Eruvin 82a:15עירובין פ״ב א:טו
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 82a:15"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
82aפ״ב א

גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי

Are you raising a contradiction between the opinion of one person and that of another? In other words, a difficulty cannot be raised from the statement of one amora against those of another. One Sage, Shmuel, maintains that Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree, and one other Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, maintains that they do not disagree.

גופא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל מקום שאמר רבי יהודה אימתי ובמה במשנתינו אינו אלא לפרש דברי חכמים ורבי יוחנן אמר אימתי לפרש ובמה לחלוק

The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cited in the course of the previous discussion. With regard to the matter itself: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that any place where Rabbi Yehuda says when, or in what case are these, in the Mishna, he intends only to explain the earlier statement of the Rabbis, not to disagree with them. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The term when indicates that Rabbi Yehuda comes to explain, but the phrase in what case is this, indicates that he intends to disagree.

ואימתי לפרש הוא והא תנן ואלו הן הפסולים המשחק בקוביא ומלוה בריבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is the word when invariably a sign that Rabbi Yehuda merely seeks to explain? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The following people are disqualified by the Sages from giving testimony, as they are people who commit transgressions for profit: One who plays with dice [kubiyya] for money, and one who lends money at interest, and those who fly pigeons, i.e., people who arrange competitions between pigeons while placing wagers on which bird will fly faster. The reason for their disqualification is that those who play games of chance do not fully relinquish ownership of their gambling money, as they expect to win their bet. Consequently, one who accepts money in such circumstances has effectively taken something that the giver has not wholeheartedly handed over, and he is therefore like a robber, at least by rabbinic decree. The list of those disqualified from giving testimony includes merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten but may not be sold as an object of commerce.

אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין לו אומנות אלא היא אבל יש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה כשר

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? When he has no occupation other than this one, but if he has a worthy occupation other than this, although he also earns money by these means, this person is qualified to give testimony. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one who earns money by means of games of chance is not a criminal or a robber. Rather, the reason why these people are disqualified from giving testimony is because they are not occupied in the constructive development of the world. As they earn their money without effort, they do not care about the monetary losses of others. Consequently, if they have any other occupation, they are valid witnesses.

ותני עלה בברייתא וחכמים אומרים בין שאין לו אומנות אלא היא ובין שיש לו אומנות שלא היא הרי זה פסול

The Gemara resumes its difficulty: According to the above principle with regard to statements introduced with the term when, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement should be understood merely as an explanation of the previous opinion. However, a baraita was taught about the mishna: And the Rabbis say: Whether he has no occupation other than this one, or whether he has a fitting occupation other than this, this person is disqualified from giving testimony. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is disagreeing rather than explaining, even though he introduced his statement with the term when.

ההיא דרבי יהודה אמר רבי טרפון היא

The Gemara answers: That opinion in the baraita, with regard to those disqualified from providing testimony, is not the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna. Rather, it is that of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintained that Rabbi Tarfon said this opinion. The Rabbis of the mishna, however, agree with Rabbi Yehuda in this regard, and his statement serves to explain their position.

דתניא אמר רבי יהודה משום רבי טרפון לעולם אין אחד מהן נזיר לפי שאין נזירות אלא להפלאה

As it was taught in a baraita with regard to naziriteship: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: In a case where two people accepted a bet, with each undertaking to become a nazirite if he lost the wager, and a doubt arose as to who won, neither one of them can possibly be a nazirite, as there is no acceptance of naziriteship without clear and definitive pronunciation. A vow of naziriteship is only binding if it was expressly pronounced, i.e., if it was clear from the outset that the person intended to become a nazirite.

אלמא כיון דמספקא ליה אי נזיר אי לא נזיר הוא לא משעביד נפשיה הכא נמי כיון דלא ידע אי קני אי לא קני לא גמר ומקנה:

Consequently, it can be inferred that since he is in doubt as to whether he is a nazirite or he is not a nazirite, he does not submit himself to and accept his vow of naziriteship. Here, too, Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies those who play games of chance from delivering testimony due to the fact that they are robbers. Since the player does not know whether he will win and acquire the money or whether he will lose and not acquire it, he does not fully transfer ownership of the money with which he plays to others, which means that the one who gains from these games receives money that was not wholeheartedly given to him. He is therefore likened to a robber, at least on the rabbinic level, which disqualifies him from giving testimony.



הדרן עלך חלון

מתני׳ כיצד משתתפין בתחומין מניח את החבית ואומר הרי זה לכל בני עירי לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה וכל שקיבל עליו מבעוד יום מותר משתחשך אסור שאין מערבין משתחשך:

MISHNA: How does one participate in the joining of Shabbat boundaries? One who wishes to establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries for himself and others places a barrel of food in the location he designates as their place of residence, and says: This is for all the residents of my town, for anyone who wishes to go on Shabbat to a house of mourning or to a house of a wedding feast situated beyond the Shabbat limit.Anyone who accepted upon himself while it was still day, i.e., before the onset of Shabbat, that he will rely on the eiruv, is permitted to rely upon it; but if one did so only after nightfall, he is prohibited to rely upon it, as the principle is that one may not establish an eiruv after nightfall.

גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף אין מערבין אלא לדבר מצוה מאי קא משמע לן תנינא לכל מי שילך לבית האבל או לבית המשתה

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said: One may establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries only for the purpose of a mitzva, i.e., to enable the fulfillment of a religious obligation, but not for an optional activity. The Gemara asks: What novel element is he teaching us by this? We explicitly learned this idea in the mishna from the phrase: For anyone who wishes to go on Shabbat to a house of mourning or to a house of a wedding feast. This mishna indicates that an eiruv may be established only for the purpose of a mitzva, e.g., in order to comfort mourners or to celebrate a wedding, but not for any other reason.

מהו דתימא אורחא דמלתא קתני קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: This teaching is necessary, lest you say that the mishna merely teaches the usual case. Generally, a group of people would establish an eiruv in order to walk beyond the Shabbat limit only for a special purpose, such as a wedding, but one might be permitted to establish an eiruv even for an optional activity as well. Rav Yosef therefore teaches us that an eiruv may indeed be established only for the purpose of a mitzva.

וכל שקיבל עליו מבעוד יום שמעת מינה אין ברירה דאי יש ברירה תיגלי מילתא למפרע דמבעוד יום הוה ניחא ליה

We learned in the mishna: Anyone who accepted upon himself while it was still day that he will rely upon the eiruv is permitted to rely upon it on Shabbat. The Gemara comments: Apparently, learn from here that there is no halakhic principle of retroactive clarification. That is to say, there is no halakhic assumption that an uncertain state of affairs can be retroactively clarified. A later statement or action cannot retroactively clarify one’s earlier intentions as though he had explicitly stated those intentions at the outset. For if there is a halakhic principle of retroactive clarification, the eiruv should be effective even if one relied upon it only after nightfall, as it is retroactively revealed that he wanted the eiruv while it was still day.

אמר רב אשי הודיעוהו ולא הודיעוהו קתני

Rav Ashi said that the mishna teaches: While it was still day. This phrase does not require one to make the decision to rely on the eiruv before Shabbat. Rather, the criterion for using the eiruv on Shabbat is whether they informed him or they did not inform him of the existence of the eiruv prior to Shabbat. In other words, if one knew about the eiruv while it was still day, he may rely on it, even if he decided to use it only after the onset of Shabbat, as the halakhic principle of retroactive clarification is accepted. However, if one was unaware of the existence of the eiruv when it came into effect at the onset of Shabbat, the matter cannot be retroactively clarified.

אמר רב אסי קטן בן שש יוצא בעירוב אמו מיתיבי קטן שצריך לאמו יוצא בעירוב אמו ושאין צריך לאמו אין יוצא בעירוב אמו

Rav Asi said: A six-year-old child may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv. As he is subordinate to her, he is included in her eiruv and does not require his own eiruv. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A child who needs his mother may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, but one who does not need his mother may not go out by means of his mother’s eiruv.

ותנן נמי גבי סוכה כי האי גוונא קטן שאין צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה

And we also learned a similar halakha in a mishna with regard to a sukka: A child who does not need his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka by rabbinical law, so that he will be trained in the observance of mitzvot.

והוינן בה ואיזהו קטן שאין צריך לאמו אמרי דבי רבי ינאי כל שנפנה ואין אמו מקנחתו

And we discussed this mishna and raised a question: But who is the child who does not need his mother? The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: This is referring to any child who defecates and his mother does not wipe him. A child who can clean himself is considered sufficiently mature for the purposes of the halakha of sukka.

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר כל שניעור ואינו קורא אימא אימא סלקא דעתך גדולים נמי קרו אלא אימא כל שניעור משנתו ואינו קורא אימא אימא

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Any child who wakens from sleep and does not call: Mother, is obligated in the mitzva of sukka. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that every child who cries: Mother is considered to be one who needs his mother? Much older children also call out to their mothers for assistance when they awaken. Rather, say that the halakha includes any child who wakens from sleep and does not persistently call: Mother, Mother. A minor who arises only when his mother comes is classified as one who needs his mother.

וכמה כבר ארבע כבר חמש

The Gemara continues. The Sages who discussed the mishna asked: And at what age is a child no longer considered to be in need of his mother? Such a child is one about four years old or about five years old, as some children become independent of their mothers earlier than others. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Asi, who maintains that even a six-year-old child is considered to be in need of his mother, and may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv.

Chapter 6ו׳
1 א

מִי שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַמְּדִינָה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְהִנִּיחַ מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת רָחוֹק מִן הַמְּדִינָה בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְקָבַע שְׁבִיתָתוֹ שָׁם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר לַמְּדִינָה וְלָן בְּבֵיתוֹ נֶחְשָׁב אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ שָׁבַת בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִנִּיחַ בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעֻדּוֹת. וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין:

[In a case of] one who left the city on the eve of Shabbat and left food for two meals [at a] distance from the city within its perimeter and established his resting there: Even though he returned to the city, it is considered as if he rested in that place in which he left his two meals. And that is called eruvei techumin (eruvs of perimeters).

2 ב

וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ לְמָחָר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ לְמָחָר אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה כְּנֶגֶד הַמְּדִינָה אֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמְּדִינָה אֶלָּא עַד סוֹף מִדָּתוֹ. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּדִינָה מֻבְלַעַת בְּתוֹךְ מִדָּתוֹ תֵּחָשֵׁב הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְיַשְׁלִים מִדָּתוֹ חוּצָה לָהּ:

And on the morrow, he has two thousand ells to walk in every direction from the place of his eruv. Hence when he walks from the place of his eruv towards the city on the morrow, he may only walk in the city up to the end of his allotment. But if the city was subsumed in his allotment, the whole city is considered like four ells, and he completes his allotment beyond it.

3 ג

כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֶת עֵרוּבוֹ בְּרִחוּק אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה לְרוּחַ מִזְרָח נִמְצָא מְהַלֵּךְ לְמָחָר מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְמִזְרָח. וּמְהַלֵּךְ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְמַעֲרָב. אֶלֶף שֶׁמִּן הָעֵרוּב עַד בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶלֶף אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּדִינָה. וְאֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ בַּמְּדִינָה אֶלָּא עַד סוֹף הָאֶלֶף. הָיָה מִבֵּיתוֹ עַד סוֹף הַמְּדִינָה פָּחוֹת מֵאֶלֶף אֲפִלּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִדָּתוֹ כָּלְתָה חוּץ לַמְּדִינָה תֵּחָשֵׁב הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וִיהַלֵּךְ חוּצָה לָהּ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שֵׁשׁ וְתִשְׁעִים אַמָּה תַּשְׁלוּם הָאַלְפַּיִם:

How is that? [If] he placed his eruv a distance of a thousand ells towards the east from his house in the city: It comes out that on the morrow, he may walk two thousand ells to the east from the place of his eruv. And he may walk two thousand ells to the west from the place of his eruv — one thousand from his eruv to his house; and one thousand ells from his house, inside the city. But he may only walk in the city to the end of [that] thousand. [However, if] there was even one ell less than a thousand from his house to the end of the city — coming out that his allotment ends outside of the city — the whole city is considered like four ells. So he may walk nine hundred and ninety-six ells outside of it [as the] completion of his two thousand.

4 ד

לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה מִבֵּיתוֹ שֶׁבַּמְּדִינָה הִפְסִיד אֶת כָּל הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּהּ. וְנִמְצָא מְהַלֵּךְ מִבֵּיתוֹ עַד עֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה וּמֵעֵרוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם וְאֵינוֹ מְהַלֵּךְ מִבֵּיתוֹ בַּמְּדִינָה לְרוּחַ מַעֲרָב אֲפִלּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת. הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה מְדִינָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּנִינְוֵה וַאֲפִלּוּ עִיר חֲרֵבָה אוֹ מְעָרָה הָרְאוּיָה לְדִיּוּרִין מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְחוּצָה לָהּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ:

Hence if he placed his eruv a distance of two thousand ells from his house in the city, he would have lost the whole city (in the opposite direction). So it comes out that he may walk two thousand ells from his house to his eruv and two thousand from his eruv [outwards]. But he may not walk from his house in the city to the west even one ell. One who places his eruv in a private domain — even if it was a large city like Nineveh, and even if it was a ruined city or a cave fitting for domiciles — may walk [though] all of it and two thousand ells in every direction.

5 ה

הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַמְּדִינָה שֶׁשָּׁבַת בָּהּ לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם וְאֵין מוֹדְדִין לוֹ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא כִּבְנֵי הַמְּדִינָה כֻּלָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ חוּץ לַמְּדִינָה. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן עֵרוּבוֹ בַּמְּקוֹמוֹת הַמִּצְטָרְפִין לָעִיר שֶׁמּוֹדְדִין הַתְּחוּם חוּץ מֵהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה כְּנוֹתְנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיר. נָתַן עֵרוּבוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב:

One who places his eruv within the city in which he rested (spent Shabbat) did not do anything, and we do not measure for him from the place of his eruv. Rather he is like all of the residents of the city, who have two thousand ells in every direction outside of the city. And likewise if he placed his eruv in places that combine with the city — such that we [start] measuring the perimeter outside of them — it is surely as if he placed it within the city. If he placed his eruv outside of the perimeter, it is nothing.

6 ו

אֵין מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ לְבֵית הָאָבֵל אוֹ לְמִשְׁתֶּה שֶׁל נִשּׂוּאִין אוֹ לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי רַבּוֹ אוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁבָּא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה רוֹצֶה לִבְרֹחַ מִן הָעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים אוֹ מִן הַלִּסְטִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם עֵרֵב שֶׁלֹּא לְאֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְדִבְרֵי הָרְשׁוּת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

We only make a perimeter eruv for the matter of a commandment, such as [if] one wanted to walk to a mourner's house or to a wedding party or to greet the presence of his rabbi or his friend that is coming from a journey and that which is similar to these; or on account of fear, such as [if] he wanted to escape from idolaters or brigands and that which is similar to this. But if it was not for one of all these [reasons] that he made an eruv, but rather for optional matters — it is surely [still] an eruv.

7 ז

כָּל שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְכָל שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בּוֹ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בּוֹ תְּחוּמִין. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּר עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִם הָיָה לִפְתָּן כְּדֵי לֶאֱכל בּוֹ שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת. כְּמוֹ הַשִּׁתּוּף:

We may make a perimeter eruv with anything with which we make a shituf (an eruv for an alley). And we may not make a perimeter eruv with anything with which we do not make a shituf. And what is the [requisite] amount for a perimeter eruv? Food for two meals for each and every one. But if [the food] was an accompaniment, enough to eat two meals with it — as with the shituf.

8 ח

וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הוּא וְעֵרוּבוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְאָכְלוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת אֶלָּא בַּעֲבֵרָה:

And he and his eruv must be in one place, in order that it would be possible for him to eat it at twilight (at the beginning of Shabbat). Hence if he intends to rest (spend Shabbat) in a public domain and placed his eruv in a private domain; or in a private domain and placed his eruv in a public domain, it is not an eruv — as it is impossible to transport [it] from the private domain to the public domain at twilight except by sinning.

9 ט

אֲבָל אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּכַרְמְלִית. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּת בְּכַרְמְלִית וְהִנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת קְנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב שֶׁהוּא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת מֻתָּר לְהוֹצִיא וּלְהַכְנִיס מִכָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵּי הָרְשׁוּיוֹת לְכַרְמְלִית לִדְבַר מִצְוָה. שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק:

But if he intended to rest in a private domain or in a public domain and placed his eruv in a karmelit; or to rest in a karmelit and placed his eruv in a private domain or in a public domain, it is surely an eruv. For at the time of the eruv's acquisition — which is at twilight — it is permissible to transport out and into each one of these domains to a karmelit for the matter of a commandment. For [regarding] anything that is from the words of the Scribes (rabbinic), [the Sages] did not decree about it at twilight in the case of a commandment or at a time of duress.

10 י

נְתָנוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל וְנָעַל וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּלֹא עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁאֵין אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת בִּמְקוֹם מִצְוָה אֶלָּא מְלָאכָה. נְתָנוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ הַקֻּנְדָּס הַצּוֹמְחִין מִן הָאָרֶץ אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְלֹשׁ. וְאִם הָיוּ תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעוּצִין הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

[If] one placed it in a closet and locked it, and [then] lost the key: If he is able to to extract it without doing a forbidden type of work, it is surely an eruv. For in the case of a commandment, the only thing that is forbidden at twilight is forbidden work. [Nevertheless,] if he placed it on top of a reed or on top of a pole which are growing from the ground, it is not an eruv, [as a] decree lest one detach. But if they were [already] detached and stuck [back into the ground], it is surely an eruv.

11 יא

כָּל הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ בִּמְקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין שֶׁלּוֹ בְּסוֹף הַתְּחוּם וְנִתְגַּלְגֵּל הָעֵרוּב וְיָצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא יָצָא מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְאִם יָצָא חוּץ לִשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב שֶׁהֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְהַמַּנִּיחַ עֵרוּבוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַגִּיעַ אֶל עֵרוּבוֹ:

Anyone who places down his eruv gets four ells in the place of his eruv. Hence if one placed his perimeter eruv at the end of the perimeter and the eruv [then] rolled out of the perimeter within two ells, it is surely an eruv; and it is as if it did not go out of its place. But if it went out two ells [or more], it is not an eruv. For it has surely become outside of the perimeter; and the eruv of one who places it outside of the perimeter is not an eruv, since he may not reach his eruv.

12 יב

נִתְגַּלְגֵּל הָעֵרוּב וְיָצָא שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אוֹ אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁקְּנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְאִם סָפֵק הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נֶאֱכַל הָעֵרוּב בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

If while it was still day (before Shabbat) the eruv rolled and went two ells out of the perimeter or got lost or burnt or it was priestly tithe and became impure, it is not an eruv. [If one of these thing occurred] from when it got dark, it is an eruv — since the acquisition of the eruv is at twilight. And if it is a doubt, it is surely an eruv — as an eruv in doubt is fit. Hence, if the eruv was eaten at twilight, it is surely an eruv.

13 יג

אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם צֵא וְעָרֵב עָלֵינוּ. אֶחָד עֵרֵב עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם וְאֶחָד עֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְזֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נֶאֱכַל עֵרוּבוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְזֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת נֶאֱכַל עֵרוּבוֹ מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה שְׁנֵיהֶם קָנוּ עֵרוּב. שֶׁבֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת סָפֵק הוּא וּסְפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר. אַף עַל פִּי כֵן סָפֵק חֲשֵׁכָה סָפֵק לֹא חֲשֵׁכָה אֵין מְעָרְבִין עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְאִם עֵרֵב הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

[In a case in which] two people said to one, "Go out and make an eruv for us," and he made an eruv for one while it was still day and made an eruv for [the other] at twilight; and the eruv for the one that he made while it was still day was eaten at twilight, and the eruv that he made at twilight was eaten from when it got dark: Both of them acquired an eruv, since twilight is a doubt (regarding whether it is already Shabbat) — and an eruv in doubt is fit. Nevertheless, we do not make an eruv at the outset [when there is] a doubt whether it got dark or did not get dark. But if one made an eruv [then], it is surely an eruv.

14 יד

נָפַל עַל הָעֵרוּב גַּל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אִם יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּלֹא עֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁהִיא שְׁעַת קְנִיַּת הָעֵרוּב. וְאִם נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהוֹצִיאוֹ אֶלָּא בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה. סָפֵק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נָפַל אוֹ מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר שֶׁסְּפֵק הָעֵרוּב כָּשֵׁר:

[If] a pile of rocks fell on the eruv while it was still day: If one is able to extract it without doing a forbidden type of work, it is surely fit — as it [would then be] permissible to extract it at twilight, which is the time of the eruv's acquisition. But if a pile of rocks fell upon it from when it got dark, it is surely an eruv — even though it is impossible to extract it without doing forbidden work. [If] there is a doubt whether it fell on it while it was still day or from when it got dark, it is certainly fit — as an eruv in doubt is fit.

15 טו

אֲבָל אִם עֵרֵב בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁהִיא סָפֵק טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב שֶׁאֵינָהּ סְעֵדָּה הָרְאוּיָה. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה אַחַת טְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִשְּׁתֵּיהֶן וְאָמַר עֵרוּבִי בַּטְּהוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. שֶׁאֵין כָּאן סְעֻדָּה הָרְאוּיָה לַאֲכִילָה:

But if one made an eruv with priestly tithe about which there is a doubt if it is impure, it is not an eruv — as it is not a fit meal. And likewise if there were two loaves of priestly tithe in front of him, one which was pure and one which was impure, but he does not know which one of the two it is and he says, "My eruv is in the pure one in whatever place it is" — it is not an eruv. For there is no meal fit for eating here.

16 טז

אָמַר כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם חֹל וּלְמָחָר קֹדֶשׁ וְעֵרֵב בָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. שֶׁבֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת עֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה וַדַּאי וּרְאוּיָה הָיְתָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר הַיּוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וּלְמָחָר חֹל אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ תְּרוּמָה וְהִתְנָה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה תְּרוּמָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ אֵין מְעָרְבִין בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא טֶבֶל כָּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַסְּעֻדָּה רְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם:

[If] he said, "This loaf is mundane today, but will be sanctified tomorrow" and made an eruv with it, it is surely an eruv. For it had not yet become sanctified with certainty at twilight, so it was fitting [to eat] while it was still day. But if he said, "It is sanctified today, but mundane tomorrow" — we may not make an eruv with it — as it is not fitting until it gets dark. And likewise if he separates the priestly tithe but stipulates about it that it not be priestly tithe until it gets dark, we may not make an eruv with it. For it is surely untithed at twilight — and it needs to be a meal that is fit, from while it is still day.

17 יז

הַנּוֹתֵן עֵרוּבוֹ בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב לְפִי שֶׁבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּם הָעֵרוּב שָׁם אַחַר קְנִיָּה הֲרֵי נֶהֱנֶה בּוֹ. נְתָנוֹ בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כֹּהֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִכָּנֵס שָׁם בְּמִגְדָּל הַפּוֹרֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁיְּנַפֵּחַ וְהוֹלֵךְ:

[In a case of] one who puts his eruv in a graveyard, it is not an eruv. For a graveyard is forbidden for benefit — and since he wants the preservation of the eruv there after the acquisition, he is certainly benefiting from it. [But if] he put it in a field containing a grave that was plowed over, it is surely an eruv — even if he was a priest — for he is able to enter there inside a 'flying closet,' or to blow (on the ground to make sure he is not stepping over a bone) and walk.

18 יח

רַבִּים שֶׁרָצוּ לְהִשְׁתַּתֵּף בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין מְקַבְּצִין כֻּלָּן עֵרוּבָן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וּמַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצוּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה אֶחָד עֵרוּב עַל יְדֵי כֻּלָּן צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. וְצָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעָם שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין לוֹ לָאָדָם עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין אֶלָּא לְדַעְתּוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְעָרֵב בְּאוֹתָהּ הָרוּחַ שֶׁרָצָה זֶה. וְאִם הוֹדִיעוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. וְאִם לֹא הוֹדִיעוֹ עַד שֶׁחֲשֵׁכָה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ:

[If] many want to join in a perimeter eruv, they must all gather two meals for each and every one [for] their eruv, and place it in one vessel in the place that they want. And if one [of them] made it on behalf of all of them, he must acquire it for them though another person. And he must inform them — as we do not make a perimeter eruv for someone without their knowledge, lest he does not want to make an eruv in this direction that [the first one] wanted. And if he informed him from when it was still day, it is surely an eruv — even if [the latter] only wanted it from when it got dark. But if he did not inform him until it got dark, he may not go out [based on] it — as we may not make an eruv from when it gets dark.

19 יט

כָּל הַזּוֹכֶה בְּעֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ עֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת אֵין מְזַכִּין עַל יָדוֹ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין:

A perimeter eruv may be acquired by anyone who may acquire a courtyard eruv. But anyone through whom we may not acquire a courtyard eruv, we may not acquire through him a perimeter eruv.

20 כ

נוֹתֵן אָדָם מָעָה לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקַּח לוֹ פַּת וִיעָרֵב לוֹ בָּהּ עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן לְחֶנְוָנִי אוֹ לְנַחְתּוֹם וְאָמַר לוֹ זְכֵה לִי בְּמָעָה זוֹ אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ עַרֵב עָלַי בְּמָעָה זוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵחַ בָּהּ פַּת אוֹ אֹכֶל מִן הָאֳכָלִין וּמְעָרֵב עָלָיו. וְאִם נָתַן לוֹ כְּלִי וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן לִי בָּזֶה אֹכֶל וּזְכֵה לִי בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֵחַ אֹכֶל וּמְעָרֵב עָלָיו בּוֹ:

A person may give a coin to a homeowner in order that he should purchase bread and makr a perimeter eruv for him with it. But if he gave [it] to a storekeeper or a baker and said to him, "Acquire [it] for me with this coin," it is not an eruv. However if he said to him, "Make an eruv for me with this coin," that one will surely purchase bread or food with it and make an eruv for him. And if he gave him a vessel and said to him, "Give me food for this and acquire [it] for me with it," that one will surely purchase food and make an eruv for him with it.

21 כא

מְעָרֵב אָדָם עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים בֵּין מִדַּעְתָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּן. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן וְעֵרְבוּ לְעַצְמָן יוֹצְאִין בְּשֶׁל רַבָּן. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן אוֹכְלִין אֶצְלוֹ עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ. וְאִם עֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן וְשָׁמְעוּ וְשָׁתְקוּ וְלֹא מִחוּ יוֹצְאִין בְּעֵרוּבוֹ. עֵרֵב עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעֵרְבוּ הֵן לְעַצְמָן אֵין לְךָ מְחָאָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ וְיוֹצְאִין בְּעֵרוּב עַצְמָן. קָטָן בֵּן שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים אוֹ פָּחוֹת יוֹצֵא בְּעֵרוּב אִמּוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַנִּיחַ עָלָיו מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעֻדּוֹת לְעַצְמוֹ:

A man may make a perimeter eruv on behalf of his minor son or daughter and on behalf of his Canaanite (gentile) slave or maidservant — whether with their knowledge or without their knowledge. Hence if he made an eruv for them and they made an eruv for themselves, they go out [based on] their master's [or father's one]. But he may not make an eruv on behalf of his adult son or daughter; nor on behalf of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, except with their knowledge — even though they eat with him upon his table. And if he did make an eruv for them, and they heard and were quiet and did not protest, they go out [based on] his eruv. [However, if] he made an eruv for one of them and they made an eruv for themselves, there is no greater protest than this — and they go out [based on] their own eruv. A child of six years or less may go out [based on] the eruv of his mother, and there is no need to place food for two meals for him [in the eruv].

22 כב

הָרוֹצֶה לְשַׁלֵּחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר לְהַנִּיחוֹ לוֹ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִקְבֹּעַ שְׁבִיתָתוֹ שָׁם הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְשַׁלְּחוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְלֹא בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּמִצְוַת עֵרוּב. וְאִם שָׁלַח אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְאִם שְׁלָחוֹ בְּיַד אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ הַפְּסוּלִין לְהוֹלִיכוֹ לְאָדָם כָּשֵׁר כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹלִיכוֹ הַכָּשֵׁר וְיַנִּיחוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הָעֵרוּב הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָחוֹ עַל הַקּוֹף אוֹ עַל הַפִּיל. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה עוֹמֵד מֵרָחוֹק עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה זֶה הַפָּסוּל אוֹ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִגִּיעוּ אֵצֶל הַכָּשֵׁר שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ לְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת הָעֵרוּב. וְכֵן רַבִּים שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ בְּעֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין וְרָצוּ לִשְׁלֹחַ עֵרוּבָן בְּיַד אַחֵר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְשַׁלְּחִין:

[If] one wants to send his eruv in the hand of another to place it in the place that he wants to establish his resting, he has permission [to do so]. But when he sends it, he may not send it in the hand of deaf-mute, a mentally incapacitated person or a minor, nor in the hand of one who does not concede about the commandment of eruv. And if he sends it [with one of these], it is not an eruv. But if he sends it with one of these disqualified people to bring it to a fit person so that the fit person bring it and place it in the place of the eruv, it is surely fit — [as it would be] even if he sent it [with] a monkey or an elephant. And that is so long as he stands from a distance until he sees that the disqualified person or animal reached the fit one to whom he told him to take the eruv. And likewise the many who want to participate in a perimeter eruv and wanted to send their eruv in the hand of someone else may surely send [it in the same way].

23 כג

אֶחָד אוֹ רַבִּים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְאֶחָד צֵא וַעֲרֵב עָלֵינוּ וְעֵרֵב עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאֵי זֶה רוּחַ שֶׁרָצָה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב וְיוֹצְאִין בּוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא יִחֲדוּ לוֹ רוּחַ. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ עָרֵב עָלַי בִּתְמָרִים וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת. בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בִּתְמָרִים. אָמַר לוֹ הַנִּיחַ עֵרוּבִי בְּמִגְדָּל וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּשׁוֹבָךְ. בְּשׁוֹבָךְ וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל. בַּבַּיִת וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּעֲלִיָּה בַּעֲלִיָּה וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּבַּיִת אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ עָרֵב עָלַי סְתָם וְעֵרֵב עָלָיו בֵּין בִּגְרוֹגָרוֹת בֵּין בִּתְמָרִים בֵּין בַּבַּיִת בֵּין בַּעֲלִיָּה הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

[If] one or many said to [another person], "Go out and make an eruv for us," and he made [it] for them in any direction that he wanted — it is certainly an eruv, and they go out [based on] it. For they surely did not specify a direction to him. One who says to his fellow, "Make an eruv for me with dates," but he made an eruv for him with dried fig cakes; "with dried fig cakes," but he made an eruv for him with dates; [if] he said to him, "Place my eruv in a closet," but he placed it in a dovecot; "in a dovecot," but he placed it in a closet; "in a house," but he placed it in an attic; "in an attic," but he placed it in a house — it is not an eruv. But if he said to him, "Make an eruv for me" without specifying, and he made an eruv for him — whether with dried fig cakes or with dates; whether in a house or in an attic — it is surely an eruv.

24 כד

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרְכִין עַל עֵרוּבֵי חֲצֵרוֹת וְשִׁתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת כָּךְ מְבָרְכִין עַל עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין. וְאוֹמֵר בְּזֶה הָעֵרוּב יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לִי לְהַלֵּךְ לְמָקוֹם זֶה אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. וְאִם הָיָה אֶחָד מְעָרֵב עַל יְדֵי רַבִּים אוֹמֵר בְּזֶה הָעֵרוּב יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ לִבְנֵי מָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ לִבְנֵי עִיר זוֹ לְהַלֵּךְ מִמָּקוֹם זֶה אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ:

Just as a blessing should be recited when either a courtyard eruv or an alley eruv is prepared, so should a blessing be recited over an eruv prepared between Sabbath limits. One should also add: "By virtue of this eruv, I shall be permitted to walk two thousand cubits in any direction from this place." And if one was making an eruv on behalf of the many, he says, "With this eruv, it shall be permissible for x" or "for the residents of place x" or "for the residents of this city to walk two thousand ells in every direction from this place."