ואין טועמין מפירותיה
and whose fruit they do not taste. This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.
ושמואל אמר כגון דאמרי הני תמרי לשיכרא דבי נצרפי דשתו ליה ביום חגם (אמר אמימר) ואמרו לי סבי דפומבדיתא הלכתא כוותיה דשמואל
And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival, then this is enough to establish the tree as an asheira. Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me with regard to this issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
מיתיבי כיצד משתתפין במבוי מביאים חבית של יין ושל שמן ושל תמרים ושל גרוגרות ושל שאר מיני פירות
The Gemara returns to Rav Yehuda’s ruling that the barrel used for merging the alleyway must be raised a handbreadth from the ground. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How does one merge an alleyway? One brings a barrel of wine, or oil, or dates, or dried figs, or any other type of produce for merging the alleyway.
אם משלו צריך לזכות ואם משלהן צריך להודיע ומגביה מן הקרקע משהו מאי משהו נמי דקאמר טפח
If one contributed a barrel of his own, he must confer possession to all the other residents by means of another person who acquires it on their behalf. And if the barrel is theirs, he must at least inform them that he is merging the alleyway. And the one acquiring it on behalf of the others raises the barrel a minimal amount from the ground. Apparently, the barrel need not be raised a handbreadth. The Gemara answers: Here too, what is this minimal amount of which the tanna of the baraita spoke? This expression means a handbreadth, but no less.
איתמר שיתופי מבואות רב אמר אין צריך לזכות ושמואל אמר צריך לזכות עירובי תחומין רב אמר צריך לזכות ושמואל אמר אין צריך לזכות
It is stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a merging of alleyways. Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession to them. They likewise disagreed with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but the opinions are reversed. Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession of the food to all those who wish to be included in the eiruv, and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession to them.
בשלמא לשמואל הכא תנן והכא לא תנן אלא לרב מאי טעמא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Shmuel, his reasoning is clear, as here, with regard to a merging of the alleyways, we learned in the mishna that he must confer possession, whereas there, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, we did not learn that this is the halakha. However, according to Rav, what is the reason that he differentiates between the cases in this manner?
תנאי היא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה בכלתו של רבי אושעיא שהלכה לבית המרחץ וחשכה לה ועירבה לה חמותה
The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.
ובא מעשה לפני רבי חייא ואסר אמר לו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי בבלאי כל כך אתה מחמיר בעירובין כך אמר אבא כל שיש לך להקל בעירובין הקל
And the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya for a ruling as to whether the eiruv is valid, and he ruled that it was not valid and prohibited her return. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an eiruv? This is what my father said: Any case where you have the ability to be lenient with regard to an eiruv, be lenient.
ואבעיא להו משל חמותה עירבה לה ומשום דלא זיכתה לה או דילמא משלה עירבה לה ומשום דשלא מדעתה
And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession to her, i.e., she merely prepared the eiruv but did not confer possession of the food, and an eiruv of this kind is not effective? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law’s own food, but the eiruv was invalid because it was prepared without her knowledge?
אמר להן ההוא מרבנן ורבי יעקב שמיה לדידי מיפרשא לה מיניה דרבי יוחנן משל חמותה עירבה ומשום דלא זיכתה לה
One of the Sages, named Rabbi Ya’akov, said to them: It was personally explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan that the mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her.
אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי יעקב (בריה) דבת יעקב כי מטית התם אקיף וזיל לסולמא דצור ובעיא מיניה מרב יעקב בר אידי
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path, and go to the Ladder of Tyre and raise this dilemma before Rav Ya’akov bar Idi.
בעא מיניה משל חמותה עירבה ומשום דלא זיכתה לה או דלמא משלה עירבה ומשום דשלא מדעתה
Rabbi Ya’akov did so and raised a dilemma before him: With regard to that incident, did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law from the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her? Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law’s own food, but the eiruv was invalidated because it was prepared without her knowledge?
אמר ליה משל חמותה עירבה לה ומשום דלא זיכתה לה
Rav Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: The mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her. Like his master and uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rav also maintains that possession of the food must be conferred upon those who wish to be included in a joining of Shabbat boundaries.
אמר רב נחמן נקטינן אחד עירובי תחומין ואחד עירובי חצירות אחד שיתופי מבואות צריך לזכות בעי רב נחמן עירובי תבשילין צריך לזכות או אין צריך לזכות
Rav Naḥman said: We hold based on tradition that with regard to all of them, joining of Shabbat boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession. After issuing this statement, Rav Naḥman raised a dilemma concerning an issue that was not sufficiently clear to him: With regard to a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday, is it necessary to confer possession, or is it not necessary to confer possession?
אמר רב יוסף ומאי תיבעי ליה לא שמיע ליה הא דאמר רב נחמן בר רב אדא אמר שמואל עירובי תבשילין צריך לזכות אמר ליה אביי פשיטא דלא שמיע ליה דאי שמיע ליה מאי תיבעי ליה
Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Did he not hear that which Rav Naḥman bar Rav Adda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a joining of cooked foods, it is necessary to confer possession? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It is obvious that he did not hear that ruling, as had he heard it, why would he have raised this dilemma?
אמר ליה אטו עירובי תחומין מי לא אמר שמואל אין צריך לזכות ואמר איהו צריך לזכות
Rav Yosef said to him: Didn’t Shmuel say, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, that it is not necessary to confer possession, and Rav Naḥman nonetheless said that it is necessary to confer possession? Perhaps here too Rav Naḥman did not accept Shmuel’s ruling.
הכי השתא בשלמא התם פליגי רב ושמואל וקא משמע לן כחומרין דמר וכי חומרין דמר אבל הכא אי איתא דשמיע ליה מי איכא דמאן דפליג
Abaye replied: How can you compare the two cases? Granted, there, with regard to a merging of alleyways and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, Rav and Shmuel disagree, and Rav Naḥman teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the stringency of this master and the stringency of that master, i.e., his ruling is based on both opinions. However, here, with regard to a joining of cooked foods, if it is so, if he actually heard Shmuel’s ruling, is there anyone who disputes it? If one of his teachers issued an uncontested ruling, it is presumably an established halakha.
ההוא טורזינא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרבי זירא אמרו ליה אוגיר לן רשותך לא אוגיר להו אתו לקמיה דרבי זירא אמרו ליה מהו למיגר מדביתהו
A certain gentile superintendent [turzina] lived in Rabbi Zeira’s neighborhood. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may carry on Shabbat. However, he would not rent it to them. They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent the domain from his wife without her husband’s knowledge?
אמר להו הכי אמר ריש לקיש משמיה דגברא רבה ומנו רבי חנינא אשתו של אדם מערבת שלא מדעתו
Rabbi Zeira said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, and who is this great man? It is Rabbi Ḥanina. He stated: A man’s wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge. According to this principle, the superintendent’s wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.
ההוא טורזינא דהוה בשיבבותיה דרב יהודה בר אושעיא אמרי ליה אוגר לן רשותך לא אוגר להו אתו לקמיה דרב יהודה בר אושעיא אמרי ליה מהו למיגר מדביתהו לא הוה בידיה אתו לקמיה דרב מתנה לא הוה בידיה אתו לקמיה דרב יהודה אמר להו הכי אמר שמואל אשתו של אדם מערבת שלא מדעתו
The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain superintendent lived in the neighborhood of Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya. The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may establish an eiruv and carry on Shabbat, but he would not rent it to them. They came before Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya and said to him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent it from his wife? He did not have a ready answer at hand. They subsequently came before Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer at hand. They came before Rav Yehuda, who said to them that Shmuel said as follows: A man’s wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge, and the same applies to renting out his property.
מיתיבי נשים שעירבו ונשתתפו שלא מדעת בעליהן אין עירובן עירוב ואין שיתופן שיתוף
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Women who joined the courtyards or merged the alleyways without the knowledge of their husbands, their eiruv is not a valid eiruv, and their merging of alleyways is not a valid merging. How can Shmuel rule against an explicit baraita?
לא קשיא הא דאסר הא דלא אסר
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, where Shmuel said that a wife may establish an eiruv without her husband’s knowledge, he was referring to a situation where the husband would prohibit his neighbors from carrying if he did not join their eiruv, and the halakha is therefore lenient, as a wife may establish an eiruv on his behalf. However, in that case, the baraita, which states that his wife may not establish an eiruv without his knowledge, is referring to a situation where he would not prohibit his neighbors from carrying.
הכי נמי מסתברא דאם כן קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל דאמר שמואל אחד מבני מבוי שרגיל להשתתף עם בני מבוי ולא נשתתף בני המבוי נכנסין לתוך ביתו ונוטלין שיתופן ממנו בעל כרחו
The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as if you do not say this, there is a contradiction between this ruling of Shmuel and another ruling of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to one of the residents of an alleyway who was accustomed to join in a merging of alleyways with the other residents of the alleyway, but one Shabbat he did not join in a merging of alleyways with them, the other residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to their merging of alleyways from him even against his will.
רגיל אין שאין רגיל לא שמע מינה
The Gemara infers: If he was accustomed to join in their merging of the alleyway, yes, they may enter his house to collect his contribution, but if he was not accustomed to do so, no, they may not do so. Clearly, it is not possible in all cases to compel a person to participate in a merging of alleyways against his will. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that it is so.
לימא מסייע ליה כופין אותו לעשות לחי וקורה למבוי
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports him. The residents of an alleyway may compel anyone who lives in the alleyway to erect a side post and a cross beam for the alleyway. This teaching indicates that with regard to these Shabbat enactments, a person’s wishes are not taken into account; rather, others may act on his behalf even against his will.