וְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִשְׁבּוֹת בְּעִיקָּרוֹ. וּמַאי ״לְמַעְלָה״ וּמַאי ״לְמַטָּה״ — דַּהֲדַר זָקֵיף. and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence at its base. And what is the meaning of the terms above and below, as we said that this tree extends horizontally to the side, which indicates that it remains at a uniform height? After the tree leans horizontally beyond four cubits from the place of its roots, it rises once again in an upright position, and therefore the terms above and below are applicable.
וְהָא אִי בָּעֵי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ דֶּרֶךְ עָלָיו! The Gemara asks: Isn’t it true that even if the eiruv is above ten handbreadths, if one wants, he can remove it from where it was deposited and bring it by way of the tree’s leaves, i.e., its branches that are above ten handbreadths, to within four cubits of the place where he intended to establish his Shabbat residence? Therefore, the eiruv should be valid even though it is above ten handbreadths.
כְּשֶׁרַבִּים מְכַתְּפִין עָלָיו, וְכִדְעוּלָּא. דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: עַמּוּד תִּשְׁעָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְכַתְּפִין עָלָיו, וְזָרַק וְנָח עַל גַּבָּיו — חַיָּיב. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a unique situation where the horizontal section of the tree is used by the masses to shoulder their burdens on it, i.e., to temporarily rest their loads on it, so that they can adjust them and easily lift them up again; and the halakha in that case is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: With regard to a pillar that is nine handbreadths high and situated in the public domain, and the masses use it to shoulder their loads upon it, and someone threw an object from a private domain and it came to rest upon it, he is liable, as this pillar has the status of a public domain. Consequently, in the case of the tree, one may not bring the eiruv by way of the tree’s branches, as the horizontal section of the tree has the status of a public domain, and one may not carry from one private domain to another via a public domain.
מַאי רַבִּי, וּמַאי רַבָּנַן? The Gemara previously cited the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to rabbinic decree is not prohibited during the twilight period. The Gemara now attempts to clarify the matter: What is the source that originally cites Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, and what is the source which cites the opinion of the Rabbis?
דְּתַנְיָא: נְתָנוֹ בְּאִילָן, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, וְאָסוּר לִיטְּלוֹ. בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה — מוּתָּר לִיטְּלוֹ. נְתָנוֹ בְּכַלְכַּלָּה וּתְלָאוֹ בְּאִילָן, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסוּר לִיטְּלוֹ — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. The Gemara cites the source of the disagreement: As it was taught in the Tosefta: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths from the ground, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv. If he placed it below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv, but he is prohibited to take it on Shabbat in order to eat it because it is prohibited to use the tree on Shabbat. However, if the eiruv is within three handbreadths of the ground, he is permitted to take it because it is considered as though it were on the ground and not in a tree. If one placed the eiruv in a basket and hung it on a tree, even above ten handbreadths, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis disagree and say: In any situation in which the eiruv was placed in a location where it is prohibited to take it, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא — לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן, צְדָדִין אֲסוּרִין?! אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to which statement did the Rabbis state their opinion? If you say they were referring to the latter clause with respect to the basket hanging from the tree, let us say that the Rabbis hold that using even the sides of a tree is prohibited, as making use of the basket is considered using the sides of a tree. Rather, the Rabbis’ statement must refer to the first clause, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that if one put the eiruv below ten handbreadths, his eiruv is valid, but he is prohibited to move it.
הַאי אִילָן הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה — מְקוֹם פְּטוּר הוּא. וְאִי דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה, כִּי נְתָנוֹ בְּכַלְכַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי? The Gemara clarifies further: This tree, what are its circumstances? If it is not four by four handbreadths wide, it is an exempt domain, i.e., a neutral place with respect to the laws of carrying on Shabbat, from which an object may be carried into any other Shabbat domain. In that case, the eiruv should be valid even if it was placed higher than ten handbreadths in the tree. And if it is four by four handbreadths wide, when one places it in a basket, what of it? What difference does it make? In any event it is in a private domain.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: רֵישָׁא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה, סֵיפָא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה וְכַלְכַּלָּה מַשְׁלִימָתוֹ לְאַרְבָּעָה. Ravina said: The first clause is referring to a case where the tree is four by four handbreadths wide. The eiruv is not valid if it was placed above ten handbreadths because the tree at that height constitutes a private domain, and the eiruv cannot be brought to the public domain below, where one wishes to establish his Shabbat residence. The latter clause, however, is referring to a case where the tree is not four by four handbreadths wide, and the basket completes the width of the tree at that spot to four.