Eruvin 32bעירובין ל״ב ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
32bל״ב ב

סבר אותו חבר אוכל ואינו צריך לעשר דודאי עישורי מעשר ההוא חבר קמא עילויה ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לא יאכל עד שיעשר לפי שלא נחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף ואמר ליה רבי מוטב שיחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף ואל יאכילו עמי הארץ טבלים

holds: That ḥaver, who heard the first ḥaver speaking to the am ha’aretz, may immediately eat from the basket, and he is not required to tithe the produce, as the first ḥaver certainly separated tithes for the person who picked the figs, as he would not have caused an am ha’aretz to eat tevel. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: That ḥaver may not eat of the fruit until he has tithed them, for ḥaverim are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is better that ḥaverim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha’aretz produce that is tevel.

במאי קמיפלגי רבי סבר ניחא ליה לחבר דלעביד הוא איסורא קלילא ולא ליעבד עם הארץ איסורא רבה ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבר ניחא ליה לחבר דליעבד עם הארץ איסורא רבה ואיהו אפילו איסורא קלילא לא ליעבד:

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha’aretz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that an am ha’aretz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression.

מתני׳ נתנו באילן למעלה מעשרה טפחים אין עירובו עירוב למטה מעשרה טפחים עירובו עירוב נתנו בבור אפילו עמוק מאה אמה עירובו עירוב:

MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv; if it is below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv. If he placed the eiruv in a pit, even if it was a hundred cubits deep, his eiruv is a valid eiruv.

גמ׳ יתיב רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אסי ורבא בר נתן ויתיב רב נחמן גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי האי אילן דקאי היכא אילימא דקאי ברשות היחיד מה לי למעלה מה לי למטה רשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba sat, and with him sat Rabbi Asi and Rava bar Natan, and Rav Naḥman sat beside them, and they sat and said: This tree mentioned in the mishna, where does it stand? If you say it stands in the private domain, what is the difference to me whether the eiruv is placed above ten handbreadths or below ten handbreadths? The private domain ascends to the sky, and there is no difference whether an object is above or below ten handbreadths.

ואלא דקאי ברשות הרבים דמתכוין לשבות היכא אילימא דנתכוון לשבות למעלה הוא ועירובו במקום אחד הוא אלא נתכוון לשבות למטה והא קא משתמש באילן

Rather, say that the tree stands in the public domain; but in that case the question arises: Where did the person intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If you say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence in the tree above, he and his eiruv are in one place. Consequently, the eiruv should be valid, even if is at a height of more than ten handbreadths. Rather, say that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below; but isn’t he making use of the tree if he accesses his eiruv? It is prohibited to make use of a tree on Shabbat, and therefore his eiruv should invalid even if it is less than ten handbreadths above the ground because it is inaccessible to him.

לעולם דקאי ברשות הרבים ונתכוון לשבות למטה ורבי היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות

The Gemara answers: Actually, we can accept the latter assumption that the tree stands in the public domain, and that he intended to establish his Shabbat residence on the ground below, in the public domain. And with regard to the prohibition against making use of a tree, this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight, which is neither definitively day nor definitively night. Since using a tree is only prohibited due to a shevut, it is permitted to make use of the tree and remove one’s eiruv from it during the twilight period, which is when the eiruv establishes the person’s Shabbat residence. Therefore, the eiruv is valid, provided that it is below ten handbreadths. If, however, the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, it is invalid. At that height, removing the eiruv from the tree entails violation of the Torah prohibition of carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited even during twilight.

אמר להו רב נחמן ישר וכן אמר שמואל אמרו ליה פתריתו בה כולי האי אינהו נמי הכי קא פתרי בה [אלא הכי] אמרו ליה קבעיתו ליה בגמרא אמר להו אין אתמר נמי אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל הכא באילן העומד ברשות הרבים עסקינן גבוה עשרה ורחב ארבעה ונתכוון לשבות למטה ורבי היא דאמר כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות

Rav Naḥman said to them: Well said, and Shmuel said similarly with regard to this issue. They said to him: Have you, the Sages of Babylonia, gone so far in your explanation of the mishna? The Gemara asks: Why were the Sages of Eretz Yisrael so surprised? They, too, explained the mishna in this manner. Rather, this is what they said to Rav Naḥman: Have you established this explanation as part of your regular study of the mishna?He said to them: Yes. Indeed, it was also explicitly stated that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with a tree standing in the public domain, and the tree is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide. It thereby constitutes a private domain, and one intended to establish his Shabbat residence below in the public domain. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat not by Torah law, but rather due to a rabbinic decree, the Sages did not issue the decree to apply during twilight.

אמר רבא לא שנו אלא באילן העומד חוץ לעיבורה של עיר אבל אילן העומד בתוך עיבורה של עיר אפילו למעלה מעשרה הרי זה עירוב דמתא כמאן דמליא דמיא

Rava said in continuation of this discussion: They only taught this law with regard to a tree that stands beyond the outskirts of the city, i.e., outside a radius of seventy and two-thirds cubits around the city. However, with regard to a tree that stands within the outskirts of the city, even if the eiruv was placed above ten handbreadths, it is a valid eiruv, as the city is considered as though it were filled in with earth,so that anything located at any height within the town itself or its outskirts is regarded as being in the same domain. Even though the person intended to establish his Shabbat residence below the tree in the public domain, we view the ground as raised to the height of the eiruv, and his eiruv is therefore valid even though he cannot actually remove it from the tree during the twilight period.

אי הכי חוץ לעיבורה של עיר נמי כיון דאמר רבא הנותן עירובו יש לו ארבע אמות הויא לה רשות היחיד ורשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע

The Gemara asks: If so, if the tree stood beyond the outskirts of the town, there should also be no difference whether the eiruv is above or below the height of ten handbreadths. Since Rava himself said: One who places his eiruv in a particular location has four cubits surrounding him that are considered as a private domain, here too, the area should be considered a private domain; and a private domain rises to the sky. Since the tree stands within this area, all parts of the tree should be regarded as a private domain regardless of their height.

אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב משרשיא הכא באילן הנוטה חוץ לארבע אמות עסקינן

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: Here, we are dealing with a tree that leans out horizontally beyond four cubits from its trunk, and one placed the eiruv on a section that is beyond four cubits,