הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל.
This person is in the position of both a donkey driver, who must prod the animal from behind, and a camel driver, who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is pulled in two opposing directions. Since we are unsure whether the two days constitute one sanctity or two, he must act stringently as though the eiruv established for the first day is both effective and not effective for the second day, i.e., he must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas where he would be permitted to go in both cases.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמְרִים: עֵירַב בְּרַגְלָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן — אֵין מְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו בַּשֵּׁנִי, נֶאֱכַל עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן — יוֹצֵא עָלָיו בַּשֵּׁנִי.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say: If he established an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the first day, he need not establish an eiruv with his feet on the eve of the second day, as his eiruv remains effective for the second day as well. Similarly, if he had made an eiruv by depositing food in the place where he wished to establish his residence, and his eiruv was eaten on the first day, he may still rely on it and go out beyond the limit permitted to the rest of the inhabitants of the town on the second day, as the two days constitute one sanctity; from the outset, the eiruv acquired his place of rest for both days.
אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים הַלָּלוּ, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן אַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה סְתִימְתָּאָה. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וּמַפֵּיק רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה סְתִימְתָּאָה.
Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of these four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: When Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities. And these are the four Elders: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka; Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon; and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose opinions were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot. And there are those who say: One of them is Rabbi Elazar, and remove from the list Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, the one whose statements were often recorded as unattributed mishnayot.
וְהָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ! אֵיפוֹךְ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t we hear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, maintain the opposite opinion in the baraita cited above, namely that the two days constitute a single sanctity? The Gemara answers: Reverse the attributions in the baraita.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ רַבִּי? אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְכוּ׳.
The Gemara asks: If so, this is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said. What is their dispute? The Gemara answers: Say that there is no disagreement between them, and the baraita should read as follows: And so too, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he agrees with what was stated above.
וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי רַבִּי! רַבִּי תָּנֵי לַהּ וְלָא סָבַר לַהּ.
The Gemara now asks: Let us also count Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi among these Elders, as he too holds that the two days are distinct sanctities. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this opinion, and he himself did not hold it to be correct. He transmitted a ruling that he received from his teachers, but his own opinion was otherwise.
רַבָּנַן נָמֵי תָּנוּ לַהּ וְלָא סָבְרִי לַהּ? רַב גְּמָרָא גְּמִיר לַהּ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let us also say that the Rabbis, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yishmael also taught this law, and they themselves did not hold it to be correct. What proof is there that this represents their own opinions? The Gemara answers: Rav did not rely on the wording of these sources; rather, he learned by way of a definite tradition that these four Elders maintained this position.
כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, עָיֵיל רַב חִסְדָּא לְמִירְמָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב. מִי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּאַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת הֵן?
The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna, Rav’s preeminent student, passed away, Rav Ḥisda entered the study hall to raise a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the four Elders and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that when Shabbat and a Festival fall out on consecutive days, they constitute two distinct sanctities?
וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם טוֹב, רַב אָמַר: נוֹלְדָה בָּזֶה אֲסוּרָה בָּזֶה!
Wasn’t it stated that with regard to a case where Shabbat and a Festival occur on consecutive days, Rav said: An egg that was laid on one is prohibited on the other, just as an egg that was laid on a Festival day is prohibited on that same day? This statement indicates that the two days constitute a single sanctity. How, then, can he say here that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion that they are two distinct sanctities?
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָתָם — מִשּׁוּם הֲכָנָה.
Rabba said that a distinction may be drawn between the cases: There, the egg is prohibited on the second day not because the two days constitute a single sanctity but because of the prohibition against preparation, i.e., because it is prohibited to prepare things on a Festival for Shabbat or on Shabbat for a Festival.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וְהֵכִינוּ״ — חוֹל מֵכִין לְשַׁבָּת וְחוֹל מֵכִין לְיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין יוֹם טוֹב מֵכִין לְשַׁבָּת וְאֵין שַׁבָּת מְכִינָה לְיוֹם טוֹב.
As it was taught in a baraita: The verse that states: “And it shall come to pass, on the sixth day, when they shall prepare that which they bring in” (Exodus 16:5), indicates as follows: On an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for Shabbat, and similarly, on an ordinary weekday one may prepare what is needed for a Festival. However, on a Festival one may not prepare for Shabbat, and on Shabbat one may not prepare for a Festival. Therefore, an egg that was laid on a Festival is prohibited on Shabbat not because they constitute a single sanctity, but because it is prohibited to prepare on one sanctified day for another.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה — מוֹלִיכוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וּמַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו, וְנוֹטְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ. בַּשֵּׁנִי מַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו, וְאוֹכְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ. הָא קָא מֵכִין מִיּוֹם טוֹב לְשַׁבָּת!
Abaye said to him: But what about that which we learned in the mishna: What does he do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for the Festival and Shabbat? He or his agent takes the eiruv to the spot that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, and he stays there with it until nightfall, and then he takes it with him and goes away. On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he or his agent takes the eiruv back to the same place and stays there with it until nightfall, and then he may eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires. Isn’t he preparing on a Festival for Shabbat? According to Rabba, this should be considered a prohibited act of preparation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: מִי סָבְרַתְּ סוֹף הַיּוֹם קוֹנֶה עֵירוּב? תְּחִלַּת הַיּוֹם קוֹנָה עֵירוּב, וְשַׁבָּת מְכִינָה לְעַצְמָהּ.
Rabba said to him: Do you think that the eiruv acquires one’s residence at the end of the day, i.e., at the last moment of Shabbat eve, which in this case is a Festival, so that this would involve prohibited preparation? The eiruv acquires his residence at the beginning of the day, i.e., at the first moment of Shabbat, which means that no preparations were made for Shabbat on the Festival, and on Shabbat one may prepare for Shabbat itself.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה — יְעָרְבוּ בְּלָגִין?
Abaye asked: But if that is so, one should be able to establish an eiruv with flasks of wine that were filled from a barrel of first-tithe that was still tevel with respect to teruma of the tithe, and with regard to which one said: Let this wine in the flask be teruma of the tithe for the wine in the barrel only after nightfall. If you say that an eiruv acquires one’s residence at the beginning of the day, why was it determined that one may not establish an eiruv with such wine?
בָּעִינַן סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וְלֵיכָּא.
The Gemara answers: In that case the eiruv is not valid for a different reason: We require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none, as the wine in the flask remains tevel and therefore unfit for drinking until nightfall.
אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יוֹם טוֹב הַסָּמוּךְ לַשַּׁבָּת, בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ, מְעָרֵב אָדָם שְׁנֵי עֵירוּבִין. הָא בָּעִינַן סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וְלֵיכָּא.
Abaye asked further: But what about that which we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: If a Festival is adjacent to Shabbat, whether before it or after it, a person may establish two eiruvin. Why are these eiruvin valid? Don’t we require a meal that is fit to be eaten while it is still day, and there is none? Since one established his eiruv in one direction for the first day, he can only travel within a two-thousand-cubit radius of that location. Therefore, if he established his eiruv for the second day in the opposite direction, he cannot access that eiruv during the first day.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ דְּמַנַּח לֵיהּ בְּסוֹף אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָאן, וּבְסוֹף אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָאן? לָא, דְּמַנַּח לֵיהּ בְּסוֹף אֶלֶף אַמָּה לְכָאן, וּבְסוֹף אֶלֶף אַמָּה לְכָאן.
The Gemara responds: Do you think that we are dealing with a case where he placed one eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in this direction, and he placed the other eiruv in the furthest possible spot at the end of two thousand cubits in that direction, and he is therefore unable to go from one to the other on one day? No, the case is that he placed one eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in the this direction, and he placed the other eiruv at the end of one thousand cubits in that direction, so that even after acquiring his residence on one side of the town by means of the first eiruv, he can still go to the spot where he left the other eiruv for the second day.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עֵירַב בְּרַגְלָיו יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן — מְעָרֵב בְּרַגְלָיו יוֹם שֵׁנִי, עֵירַב בְּפַת בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן — מְעָרֵב בְּפַת בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי, הָא קָא מֵכִין מִיּוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת!
Abaye raised yet another difficulty: But what about that which Rav Yehuda said: If one established an eiruv with his feet for the first day, he may establish an eiruv with his feet for the second day; and if he established an eiruv with bread on the first day, he may establish an eiruv with bread on the second day? Isn’t he preparing from a Festival to Shabbat?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ דְּאָזֵיל וְאָמַר מִידֵּי? דְּאָזֵיל וְשָׁתֵיק, וְיָתֵיב.
Rabba said to him: Do you think that one must go and say something at the site of the eiruv, therefore performing an act of preparation? He goes, and is silent, and sits there, and he automatically acquires his residence without having to say or do anything. This does not fall into the category of prohibited preparation.
כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, דְּאָמַר: חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה.
Abaye asked: In accordance with whose opinion do you say that nothing must be said when establishing an eiruv teḥumin? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who said: A sleeping person acquires a Shabbat residence in the spot where he is sleeping. Even though he is comparable to ownerless property, ownerless property itself acquires a Shabbat residence and has its own Shabbat boundary, and there is no need for a person to establish a residence for it in a particular spot.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אֶלָּא בְּיָשֵׁן, דְּלָא מָצֵי אָמַר. אֲבָל בְּנֵיעוֹר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְמֵימַר מָצֵי אָמַר — אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּמֵי.
Rabba replied: Even if you say that my statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only with regard to a sleeping person, who cannot say anything, as he is asleep. Consequently, he cannot acquire a Shabbat residence. However, with regard to one who is awake, since if he wanted to speak he could speak, even though he did not say that he is acquiring his Shabbat residence, he is considered as one who did say that statement.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנִין לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הֲוָה שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ לְמָר הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם לְסוֹף שָׂדֵהוּ לֵידַע מָה הִיא צְרִיכָה; כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ,
Rabba bar Rav Ḥanin said to Abaye: If the Master, Rabba, had heard that which was taught in the following baraita: A person may not walk to the end of his field on Shabbat to determine what work and repair it requires, which will be done after Shabbat. Similarly,