ורבי סבר לה כרבי מאיר וסבר לה כרבי יהודה
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
סבר לה כרבי מאיר דאמר חוקקין להשלים
The Gemara clarifies: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said the following in the case of an arched gateway in which the lower, straight-walled section is three handbreadths high, and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high: Even if, at the height of ten handbreadths, the arch is less than four handbreadths wide, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the arch has the legal status as though it were actually enlarged to a width of four handbreadths.Similarly, in our case the basket is taken into account and enlarges the tree to a width of four handbreadths.
וסבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר בעינן עירוב על גבי מקום ארבעה וליכא
And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: We require that the eiruv rest on a place that is four by four handbreadths wide, and here there is not a width of four handbreadths without taking the basket into account.
מאי רבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר נעץ קורה ברשות הרבים והניח עירובו עליה גבוה עשרה ורחבה ארבעה עירובו עירוב ואם לאו אין עירובו עירוב
The Gemara now asks: What is the source of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one stuck a cross beam into the ground in the public domain and placed his eiruv upon it, if the cross beam is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it has the status of a private domain, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if not, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.
אדרבה הוא ועירובו במקום אחד אלא הכי קאמר גבוה עשרה צריך שיהא בראשה ארבעה אין גבוהה עשרה אין צריך שיהא בראשה ארבעה
The Gemara expresses surprise: On the contrary, if the cross beam is not ten handbreadths high, why shouldn’t his eiruv be valid? He and his eiruv are in the same place, i.e., in the public domain.Rather, this is what he said: If the cross beam is ten handbreadths high, it is necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide, so that it can be considered its own domain; but if it is not ten handbreadths high, it is not necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide because it is considered part of the public domain.
כמאן דלא כרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה דתניא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר נעץ קנה ברשות הרבים והניח בראשו טרסקל וזרק ונח על גביו חייב
The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ravina offer his explanation, which maintains that we are dealing with a basket that completes the dimension of the tree to four handbreadths and yet it is not treated as a private domain? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If one stuck a reed into the ground in the public domain, and placed a basket [teraskal] four by four handbreadths wide on top of it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable for carrying from a public domain to a private domain. According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, if a surface of four by four handbreadths rests at a height of ten handbreadths from the ground, this is sufficient for it to be considered a private domain. Ravina’s explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position, however, does not appear to accept this assumption.
אפילו תימא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה התם הדרן מחיצתא הכא לא הדרן מחיצתא
The Gemara refutes this and claims that this proof is not conclusive: Even if you say that Ravina’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a distinction can be made: There, in the case of the basket resting on a reed, the sides of the basket constitute partitions that surround the reed on all sides, and we can invoke the principle of: Lower the partition, according to which the partitions are viewed as extending down to the ground. Consequently, a kind of private domain is created within the public domain. Here, in the case of the basket hanging from the tree, the partitions of the basket do not surround the tree, and so they do not suffice to create a private domain.
רבי ירמיה אמר שאני כלכלה הואיל ויכול לנטותה ולהביאה לתוך עשרה
Rabbi Yirmeya said that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the Tosefta can be explained in an entirely different manner: A basket is different, since one can tilt it and in that way bring it to within ten handbreadths of the ground. Without moving the entire basket, one can tilt it and thereby remove the eiruv in order to eat it, without carrying it from one domain to another.
יתיב רב פפא וקא אמר להא שמעתא איתיביה רב בר שבא לרב פפא כיצד הוא עושה מוליכו בראשון ומחשיך עליו ונוטלו ובא לו בשני מחשיך עליו ואוכלו ובא לו
Rav Pappa sat and recited this halakha. Rav bar Shabba raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the following mishna: What does one do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat? He brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, i.e., the eve of the Festival, and stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it does not become lost before Shabbat begins, in which case he would not have an eiruv for Shabbat. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his Shabbat residence; and then he may then eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires.