Eruvin 3

בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִים, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. וְהַכֹּל נִקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וּמִן הַמֶּלַח. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמָּזוֹן, מֻתָּר בְּמַיִם וּבְמֶלַח. מְעָרְבִין לְנָזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. סוּמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר, בְּחֻלִּין. וּלְכֹהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֵילֵךְ לָחוֹץ וְלֶאֱכֹל:

An eruv and a partnership [in a mavui (see 1:1)] is made with all (foods), except with water and salt. [We are speaking here of eruvin of tchumin (Sabbath bounds); for eruvin of chatzeroth (courtyards) are made only with bread. "With all" in our Mishnah is non-categorical, as stated in the gemara: "We do not learn (rules) from generalizations, even those qualified by 'except.'" For here we learn "An eruv is made with all (foods), except with water and salt," even though we also do not make an eruv with morils and truffles, they, too, not being foods, like water and salt.] And all (foods) may be bought with ma'aser (sheni) money, [it being written (Deuteronomy 14:26): "And you shall give the money for all that your soul desires"], except water and salt, [this not being "fruit of a fruit"]. If one bevows himself from "mazon," he is permitted water and salt. [Not that he says: "Let mazon be forbidden to me," for the only foods that are called "mazon" are the five species that "sustain and support" (wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt); rather, he says: "I bevow myself of everything that sustains (zan)" — and all foods sustain and sate for a while except water and salt.] An eruv may be made for a Nazirite with wine, [for even though it is forbidden to him, it is permitted to others], and (an eruv may be made) for an Israelite with terumah, [for it is permitted to Cohanim.] Somchos says: (An eruv may be made for an Israelite, only) with chullin (non-consecrated food), [for something permitted to him is required. And Somchos does not differ vis-à-vis (an eruv of) wine for a Nazirite, for a Nazirite can be absolved of his vow, and the wine be permitted to him on that Shabbath. But terumah cannot be rendered permissible to an Israelite. For even if he were "absolved" of his terumah-taking, so that it is as if it were never taken, it returns to its state of tevel, and may not be eaten until a different terumah is taken. But terumah may not be taken on Shabbath, even at twilight; therefore, it cannot be permitted to him. The halachah is not in accordance with Somchos.] And (an eruv may be made) for a Cohein in a beth hapras. [This is anonymous, not stated by Somchos. Beth hapras is a field in which a grave has been plowed up. A Cohein may enter there when he "blows" as he walks, taking care not to touch a bone the size of a barley-corn. He is, therefore, permitted to place his eruv there; for he can go to the place where he placed his eruv, and he and his eruv be in the same spot.] R. Yehudah says: (An eruv may be made for him) even in a cemetery, for he can make a partition and eat. [He can make a partition between himself and the grave, so that he not "tent" over it, as by entering in a closed wagon, in which instance it is permitted to him. The gemara states that the rabbis differ with R. Yehudah even vis-à-vis an Israelite, ruling that it is forbidden to place an eruv in a cemetery, "Cohein" being stated only to apprise us of the "power" of R. Yehudah, that it is permitted even with a Cohein. The rationale of their difference: R. Yehudah holds that even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from a cemetery, it is permitted to place an eruv there, a Sabbath-bound eruv being made only for the sake of a mitzvah, and mitzvoth not having been given for "benefit." And even though the eruv is "guarded" there after he acquires (halachic habitation), this being effected at twilight; and the eruv remains after he has performed the mitzvah, the entire Shabbath — R. Yehudah holds that one is not concerned if his eruv is lost or stolen after he acquires (halachic habitation). And the rabbis hold that one is concerned, desiring that it not be stolen. Therefore, with the eruv being "guarded" in the cemetery the entire Shabbath after he has acquired (habitation) at twilight and his mitzvah having been completed, he is found to be deriving benefit from graves, something which is forbidden. Therefore, one may not place an eruv in a cemetery. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]

מְעָרְבִין בִּדְמַאי, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים, בְּחַלָּה וּבִתְרוּמָה. אֲבָל לֹא בְטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ עֵרוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אוֹ בְיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָעֵרוּב, אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב:

It is permitted to make an eruv with demai (produce which is "suspect" as improperly tithed). [(It is permitted to make an eruv) with a loaf taken from an am ha'aeretz, from which terumath ma'aser of demai has not been separated.], and with ma'aser rishon whose terumah has been taken, and with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which had been redeemed; and Cohanim, with challah and with terumah, but not with tevel (untithed grain), and not with ma'aser rishon whose terumah had not been taken, and not with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which had not been redeemed. [All of these are explained in Shabbath (18:1)]. If one sends his eruv through a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or through one who does not acknowledge (the institution of) eruv, [such as a Cuthite or a Sadducee], it is not valid. [("If one sends his eruv":) to take it to the end of two thousand cubits. And it is only with eruvei techumin that it is not valid if he sent it through a minor; but with eruvei chatzeroth it is ruled that a minor may be deputed with an eruv.] And if he told another to accept it from him, it is valid. [(If he told another) who is kasher to accept it from the pasul (the unfit one) and to carry it to the end of two thousand cubits, it is valid, so long as he stands and witnesses the pasul placing it into the hand of the kasher, even if he does not see the kasher carrying it; for it is assumed that a messenger performs his embassy.]

נְתָנוֹ בְאִילָן, לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אֵין עֵרוּבוֹ עֵרוּב. לְמַטָּה מֵעֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, עֵרוּבוֹ עֵרוּב. נְתָנוֹ בְּבוֹר, אֲפִלּוּ עָמוֹק מֵאָה אַמָּה, עֵרוּבוֹ עֵרוּב. נְתָנוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַקֻּנְדָּס בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא תָלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ, אֲפִלּוּ גָבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. נְתָנוֹ בְמִגְדָּל וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵּחַ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב:

If he placed it in a tree [ four by four tefachim or more, standing in a public domain], higher than ten tefachim, his eruv is not valid. [For since the tree is four tefachim wide, higher than ten, it is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the public domain. So that if he wished to take his eruv and eat it at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him, i.e., ben hashmashoth (at twilight), he would not be permitted to do so, for he would be taking it from a private to a public domain. Therefore, it is not a valid eruv.] Below ten tefachim, his eruv is an eruv. [For below ten tefachim is a karmelith (anything three to nine tefachim high and four wide being a "karmelith.") Taking the eruv, then, would involve only a (rabbinic) interdict of shvuth (resting). Therefore, it is a valid eruv. Our Mishnah is in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth. At the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it, so that "he and his eruv are in one spot," for which reason it is a valid eruv.] If he placed it in a hole [in a karmelith, as in a valley or in a field, desiring to acquire habitation in the valley or in the field], even if it were a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. [For the hole itself is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the karmelith. For at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it. This, in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth.] If he placed it on top of a reed or on top of a pole, which was uprooted and stuck (in the ground) [and which is not four tefachim wide below, in which instance it is not a private domain] — even if it is a hundred feet high, it is a valid eruv, [even though it is four tefachim wide above (for an eruv must be on top of a place of four tefachim.) ("uprooted and stuck":) Only then is it an eruv, but not if it were rooted — a decree, lest when he takes the eruv, he breaks it. For a reed, being soft, is susceptible of being broken. But a tree is hard, and ben hashmashoth there is no apprehension of "lest he go up and tear off (fruits)." But, we do fear that he will lop off the reed and be liable by reason of kotzer ("harvesting"). Or, with reed and pole, there is a possibility that he will confuse what is rooted for what is torn off; for many reeds which are uprooted and stuck in the ground give the appearance of being rooted, for which reason it is to be decreed lest he lop off what is rooted, thinking it to be unrooted. But with a tree, there is basis for a decree of lest he go up and tear off, thinking it to be unrooted.] If he placed it in a closet and lost the key, it is a valid eruv, [as when the lock were tied with ropes in such a manner that if the key were not found, they could be cut only with a knife. The first tanna holds that since it could be opened by cutting the ropes with a knife, there is no skilah (stoning) interdict here, but one of shvuth (resting), the one who opens it "destroying" in the cutting of the ropes, all who thus "destroy" not being liable. And anything interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth, as stated above. Therefore, it is a valid eruv; for he can bring a knife, cut the ropes and take the eruv.] R. Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place it is not a valid eruv. [R. Eliezer holds that an instrument may be handled only for its regular use and that it is forbidden to take a knife to cut ropes with, it being used regularly to cut food with. And since there are two (interdicted acts), the handling of the knife and the cutting of the ropes — even Rebbi, who says that anything forbidden by reason of shvuth was not interdicted ben hashmashoth — even Rebbi concurs that in this instance they did decree. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]

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.

מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל עֵרוּבוֹ וְאוֹמֵר, אִם בָּאוּ גוֹיִים מִן הַמִּזְרָח, עֵרוּבִי לַמַּעֲרָב. מִן הַמַּעֲרָב, עֵרוּבִי לַמִּזְרָח. אִם בָּאוּ מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֵלֵךְ. לֹא בָאוּ לֹא מִכָּאן וְלֹא מִכָּאן, הֲרֵינִי כִבְנֵי עִירִי. אִם בָּא חָכָם מִן הַמִּזְרָח, עֵרוּבִי לַמִּזְרָח. מִן הַמַּעֲרָב, עֵרוּבִי לַמַּעֲרָב. בָּא לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֵלֵךְ. לֹא לְכָאן וְלֹא לְכָאן, הֲרֵינִי כִבְנֵי עִירִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן רַבּוֹ, הוֹלֵךְ אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ, וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רַבּוֹתָיו, לִמְקוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יֵלֵךְ:

A man makes a stipulation over his eruv, saying: "If the idolators come from the east, my eruv is to the west; if from the west, my eruv is to the east." [He places two eruvin; one, two thousand cubits to the east of his house, and one, two thousand cubits to the west, and he says: If the idolators come form the east and I must flee them, let my eruv in the west effect (acquisition) for me, so that I have four thousand cubits to the west of my house. And even though they come only on the morrow (Sabbath), we say that there is breirah (retroactive designation), that ben hashmashoth his eruv on the other side (the west) effected acquisition for him.] (He says:) "If they come from both sides, I shall go wherever I choose." "If they come from neither side, I am as one of the (other) men of my city." [i.e., I have two thousand cubits from my city on every side, and I need not gain in one direction and lose in another.] "If the sage comes from the east, my eruv is to the east; if from the west, it is to the west." [(If he comes) outside the tchum of my city, and I wish to learn from him — and now I do not know whether he will come — and tomorrow I will hear from men who come here from there by means of an eruv, etc.] "If he (i.e., a sage) comes from either side, I shall go wherever I choose." "If he comes from neither side, I am as one of the (other) men of my city." R. Yehudah says: If [they came from both sides and] one of them were his teacher, he goes to his teacher [and not to the other, for we posit that when his eruv effected acquisition ben hashmashoth, his will was that the eruv in the direction of his teacher do so.], and if both of them were his teachers, he goes whither he wishes. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah, one sometimes favoring his friend over his teacher.]

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יוֹם טוֹב הַסָּמוּךְ לְשַׁבָּת, בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ, מְעָרֵב אָדָם שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין וְאוֹמֵר, עֵרוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמִּזְרָח, וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמַּעֲרָב. הָרִאשׁוֹן לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַשֵּׁנִי לַמִּזְרָח. עֵרוּבִי הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְהַשֵּׁנִי כִּבְנֵי עִירִי. עֵרוּבִי הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהָרִאשׁוֹן כִּבְנֵי עִירִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מְעָרֵב לְרוּחַ אַחַת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב כָּל עִקָּר. אוֹ מְעָרֵב לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְעָרֵב כָּל עִקָּר. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. מוֹלִיכוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹן, וּמַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו וְנוֹטְלוֹ וּבָא לוֹ. בַּשֵּׁנִי מַחְשִׁיךְ עָלָיו וְאוֹכְלוֹ. וְנִמְצָא מִשְׂתַּכֵּר בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ וּמִשְׂתַּכֵּר בְּעֵרוּבוֹ. נֶאֱכַל בָּרִאשׁוֹן, עֵרוּבוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ עֵרוּב לַשֵּׁנִי. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מוֹדִים אַתֶּם לִי שֶׁהֵן שְׁתֵּי קְדֻשּׁוֹת:

R. Eliezer says: Yom Tov close to Shabbath, both (immediately) before it or after it — one places two eruvin and says: "My first eruv is to the east, and the second, to the west" (or) "My first to the west and the second to the east." [If he had to go in one direction on the first day, and in a different direction the second day, he can place an eruv to the east and to the west on the eve of the first day and say: "Let my eruv to the east effect acquisition for me today for tomorrow, and let my eruv to the west effect acquisition for me ben hashmashoth tomorrow for the second day." For R. Eliezer holds that Shabbath and yom tov are not regarded as one long day, but as two separate sanctities, and the ben hashmashoth of the first effects acquisition for itself and not for the second day.] "My eruv is (for) the first (day); and on the second, as the people of my city." [That is, if he needed to go only on the first day, and on the second, he did not need to move from his spot, and he does not wish to lose two thousand from his tchum in either direction, he places one eruv in the direction he wishes to go the first day, and he says: "Let his eruv effect acquisition for me for tomorrow, and on the second day, I shall be as the men of my city," who did not make an eruv. Or, if he had to go on the second day and not on the first, he says: "Let this eruv effect acquisition for me ben hashmashoth tomorrow, and on the first day I shall be as the men of my city."] And the sages say: He makes an eruv in one direction (for both days) or he does not make an eruv at all; or he makes an eruv for two days or he does not make an eruv at all. [This is the same as "in one direction" above. Why need it be mentioned? This is what the rabbis are saying to R. Eliezer: Do you not concur that for one day he makes an eruv either in one direction or not at all? For he cannot say: "Let my eruv be a half day to the east and a half day to the west." For two days, too — that is, for Shabbath and yom tov — he makes an eruv as for one day or he does not make an eruv at all. For the rabbis are in doubt as to whether or not Shabbath and yom tov are regarded as one day. So they rule stringently here — that he may not make an eruv in two directions, in that they might constitute one sanctity — and stringently there, saying below that if it were eaten on the first day, there is no eruv for the second day, in that they might constitute two distinct sanctities and not be regarded as one long day.] What does he do (if he desires the eruv for two days in one direction)? He [the messenger] takes it on the first day [i.e., on the eve of the yom tov before Shabbath], and he waits for dark [until the eruv effects acquisition.] Then he takes it and returns, [lest it go lost and he have no eruv for the second day, as it is taught: "If his eruv were eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first day but not for the second."], and on the second day he waits for dark and eats it. [He takes it back on the second day. For it is ruled that if one makes an eruv with a loaf on the first day and he wishes to make an eruv with a loaf on the second day, he must do so with the very same eruv that he designated as such the day before (saying nothing), but not with a different loaf. For he would have to designate it as an eruv, and this would constitute preparation from yom tov to Shabbath.] So that he is found to gain in his going [That is, he effects acquisition for going (beyond the tchum) the next day], and (he is found) to gain in his eruv, [which he eats. And on yom tov after Shabbath, where this is not possible, he takes it there on the first day and does not eat it, and he returns there on the second day to see if it is still there. (If it is,) he waits for dark, after which he may eat it if he so desires.] If it were eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but not for the second. R. Eliezer said to them: You concur with me that they are two (distinct) sanctities. [For you say that if his eruv were eaten on the first day, it does not serve for the second day. And if it were one sanctity, it would be reckoned as one long day, so that the ben hashmashoth of the first day would effect acquisition for both days. Since they are two sanctities, then, he can also make an eruv in two directions! And the rabbis follow the stringent ruling in both instances, as stated above, being in doubt (as to whether they are one or two sanctities.) The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer, that Shabbath and yom tov are two sanctities.]

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁהָיָה יָרֵא שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר, מְעָרֵב אָדָם שְׁנֵי עֵרוּבִין וְאוֹמֵר, עֵרוּבִי בָרִאשׁוֹן לַמִּזְרָח וּבַשֵּׁנִי לַמַּעֲרָב, בָּרִאשׁוֹן לַמַּעֲרָב וּבַשֵּׁנִי לַמִּזְרָח. עֵרוּבִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וּבַשֵּׁנִי כִּבְנֵי עִירִי. עֵרוּבִי בַּשֵּׁנִי, וּבָרִאשׁוֹן כִּבְנֵי עִירִי. וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים:

R. Yehudah says: If one apprehended that beth-din might intercalate Rosh Hashanah, he puts down two eruvin and says: "My eruv for the first day is to the east, and for the second day to the west" (or) "for the first day to the west, and for the second day to the east." "My eruv is for the first day, and on the second day, as the people of my city" (or) "My eruv is for the second day, and on the first day, as the people of my city." [If he were afraid that the great beth-din might intercalate Elul, so that there would be two holy days (the thirtieth and the thirty-first of Elul), and he had to go in one direction on the first day and in another direction on the second, he puts down two eruvin on the eve of yom tov, one in either direction, and says, etc.] And the sages did not concur with him. [For they hold that they are one sanctity. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages vis-à-vis the two days of Rosh Hashanah. For it is not because of doubt alone that two days were instituted, (doubt as to) whether beth-din had sanctified the thirtieth day or the thirty-first day and one of them is chol (i.e., not yom tov), but also because of the possibility that witnesses (had come) from minchah on, in which instance that day is observed as holy, and the next day as holy, both (together) being reckoned as one sanctity. But with the other festivals of the exile, where they instituted two days only because of doubt, our not knowing when the great beth-din had sanctified the new moon, the sages concur with R. Yehudah that they are two distinct sanctities. (The "sages" here are R. Yossi.)]

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַתְנֶה אָדָם עַל הַכַּלְכָּלָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן וְאוֹכְלָהּ בַּשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן בֵּיצָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בָרִאשׁוֹן, תֵּאָכֵל בַּשֵּׁנִי. וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים:

And R. Yehudah said further: One stipulates over a basket on the first day of the holiday and eats (from) it on the second. [A basket with fruits of tevel (untithed produce) — one stipulates over it on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, saying: "If today is chol (not yom tov), let this be terumah for those; and if today is kodesh, there is nothing in my words." For terumoth are not separated on yom tov. And the next day he says: "If yesterday was kodesh and today is chol, let what I designated yesterday be terumah for these; and if today is kodesh and yesterday was chol, it is terumah already." And he eats (from) the tithed basket and leaves over the terumah.] And the sages did not concur with him. [The "sages" here are R. Yossi (as above), who holds that they are one sanctity and terumah may not be separated thereon. And this is so only with the two days of Rosh Hashanah, as explained above.] Likewise (R. Yehudah said that) an egg hatched on the first day [of Rosh Hashanah] may be eaten on the second. [For if the first is kodesh, the second is chol; and an egg hatched on yom tov is permitted on chol, there being no hachanah ("preparation") for chol. And if the first is chol and the second kodesh, chol is found, appropriately, to be preparing for kodesh.] And the sages did not concur with him [vis-à-vis the two days of Rosh Hashanah alone, regarding them as one sanctity; but they did concur with him vis-à-vis the two festival days of exile.]

רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶן הַרְכִּינָס אוֹמֵר, הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה אוֹמֵר, הַחֲלִיצֵנוּ ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֶת יוֹם רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה, אִם הַיּוֹם, אִם לְמָחָר. וּלְמָחָר הוּא אוֹמֵר, אִם הַיּוֹם, אִם אֶמֶשׁ. וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים:

R. Yossi b. Harkinas says: On Rosh Hashanah the prayer leader says "Hachalitzeinu, O L rd our G d, on this day of Rosh Chodesh" [("Hachalitzeinu":) Give us zeal and gird us with strength, as in (Numbers 32:17): "Nechaletz chushim" ("We will go ready armed"). Another interpretation: "Save us and deliver us," as in (Psalms 140:2): "Chaltzeini, O L rd, from an evil man"], "whether today or tomorrow." [If it (Rosh Chodesh) is today, hachalitzeinu today; and if tomorrow, hachalitzeinu tomorrow.] And the next day he says: "…whether today or yesterday." And the sages did not concur with him [both in respect to mentioning Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashanah and in respect to stipulating "whether today or tomorrow." Rather, he says: "Hachalitzeinu," unqualified, on both days and does not mention Rosh Chodesh at all. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]