Quoting%20commentary for Eruvin 3:4

נִתְגַּלְגֵּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וְנָפַל עָלָיו גַּל, אוֹ נִשְׂרַף, אוֹ תְרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת, מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב, מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. אִם סָפֵק, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים, הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, סְפֵק עֵרוּב, כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אַבְטוֹלְמוֹס הֵעִיד מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים עַל סְפֵק עֵרוּב שֶׁכָּשֵׁר:

If it rolled outside the tchum, or a heap fell upon it, or it were burned, or it were terumah and it became unclean while it was still day, it is not an eruv. [("If it rolled outside the tchum":) Since there are from the house where he lodges until his eruv more than two thousand cubits, he cannot go and take it. This, if it rolled two cubits outside two thousand cubits. For every man has four cubits from the place of his eruv, two cubits from the east of the eruv and two cubits from the west. ("or a heap fell upon it":) This, if it requires hoe or pick-axe to dig it out, in which instance it is a (forbidden Sabbath) labor and not shvuth. ("or if it were terumah and it became unclean":) For now it is fit neither for him nor for others. The tanna must apprise us of both "it rolled" and "a heap." For with "it rolled," since it is not together with him, "he is in one place, and his eruv in another"; but with "a heap," where it is with him (i.e., within the tchum), I might say that it would be a valid eruv (if I were not apprised otherwise.) And if I were apprised of "a heap," (I might say that it is not valid) because he can get it only with the (interdicted) labor of hoe and pick-axe, but with "it rolled," where a wind might blow it back into the tchum, I might say that it should be valid. We must, therefore, be apprised otherwise. And "burned" is taught to apprise us of the power of R. Yossi (below), that even though it is not in the world (when burned), it is not invalidated because of doubt. And "terumah that became unclean" is taught to apprise us of the "power" of R. Meir, that even though it is "in the world," so that there is reason to confirm it in its original status of "clean," still, we do not accept "status" for leniency of ruling.] (If these things happened) after dark, it is a valid eruv. [For since he acquired (habitation) ben hashmashoth, we are not concerned about its going lost.] In the instance of a doubt, R. Meir and R. Yehudah say: "He is leading a camel and an ass." [For we are in doubt. It is possible that his eruv effected acquisition (of habitation), so that his house is here (at the eruv site), and from here he can walk two thousand cubits in all directions; and he has lost two thousand cubits from his home (starting point). Or it may be that his eruv did not effect acquisition, so that from his home he can walk two thousand cubits in all directions, and he has acquired nothing around his eruv. Because of this doubt, he may walk only the two thousand cubits from his home to the eruv, for this is permitted in any event; but he may not walk the two thousand cubits from his eruv, for it may be that his eruv did not effect acquisition. And from his home, too, (he may not walk in other directions), for it may be that his eruv did effect acquisition. So that this (his home) "pulls" him here, and that (his eruv) "pulls" him there, like a man leading an ass and a camel. The ass walks before him and he leads it; and the camel walks behind him and he pulls it, so that he must turn back and forth.] R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: In an instance of doubt, the eruv is kasher. [For we confirm the eruv in its (original) status. When he placed it there, it was within the tchum, and clean, and there was no heap upon it, so that it is a valid eruv. And this is the halachah.] R. Yossi said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that in an instance of doubt the eruv is kasher.

Explore quoting%20commentary for Eruvin 3:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.