShana, for on this day, whichever way one considers it, the teruma and ma’aser have taken effect.

And similarly, an egg that was laid on the first day

which is prohibited for consumption on the Festival, as stated at the beginning of tractate Beitza—

may be eaten on the second day,

for whichever way one considers it, it is permitted. If the first day was sacred, then it is now a weekday and the egg is permitted; and if today is sacred, then the egg was laid on the eve of the Festival and is permitted.

But the Sages did not agree with him,

as the Gemara explains their reasoning.

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas says: One who leads the prayer before the congregation on the Festival of Rosh HaShana

mentions in his prayer the New Moon as well, and

says

on the first day:

“Strengthen us [

hasten us and strengthen us, as in: “And we shall arm ourselves swiftly before our brothers, the Children of Israel,” which the descendants of Gad and Reuben said concerning their going out to war]

Hashem our God, on this day of the New Moon, whether today or tomorrow!”

That is: whether it is today or whether it will be tomorrow.

And on the following day he says: “

Strengthen us on this day of the New Moon,

whether today or yesterday.”

But the Sages did not agree with him,

as the Gemara explains concerning what they disagree, and their reasoning.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “But the Sages did not agree with him.”

And we explain:

Who are the ones who did not agree with him?

He said,

the expositor

Rav: It is Rabbi Yosei.

As it was taught in a beraita: The Sages concede [

for they maintain, as stated in the Mishna above, on page 38a, that a Festival and Shabbat adjacent to one another have a single sanctity and constitute one Shabbat residence for both, and they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that they have two sanctities and two separate Shabbat residences]

to Rabbi Eliezer, with regard to Rosh HaShana, when one was afraid that it might be extended,

that

a person may establish two eruvin and say: “My eruv on the first day

is to the east, and on the second day to the west;”

or

on the first day to the west and on the second day to the east;

or

“My eruv shall apply on the first day, and on the second day I am like the residents of my city;”

or

“My eruv shall apply on the second day, and on the first day I am like the residents of my city.”

And because the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana are observed only due to uncertainty—if one is a weekday, the other is sacred—they are two sanctities, with a separate Shabbat residence for each day.

Rabbi Yosei prohibits!

For Rabbi Yosei maintains that there are two reasons why one must observe two days of Rosh HaShana in the Diaspora:

a. Because of the uncertainty whether the court extended the month of Elul, because the moon was not seen in order to sanctify it on the first day.

b. Because at times the court in Jerusalem establishes that both days must certainly be observed as sacred, even though witnesses came on the first day testifying that they had seen the moon—as will be explained.

And since it is possible that both days are sacred, and they have a single sanctity, it is therefore impossible to establish two eruvin for the two days.

For this reason as well, our Mishna teaches that an egg laid on one day is prohibited on the other, and that it is prohibited to prepare the basket by means of a stipulation, for we are likewise uncertain that perhaps both days are certainly sacred.

And when does the court establish that both days will certainly be sacred?

When witnesses came on the thirtieth day of Elul, after the time of the offering of the afternoon daily offering, to testify that the new moon had been seen.

For we hold that the thirtieth day of Elul is observed with sanctity, since it is possible that witnesses will come that very day to testify that they saw the moon, and the court will sanctify the month, making that day the Festival of Rosh HaShana.

Therefore, it is observed with sanctity from the beginning of the day, even before the witnesses arrive.

But in the morning, the Levites would recite a weekday song [for even if the month were sanctified before the morning daily offering, they would recite only a weekday song over the offering, as they did not institute the recitation of a different song, since in most years it is a weekday; Rashi, Rosh HaShana 30b].

And when the afternoon daily offering arrived, since the witnesses had still not come, they recited a weekday song over it.

And since they had already recited a weekday song, if the court were to accept the witnesses after the offering of the afternoon daily offering, it would emerge that the Levites had not recited over the offering the song appropriate to it.

Therefore, the Sages instituted that if witnesses came on the thirtieth day of Elul from the afternoon offering onward [which is the time of the offering of the afternoon daily offering], they would not sanctify the month on that day. Rather, they would postpone the sanctification of the month until the following day, and count the establishment of the month only from the following day, so that they could recite the song appropriate to the afternoon daily offering on the Festival.

Nevertheless, even at the very end of the thirtieth day, they continued to observe it with sanctity, as at its beginning, for the Sages so instituted: that they should observe that day as sacred even at the end of the day, although they then knew with certainty that the Festival would be postponed to the following day [after they instituted that witnesses would not be accepted], and that the following day would be sacred.

It follows that at the end of the thirtieth day, after the witnesses arrived and were not accepted, it was observed with sanctity [certainly, by virtue of the Sages’ enactment], and the following day was also observed with sanctity, certainly, by fundamental law.

And thus

Rabbi Yosei said to them

the Sages: Do

you not concede that if witnesses came from the afternoon offering onward—

they observe

also

that day as sacred and

also

the following day as sacred!