Commento su 'Eruvin 3:12

בכל מערבין – the joining of borders/עירובי תחומין (i.e., placing a small amount of food somewhere within the two-thousand cubit limit, establishing that location as one’s residence for Shabbat, and the two thousand cubits are measured from there), whereas the joining of courtyards/עירובי חצרות – is not made other than with bread (i.e., all the inhabitants of a serious of homes sharing a common courtyard place food in one place before Shabbat, they are considered as an extended household and one may carry within the courtyard), and this "בכל"/”with any” that is taught in our Mishnah , is not exact, as we state in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 27a): “one may not derive anything from the general statement, not even when an exception is stated (as there may be other exceptions),” for surely here it is taught in our Mishnah: “With any [food] do they prepare the Eruv… except for water and salt,” and there are also a kind of mushroom and truffles that we don’t make Eruvin and merging [of alleyways] with them (i.e., if several courtyards open into a common alleyway, it is prohibited for the inhabitants of the houses in the courtyards to carry within the alleyway unless he inhabitants of each house place food in one place for the duration of Shabbat together with the placement of a side pole placed at the entrance to the alleyway or a cross-beam placed over it to mark the entrance to the alleyway and that it is prohibited to carry outside the alleyway), and these are not food, like water and salt.

Introduction This mishnah begins to discuss how one sets up an eruv (either for a courtyard or to extend the Shabbat border) or shittuf mavoi (alleyway partnership). An “eruv” refers to the common meal shared by those who share a courtyard and a “shittuf mavoi” is the common meal shared by those who share an alleyway. An “eruv” can also refer to a meal set up at the end of the limit where one can go on Shabbat, so that one can go another 2000 cubits. For more info, see in the introduction.

ומשתתפים – merging of alleyways.

With all [kinds of food] they may make an ‘eruv and a shittuf, except water and salt. Any type of food may be used to constitute the meal for an eruv or for a shittuf. An eruv refers to either a courtyard eruv or a Shabbat border eruv. A shittuf refers to the alleyway partnership. The only exception is salt and water which do not count as food.

הכל נלקח בכסף מעשר – as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:26): “and spend the money on anything you want – [cattle, sheep, wine, or other intoxicant or anything you may desire].”

And all [kinds of food] may be purchased with money of the second tithe, except water and salt. Second tithe is redeemed by its owners with money, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food. It cannot be used to buy non-food products. We should note that food includes drink. However, as in the previous section, it does not include salt and water.

חוץ מן המים ומן המלח – for it is not fruit from fruit.

One who vowed to abstain from food is allowed [to consume] both water and salt. If a person vowed to abstain from eating, he may still drink water and eat salt because neither is considered food.

הנודר מן המזון – not that he said: “that nourishment should be forbidden to me,” for it is not called “nourishment”/מזון – other than from five species that nourishes and satisfies (see Talmud Eruvin 30a), but rather, as for example, that he said, all that feed me – I take a vow of abstinence (as a substitute for the word “sacrifice”/קרבן ), and all words of support/nourishing and we impose an oath by hours, except from water and salt.

An eruv may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah, But Symmachus says: with unconsecrated produce only. Although a nazirite cannot have wine and an Israelite cannot have terumah, both may use them to make their eruv, since other Jews can eat them. We see from here that the meal is symbolic. It does not have to be edible by the one who sets it up, it just has to be food that can be eaten by a Jew. Symmachus disagrees and holds that the eruv must be edible by those who participate in it. Therefore, an Israelite cannot use terumah as his eruv. However, a nazirite can still use wine since it is possible for him to ask a sage to release him from his nazirite vow. In other words, the prohibition of terumah to Israelites is immutable while the prohibition of wine to any given nazirite is not.

מערבין לנזיר ביין – and even though it is not proper for him (as Nazirites are forbidden to partake of wine as part of their vow), it is proper for others.

[An eruv may be prepared] for a priest in a bet hapras. Rabbi Judah says: even in a cemetary, because he can put up a partition and thus enter [the area] and eat [his eruv]. A bet hapras is a place that used to have a grave in it and now has been plowed over. It is rabbinically prohibited for a priest to enter such a place, lest there be a bone that remains or was spread out somewhere in the vicinity. However, in some ways the rabbis were lenient with the laws governing a bet hapras, since the prohibition is not toraitic. One of these leniencies is that a priest’s eruv may be set up there. This eruv refers to a Shabbat border eruv (eruv tehumin), since a bet hapras would not be within the courtyard or alley. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient and allows the priest’s eruv to be set up in an actual cemetery. This is because the priest can set up a partition to get to his eruv.

ולישראל בתרומה – for this (i.e., heave-offering) is appropriate [only] for Kohanim.

סומכוס אומר חולי – fo we require something that is appropriate to him, and regarding wine for a Nazirite, Sumchos does not dispute, because it is possible that the Nazirite will come before a scholar for absolution from his vow and the wine will [then] be permitted to him on that Shabbat, but Terumah/heave-offering, it is impossible that it will be appropriate for an Israelite (as Terumah is only for a Kohen), for even an Israelite who separates the heave-offering upon it, and behold it will be as if it had not been lifted up, for behold, it returns to eatables that are forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts, and it is forbidden to eat from it until he returns and separates another heave-offering, for we don’t separate heave-offering on Shabbat, even at twilight; therefore, it is not appropriate for him. But the Halakha is not according to Sumchos.

ולכהן בבית הפרס – it is taught anonymously and is not Sumchos who said it.

בית הפרס – it is field in which a grave was ploughed, it is permitted for a Kohen to enter there when he is breathing and walking by, and sees that he doesn’t touch a bone the size of a barley-corn, and because of this, it is permitted to place his Eruv there, for he is able to enter in the place where he placed his Eruv, but he and his Eruv are in another place.

לחוץ – to make a partition between himself and the grave so that it would not cause Levitical uncleanness arising from being under the same shelter with, or forming a shelter over, a corpse, such, for example that he would enter there with a chest, ark, and/or a turret. So we see that is appropriate for him but the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis we establish in the Gemara (Tractate Eruvin 30b-31a) that even regarding an Israelite, the Rabbis dispute upon that of Rabbi Yehudah, and they state that we don’t place the joining of borders (i.e., by placing a enough food for a small meal somewhere within one’s two thousand cubit limit, one establishes that location as one’s residence for Shabbat) in a cemetery but the Mishnah did not mention the Kohen, other to inform us of the strength of Rabbi Yehuda’s [opinion], for even a Kohen they permitted, and in this, they dispute, for Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though it is prohibited to benefit and to use the cemetery, it is permitted to place the Eruv there, for we don’t make a joining of borders other than for a matter of a commandment, but the commandments were not given to benefit from them but even though the Eruv guards after its acquisition , for at twilight it acquires and already the commandment has been performed and it guards there the entire Shabbat, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a person is not strict regarding his Eruv if he lost it or it was stolen after he acquired it, but the Rabbis hold that a person is strict regarding his Eruv after he acquired it and desires that it not be stolen; therefore, when the Eruv is guarded in the cemetery all of Shabbat after he acquired it at twilight and the commandment was completed, it was found that he is using something that is forbidden for benefit, and that the graves are forbidden for benefit and therefore, a person should not leave his Eruv in the cemetery and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מערבין בדמאי – with a loaf that was taken from an ignoramus/illiterate (i.e., someone who does not observe the rules of tithing and Levitical uncleanness) and did not separate from it the tithe of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah deals with foods that may or may not be used to set up an eruv. The second section deals with sending an eruv (a meal) with an agent.

ובמעשר ראשון כו' אבל לא בטבל וכו' – all of these are explained in Tractate Shabbat, in the Chapter “They Clear Away” פרק מפנין(Chapter 18, Mishnah 1).

They may make an eruv with demai (doubtfully tithed, or with first tithe from which terumah had been taken, or with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have been redeemed; and priests [may make their eruv] with hallah and terumah. [It may] not [be prepared], with untithed produce, nor with first tithe from which terumah has not been taken, nor with second tithe or consecrated [food] that have not been redeemed. All of the things listed in this section are not completely prohibited, at least not by the Torah. Demai is doubtfully tithed produce, which may be given to poor people. First tithe may be eaten by Levites, once the terumah has been removed and given to the priest. Once second tithe and consecrated food are redeemed they may be eaten (the money is taken to Jerusalem and used their to buy food). Priests may use hallah and terumah to make their eruv. Hallah refers to the separated dough that Israelites must give to priests. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that all people may make their eruv from terumah and not just priests. This seemingly contradicts today’s mishnah which specifies that only priests may use terumah, since only they can eat it. There are two answers to this problem: 1) priests commonly use terumah to make their eruv. 2) Mishnah Pesahim 2:5, a mishnah which deals with the types of grains which can be used for matzah, contains the exact same line. There it can refer only to priests, since Israelites could not eat terumah. Our mishnah copied the list from that mishnah. The list that follows is of foods which may not be consumed by anyone. Since no one can eat these things, they may not be used in making an eruv.

השולח את ערובו ביד חרש כו' – to bring it to the end of two thousand cubits and specifically regarding the joining of borders/עירובי תחומין is not an Eruv if he sent it in the hand of a minor, but with עירובי חצרות /the joining of courtyards, it exists for us with a minor seizing the Eruv.

This section deals with a person who sends an agent to set up an eruv (meaning a meal) at the end of his Shabbat border, that is 2000 cubits outside of the city, or wherever else he may be. The mishnah teaches that if the person sent it with a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, the eruv cannot be relied upon. According to the rabbis, these people lack the intelligence which is necessary to have the proper intention to set up an eruv. He also cannot send the eruv with someone who does not believe in the halakhic viability of eruvin, since that person will obviously not intend to set up a proper eruv. However, if he sends it with one of these people in order to bring it to someone else who will actually set up the eruv, then the eruv is valid. We should note that this mishnah alludes to people who deny the validity of eruvin. The Talmud comments that this is a reference to the Samaritans who took the Exodus 16:29, “no man should leave his place” literally. This is a classic case where we can see that not all Jews in the time of the Mishnah accepted rabbinic midrash and that there were those who read the Bible far more literally than did the rabbis.

ביד מי שאינו מודה בערוב – such as, for example, a Cuthean or a Sadducee (who does not recognized the validity of the Oral Torah).

ואם אמר לאחר – who is deemed fit to receive it from someone not eligible and the fit one will bring it to the end of two thousand cubits.

הרי זה עירוב – this is an Eruv as long as that he stands and sees at the time when the ineligible wone gives it to the hand of the one who is fit, even though he does not see it, for the fit one takes it for he performs with the presumption of an agent his mission.

נותנו באילן – A person who stands in the public domain and it has in it four handbreadths by handbreadths or more.

Introduction This mishnah deals with an eruv that was put somewhere where he might not be able to retrieve it. To help in understanding this mishnah I should explain that the eruv must be accessible and existent at twilight (between sunset and darkness) when Shabbat begins. This is the period in which an eruv is “set”. It is also a period in which it is halakhically doubtful whether it is Shabbat.

למעלה מעשרה אין ערובו ערוב – for since the tree is four [handbreadths] wide, higher than ten [handbreadths], it is the private domain and he acquired his Sabbath camp/place to be the center of Sabbath movements in the public domain and since that if he would want to take his Eruv and eat in it, at the time when the Eruv finds him worthy to do so, which is at twilight, he is not able to take it for he would bring it from the private domain to the public domain, it would not be an Eruv.

If he put [the eruv] in a tree above [a height] of ten handbreadths, his eruv is not valid; below ten handbreadths, his eruv is valid. This section refers to a person who put his eruv in a tree that stands in the public domain, and he intends to dwell underneath the tree for at least part of the Shabbat. If the tree is four handbreadths by four handbreadths and the eruv is ten handbreadths high, then the eruv is in a private domain, while he is in the public domain. He cannot take his eruv down from the tree for that would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain. The rule is that he and his eruv must be in the same place at twilight, so that he could get to it legally on Shabbat. If the eruv is below ten handbreadths, then it is in a “karmelit”, which is neither a public nor a private domain. It is still prohibited from rabbinic law to take something from a karmelit to another domain. However, when it comes to an eruv, it need only be in its place at twilight and the prohibition to carry at twilight is in itself only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, you have a rabbinically prohibited act which occurs only at a time where all prohibitions are only rabbinic. Hence, the halakhah can be lenient and allow him to retrieve his eruv. The eruv is therefore effective.

למטה מעשרה הרי זה עירוב – for below ten [handbreadths] it is a Karmelit (i.e., an intermediate domain – between a private domain and a public domain, which resembles a public domain – an open area larger than four square handbreadths that is not a public domain, such as fields, rivers, alleyways and lanes), for everything from three until nine [handbreadths] at a width of four [handbreadths] is a Karmelit, and since he took it as his Eruv, there is no prohibition other than Shvut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), this is an Eruv. But our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi (i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi/Judah the Patriarch), who stated that everything that is [done] because of Shvut, they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not decree upon it at twilight. But at the hour when he Eruv is beneficial for him, which is, at twilight, he may take it, and it is found that he and his Eruv are in one place, therefore, it is an Eruv.

If he put it in a cistern, even if it is a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. There are two explanations of this section. The Yerushalmi explains that the cistern is in the public domain but that he intends to actually dwell in the cistern on Shabbat, at least at twilight. Therefore, the eruv is effective. The Bavli explains that the cistern is in an area that is a karmelit. Hence, this is not a situation where he would be taking out from a private to a public domain, as we encountered in the first section. We cannot explain, however, that the cistern is in the public domain but that he wishes to dwell outside of the cistern at twilight, for then his eruv and he would be in different domains.

נתנו בבור – that is in the Karmelit, such as in the valley or in the fields and it was intended to establish his Sabbath camp in the valley or in the field, it is an Eruv, for the pit itself is the private domain, ad he acquires the Sabbath camp. the center of Sabbath movements in the Karmelit, and at the time when the Eruv benefits hi, that is, at twilight, he can take it, according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who stated that everything that is because of Shvut (i.e., to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest), they d not decree upon him at twilight.

If he put it on the top of a reed or on the top of a pole, if it had been uprooted and then inserted in the ground, even though it was a hundred cubits high, the eruv is valid. This section discusses an eruv that was placed on top of a type of pole or reed. The pole is not four handbreadths wide, hence it does not constitute its own domain, as does the tree. Even if the pole is very high, it is still not a separate domain. If the pole or reed was detached from the ground, meaning it had been part of a tree but then he detached it and stuck it back in the ground, the eruv is valid. However, if the pole or reed is still attached to the ground, then the eruv is invalid, since we are concerned lest he might chop down part of the pole or reed to get to his eruv. Cutting down part of a plant attached to the ground is a violation of the laws of Shabbat.

אפילו גבוה מאה אמה – but below, there isn’t the width of four [handbreadths] for it is not the private domain, and even though that above it is four [handbreadths] wide, for we require for an Eruv to be on top of a place that has four [handbreadths].

If it he put it in a chest and the key was lost, the eruv is [nevertheless] valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: if he does not know that the key is in its place, the eruv is invalid. In this section, he puts the eruv into a chest, locks the chest and then loses the key. According to the first opinion, the eruv is still valid as long as he can break the chest and enter during twilight, the critical moment for establishing the eruv. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the chest may only be opened with the key. His ability to break the chest would not make the eruv valid. However, if he knows that the key is in certain place, but he can’t remember exactly where that place is, the eruv is valid, under the assumption that he will at some point remember. The eruv is invalid only if he thinks he truly lost the key.

תלוש ונעוץ – it is an Eruv, but if it is attached, it is not an Eruv because, when he takes it, there is a decree lest he cut it off, because the reed is soft and one can make the decree lest he cut it off when he takes it, but a tree is hard, and at twilight, but we don’t suspect lest he will ascend and detach it, but the cutting off of a reed, since it is soft, he will certainly cut it off and will liable because of [the primary category of labor] of reaping. Alternatively, a reed and the tip of a pole are mixed up as attached with something detached, for many reeds are detached and inserted [into the ground] and appear as attached. Because of this, it is necessary to make a decree lest he cut off something attached and think that it is detached, but a tree, one doesn’t make the decree lest one ascend and detached and error to think that it is detached.

נתנו במגדל – of wood.

ואבד המפתח הרי זה ערוב – as, for example, that the lock is tied with cords and ropes, for if he does not finds the key, it is impossible to cut them other than with a knife, the first Tanna/teacher holds, since that it is possible to open it through his cutting the ropes with a knife, there isn’t here a prohibition [that is punishable] through stoning, but rather the prohibition of violating the Rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest (i.e., Sh’vut), that he damages through the cutting of the ropes but all of those who ruin it are exempt, but the prohibition of Sh’vut (i.e., the Rabbinic decree to enhance the Shabbat as a day of rest) at twilight at the time of his acquisition of the Eruv and they did not make a decree regarding it, as we have stated, therefore, it is an Eruv, for he is able to bring a knife and cut the ropes and take his Eruv. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that a utensil cannot be taken other than for the needs of his usage, and it is prohibited to carry the knife in order to cut the ropes for its use is not other than for cutting foods, and since there are two [prohibitions of Sh’vut], carrying the knife and cutting the ropes, even according to Rabbi [Yehuda Ha-Nasi] who stated that every thing that is because of Sh’vut at twilight, they didn’t not make the decree, in a similar manner, he admits that they made the decree. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer (who holds that the if he doesn’t know that the key is where it belongs, it is not a valid Eruv).

נתגלגל חוץ לתחום אינו עירוב – since there is someone from his household who dwells there until his Eruv is more than two-thousand cubits [away], he is not able to go and to measure it. And this is a case where it rolled two cubits outside the two-thousand cubits, for every person has four cubits from the place of his Eruv, two cubits from the eastern side of his Eruv and two cubits from the western side.

Introduction This mishnah discusses an eruv (a meal) which was set up before Shabbat but then something happened to it such that it became unattainable, inedible or in some other way invalid. The question is, is the eruv still effective?

נפל עליו גל – and it is he who needs a hoe or a pick-axe to get it out/remove it (see Talmud Eruvin 77b), which is a forbidden Sabbath creative labor but not a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest.

[An eruv] which rolled away beyond the [Shabbat] limit, or a heap of stones fell on it, or was burnt, [or was] terumah and became impure: [If one of these occurred] while it was yet day, it is invalid, [But if it occurred] after it became the eruv is valid. The mishnah begins by describing situations where a Shabbat border eruv became invalid in some way. If it rolled away beyond the Shabbat limit, then he cannot get to it on Shabbat. If a heap of stones fell on it, he cannot uncover it because it is forbidden to clear a heap of stones on Shabbat. Obviously, if it is burnt there is nothing left to eat. Finally, if it was terumah and it became impure, it is forbidden to eat it. The mishnah now teaches that the validity of the eruv depends upon when one of these things happened. If the eruv was ruined before Shabbat began, when it was still Friday, the eruv is invalid, because it did not exist at twilight. If it was ruined after dark, the eruv is certainly valid, because it did exist at twilight.

תרומה ונטמאת – for now it is not fit, neither for himself nor for another person, but the Tanna/teacher needed to inform us that if it rolled outside the Sabbath limit, or a heap of stones fell upon it, for had he informed us [only] that it rolled [outside the Sabbath limit], because there isn’t anyone with it, for it is in one place and his Eruv is in another place, but if a heap of stones fell upon it, where there is another with it, I would say that it is an Eruv. But if we were only informed [only] about a heap of stones that fell upon it and he is not able to take it other than with the Sabbath labor of a hoe or a pick-axe, but if it rolled, where it is possible that a wind blows and returns it within the Sabbath limit, I might say that is should be an Eruv, it comes to tell you [that this is not the case]. And the Tanna/teacher taught, “or it was burned”, to inform you of the power [of the opinion] of Rabbi Yossi (who quotes the testimony at the end of the Mishnah of Avtulmos regarding a matter of doubt concerning an Eruv) for even though there isn’t in the world because of a doubt that it isn’t forbidden. And the Tanna/teacher taught “heave-offering that was defiled,” to inform you of the the power of Rabbi Meir, for even though that there is such in the world, and one can say, that he set it up at twilight based upon the presumption of prior to that and that it was ritually pure, even so we don’t state a presumption for a leniency.

If it is doubtful [when it occurred]: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah say: this is a donkey-driver/camel driver. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: a doubtful eruv is valid. Rabbi Yose says: Avtulmos testified on the authority of five elders that a doubtful eruv is valid. The bigger problem is a situation in which we don’t know whether the eruv was valid at twilight. Probably, this is the most typical situation a person sets up an eruv before Shabbat and then checks it on Shabbat and sees that it has been ruined but does not know when it happened. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah use a proverb to describe this situation he is like a camel driver and a donkey driver. A camel driver stands in front of the camel and pulls him along. A donkey driver stands behind the donkey and whips him to go forward faster. Someone who needs to drive both a camel and a donkey has a problem if he whips the donkey he’ll bump into the camel and if he pulls the camel he’ll go to fast for the donkey. All he can do is go at a medium pace between the two animals. This is the situation of one whose Shabbat border eruv may be invalid he loses in both directions. To remember, an effective Shabbat border eruv extends his Shabbat limit in one direction by 2000 cubits, but causes him to lose 2000 cubits in the other direction. If he sets it 2000 cubits to the west of the city, he can go 4000 cubits in that direction, but he can’t go any cubits to the east of the city. In our situation, let’s say he set up the eruv 2000 cubits to the west and then discovered that it was invalid but does not know when it occurred. He cannot go another 2000 cubits to the west because the eruv might be invalid. However, he also cannot go 2000 cubits to the east of the city (or any other direction) lest his eruv is valid. In other words, he loses in both directions. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say that a doubtful eruv is effective. This is because it was known to be existent before Shabbat and was only known to be nonexistent after Shabbat started. We can presume that it existed until we know that it did not, and therefore, we can presume that it existed at twilight, the critical time. Rabbi Yose supplements his opinion with testimony provided by Avtulmos, who taught in the name of five elders, that the a doubtful eruv is valid.

משחשיכה הרי זה עירוב – for after he acquired it at twilight, we don’t suspect him if it was lost.

הרי זה חמר גמל – for we are in doubt if he acquired the Eruv and here would be his house and from here he has two-thousand cubits in every direction that are from the border of his house and further on, or perhaps, he did not acquire the Eruv and from his house, he has two-thousand [cubits] in every direction and he didn’t acquire anything to the border of his Eruv, and as a result of this doubt, he is forbidden to go [anywhere] other than two thousand cubits that are between his house and the Eruv, for whichever way you turn, in those he is permitted, but not in the two-thousand [cubits] that are from his Eruv and beyond, for perhaps he did not acquire the Eruv. But not also from his house and onwards, for perhaps he acquired the Eruv. It is found that this pulls him to here and that pulls him to there, like a person who is driving a donkey or a camel, that the donkey walks before him and this person leads him or the camel from behind him, and he pulls it and he needs to turn before him or in back of him.

רבי יוסי ר' שמעון אומרים ספק העירוב כשר – for we stated establish the Eruv on its presumption, for when he placed it, he was within the Sabbath limit, and he was ritually pure, and there was no pile of stones upon him, there his Eruv was an Eruv, and such is the Halakha.

מתנה אדם על עירובו – he places two Eruvin, one at the end of two-thousand cubits to the east of his house and one at the end of two-thousand cubits to the west of his house, and he states: “If idolaters came to the east and I need to free from before them, I will acquire for myself My Eruv that is in the west and my house will be for me four-thousand cubits. But even though that they didn’t come until the morrow, we state that there is a retrospective designation (i.e., literally, a choice), that he acquired for himself an Eruv in the other direction at twilight.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who puts an eruv on both sides of the town, because he doesn’t know whether he will need to go to the west or to the east. Normally, a person cannot make two eruvin and have them both be effective, because a person is considered to be where he left his eruv and he can’t be in both places. The mishnah teaches that there is a way of getting around this problem by making a stipulation.

הריני כבני עירי – two-thousand [cubits] from my city in every direction and I do not need to profit from here and to lose from there.

A man may make a stipulation concerning his eruv and say, “If foreigners came from the east, let my eruv be that of the west; [if they came] from the west let my eruv be that of the east; if they came from both directions, I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if they came from neither direction I will be like the people of my town.” In this situation, he knows before Shabbat that foreigners may be coming and he wants to be able to run away from them to one of the sides of the town. However, he doesn’t know from which direction they will be coming, so he puts an eruv (a meal) in both directions. He then says, that if they come from the west, the valid eruv should be in the east and vice versa. If they come from both directions, then he may choose whichever eruv he wishes. Finally, if the foreigner doesn’t come after him, then he shall be like the other people in the city, who can go 2000 cubits in each direction without an eruv (2000 cubits is the Shabbat border). Note that this mishnah is not referring to a life or death situation, for in such a situation the rules would be suspended in any case.

אם בא חכם למזרח – outside of the Sabbath limit of my city and I want to learn from his mouth, and now I don’t know to which side he will come, and on the morrow I will here from people that come from there that it is to here near the Eruv.

[Likewise say,] “If a sage came from the east let my eruv be that of the east; if from the west let my eruv be that of the west; If he came from either direction I will go in whatever direction I desire; and if no one came from either direction I will be like the people of my town.” Rabbi Judah says: if one of them was his teacher he may go only to his teacher, but if both were his teachers he may go in whatever direction he prefers. In this situation, instead of foreigners coming to cause trouble, a sage is coming to give a derashah (expound upon the Torah) and he wants to go here the derashah. He may again make a stipulation which will allow him the flexibility to have an eruv in either direction. Rabbi Judah says that if one of the sages coming was his teacher, then he can only go to him. This is because we assume that he wishes to hear his teacher and hence only the eruv on that side of the city is effective. However if both are his teachers and they come from different directions he may choose freely between them.

רבי יהודה אומר – if they came from here and from there, and one of them was his Rabbi/Teacher, he should go to his Rabbi/Teacher, and not towards the other, for we hold that with a creature, that at the time of acquisition of the Eruv at twilight, his intention is to acquire for himself that Eruv that is on the side of his Rabbi/Teacher. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda, for sometimes it is more enjoyable for a person to be with his friends more than his Rabbi/Teacher.

מערב אדם שני עירובין – if he wants to walk on the first day (i.e., whether it is Shabbat or Yom Tov) to this direction and on the second day to that direction, he can make an Eruv to the east and to the west on the eve of the first day, “My Eruv of the east, will acquire for me today for the needs of tomorrow, and my Eruv of the west will acquire for me at twilight of the morrow for the needs of the second day.” For Rabbi Eliezer holds that Shabbat and Yom Tov – they are not like one long day, but rather two [separate days] of holiness, and at twilight of the first, for him he acquires, and not on the second day.

Introduction This mishnah deals with setting up a Shabbat border eruv for two consecutive days, one of which is Shabbat the other of which is a festival. As an aside, we learn in this mishnah that just as it is prohibited to go beyond the Shabbat border (2000 cubits) so too on a festival it is prohibited to go beyond the same distance. This is somewhat of an innovation for the verse in the Torah which implies that people must not travel refers only to Shabbat.

עירובי בראשון ובשני כבני עירי – meaning to say, and if he did not need to walk other than on the first day, and on the second [day], he doesn’t need to move from his place, and does not want to lose neither the two-thousand cubits from one direction nor the two-thousand cubits from the other direction, he should make one Eruv to the side/direction that he wishes to go on the first day, and state: “My Eruv will acquire for me for the needs of tomorrow, but on the second [day], I will be like the people of my city/town, who did not make an Eruv.” Or, if he needed to go on the second, but not on the first, he would state: “his Eruv will acquire for me at twilight of the morrow and on the first [day], I will be like the people of my city/town.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: if a festival day immediately precedes or follows Shabbat a man may prepare two eruvs and make the following declaration: “my eruv for the first day is that of the east and for the second day is that of the west”; “the one for the first day is that of the west and the one for the second day is that of the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second day I will be as the people of my town”; or “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first day I will be as the people of my town”. Rabbi Eliezer allows one to make two separate eruvin, one for Shabbat and one for the festival. These two eruvin can function differently. That is to say each can work on opposite sides of the city. Alternatively, he can set up an eruv for one day and have it not be effective for the next day. Rabbi Eliezer holds that Shabbat and the festival are two distinct entities of holiness, and therefore he can set up two different eruvin.

או מערב לשני ימים – that is, to one direction as we state above. But further than this, why do I need it? But rather, this what the Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: “If you admit that for the first day, that you will either make an Eruv in a certain direction or will not make an Eruv at all, for you are not able to say that for half a day, my Eruv is towards the east and half a day, my Eruv is towards the west. For two days also, which are for Shabbat and Yom Tov, either make an Eruv like for the first day, or do not make an Eruv at all,” for the Rabbis doubt whether Shabbat and Yom Tov is it to be considered like one long day or not, make it here for a stringency, for one cannot make an Eruv in two directions for perhaps it is one holiness (i.e., Shabbat and Yom Tov), and here for a stringency as they state later on, we will eat on the first, for there is no Eruv for the second, for perhaps they are two [separate days] of holiness and not like one long day.

But the sages say: he either prepares an eruv for one direction or none at all; he either prepares one eruv for the two days or none at all. The sages hold that it is impossible for a person to set up two different eruvin for two consecutive days. Either he sets up an eruv for both days, in which case he loses his ability to leave town on the side for which he did not set up an eruv, or he just doesn’t set up an eruv at all and is limited to going 2000 cubits outside of the city in each direction.

מוליכו – the agent on the eve of Yom Tov that precedes the Sabbath and wats for nightfall until he acquires the Eruv.

How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away. On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it. He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv. The sages now explain how one should set up an eruv if he wishes it to work for two days. What he needs to avoid is the eruv being eaten up before the second day begins, for this will mean that the eruv is not effective on the second day, as we shall learn in the next section. What he should do is take the eruv to wherever he wants it to be (assumedly 2000 cubits outside of the city so that he can later go another 2000 cubits from there) and make sure it is there at dusk on the eve of the first day. This is the time which “sets” the eruv, and it must be in place at this time. As long as it is there at this time, it need not remain there all day. Therefore, he may take it back with him into town, or anywhere he wants to go within the limit. At the second day, he should again make sure that the eruv is in the same place at dusk. Once it is there through dusk, he may eat it. In this way, he gets to extend his Shabbat limit and still eat his eruv (you can have your eruv and eat it too!).

ונוטל ובא לו – lest he lose it and will not have for himself an Eruv for the second day, as it is taught, it is consumed by his Eruv on the first day for the Eruv of the first day and there is no Eruv for the second day.

How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away. On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it. He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv. Rabbi Eliezer now responds to the sages by saying that they have in essence admitted that the two days are distinct. He knows this because the sages agree that if he set up an eruv for the first day and it didn’t exist when the second day began, the eruv is not valid. If the sages agree that the two days are distinct entities of holiness, then they should agree that one could set up two different eruvin. If they weren’t then the eruv which was good for the first day should also be good for the second, even if it has been eaten up. The mishnah does not provide an answer from the sages. In the Talmud it is explained that the sages don’t know whether the two days are distinct or not, and therefore they are strict in both cases. They don’t allow two different eruvin to be set up, lest they are not distinct. On the other hand, they say that the eruv which was set up for the first day must exist on the second day lest they are distinct holinesses and the eruv for one is not effective for the other.

ובשני – and he returns and sends it on the second day. For we hold that a person who makes his Eruv with bread on the first day and wants to make an Eruv with bread on the second, he must make his Eruv with the same Eruv itself that he called a name upon from yesterday, but now he is silent. But not with another piece of bread, for he must designate this now the name of Eruv, and he would be like preparing from Yom Tov for Shabbat.

נמצא משתכר בהליכתו – meaning to say, that his walking acquires for him for the day after.

ומשתכר בעירובו – when he eats it (i.e., the bread). But Yom Tov that follows Shabbat, it is not possible like this, which he sends it on the first day and does not eat it and returns and goes there on the second [day] to see if the Eruv awaits the night [at the Sabbath limit], and if he wants, he can eat from it afterwards (i.e., after the Sabbath).

מודים אתם לי שהן שתי קדושות – that you have stated that if the Eruv is consumed on the first day, there is no Eruv on the second, but if there is one level of holiness, it is for him like one long day, and he acquires at twilight that of the first day for both of them, but since they are two separate [days of] holiness, he can make an Eruv also for two directions, but the Rabbis here follow the stringency and there the stringency as we have stated, because they had doubts. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer that Shabbat and Yom Tov are two [separate] days of holiness.

שמא תעבר – lest the Great Jewish Court would make Elul a leap month (i.e., adding a 30th day to what is ordinarily only 29 days), and there will be two Holy Days, the thirtieth of Elul and the thirty-first, and he would need to go on the first day to one side and on the second day to the other side by making two Eruvin, and place them on the eve of Yom Tov, one on this side and the other on the other and say, etc. (i.e., that my Eruv for the first day will be in one direction and my Eruv for the second day will be in the other direction – like in the previous Mishnah).

Introduction In the time of the Mishnah, every Hebrew month had either 28 or 29 days, but people would not know before the end of the month how many days any given month had. This was decided by the testimony of witnesses who would come to the court in Jerusalem and testify that they had seen a new moon (we will learn about this in tractate Rosh Hashanah). Therefore, before the calendar was fully fixed, on the 28th day of a month, a person would not know if the next day will be Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) or the last day of the preceding month. This was an especially significant problem on the last day of Elul, the month that precedes Rosh Hashanah. Until witnesses came one would not know if the next day was Rosh Hashanah or not. Our mishnah deals with the problem of setting up an eruv in such a situation.

ולא הודו לו חכמים – for they hold that it is one [day] of holiness. And the Halakha is according to the Sages regarding the two holy days of Rosh Hashanah. But not because doubt alone they established this lest the Jewish Court should sanctify the thirtieth day or the thirty-first day (as Rosh Hashanah/Rosh Hodesh), and one of them is a weekday. But because lest witnesses should come from the time of Minha/afternoon and beyond (and state that they saw the New Moon), and they would observe that day as holy and the morrow as holy and both of them would be one holiness. But, the rest of the Holy Days of the Diaspora, that they did not establish other than from doubt, for we don’t know when the Great Jewish Court sanctified the month, the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda that they are two [days of] holiness. And the Sages that are mentioned here are Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Judah says: [if on the eve of the] New Year a man was afraid that [the preceding month of Elul] might be intercalated, he may prepare two eruvs and make this declaration: “My eruv for the first day is that to the east and the one for the second day is that to the west”; “the one for the first day is that to the west and the one for the second day is that to the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second I shall be as the people of my town”; “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first I shall be as the people of my town.” The person described in this mishnah finds himself on the 28th of Elul, assuming that the next day is going to be Rosh Hashanah, but not knowing if the day after will also be Rosh Hashanah. If witnesses come the next day by a certain time, then it and it alone will be Rosh Hashanah, but if they do not come, then the following day will also be Rosh Hashanah. The problem therefore is how to set up an eruv for both days? Rabbi Judah says that he can treat these two days as if they were two separate entities of holiness, just as Rabbi Eliezer in yesterday’s mishnah said concerning the festival which precedes or comes after Shabbat.

But the sages did not agree with him. Just as the rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer in yesterday’s mishnah, so too they disagree with Rabbi Judah in this mishnah. They reason that the two days may be one entity of holiness, in which case one cannot set two separate eruvin for the two days. We should note that at a certain point during the mishnaic period it became fixed that Rosh Hashanah was two days, and to this day Jews all over the world, and even those in the land of Israel observe two days of Rosh Hashanah. The two days are considered to be one long day of kedushah (holiness) and therefore, one cannot set up two different eruvin for the two days. In contrast, the second day of festivals (second day of Yom Tov) is only observed in the Diaspora. Where this second day is observed, one may set up two different eruvin for the two days.

מתנה אדם על הכלכלה – a basket that he has of fruits that are eatables forbidden the separation of sacred gifts, he makes a condition about the on the first Holy Day of Rosh Hashanah and states, “if today is a weekday, this will be heave offering on these, but if today is a Holy Day [of Rosh Hashanah], there is nothing in my words,” for we don’t collect heave-offering/Terumah on Yom Tov. And on the morrow, he states, “if yesterday was Holy and today is a weekday, may this that I stated yesterday regarding this [produce] be heave-offering on this, but if today is a Holy Day and yesterday was a weekday, it already was heave-offering/Terumah. And he consumes the basket containing chosen fruits that is designated and leaves over the Terumah/heave-offering.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Judah, a person may make make two separate eruvin for the two days of Rosh Hashanah because they are distinct entities. In today’s mishnah we learn other halakhot concerning the two days of Rosh Hashanah, which Rabbi Judah considers to be two distinct days.

ולא הודו לו חכמים – this is Rabbi Yossi as we stated (see previous Mishnah), who holds that it they are one holiness, and we don’t collect Terumah/heave-offering on them And especially with the two holy days of Rosh Hashanah as we have explained above.

Rabbi Judah further said: a man may stipulate concerning a basket [of produce] on the first festival day [of Rosh Hashanah] and may then eat it on the second day, On the first day of Rosh Hashanah a person finds himself with a basket of produce from which terumah and tithes have not been separated. It is forbidden to eat the produce without separating the tithes and terumah but on Rosh Hashanah it is forbidden to separate them. Rabbi Judah offers a halakhic solution to this problem, one that would at least allow him to eat the produce on the second day. On the first day, he takes out the tithes and terumah and declares, “If today is not Rosh Hashanah and tomorrow is, then behold I am separating terumah and tithes for this produce. But if today is Rosh Hashanah, then my declaring these to be tithes and terumah is invalid.” On that day he cannot eat them, lest that day actually be Rosh Hashanah, in which case his declaration was invalid. The next day he again picks up the tithes and terumah and declares, “If today is Rosh Hashanah and yesterday was not, then behold I already separated them yesterday. And if today is not Rosh Hashanah and yesterday was, then behold I am now separating the tithes and terumah.” He may now eat the produce since he either separated yesterday (if yesterday was not Rosh Hashanah) or today (if today was not Rosh Hashanah.

ביצה שנולדה בראשון – of Rosh Hashanah (see the first Mishnah of the Tractate Betzah).

And so also if an egg was laid on the first [festival] day it may be eaten on the second. One cannot eat an egg laid on a festival because it was not available to be eaten when the festival began. However, Rabbi Judah says that on the second day of Rosh Hashanah one could eat an egg laid on the first day. If the first day was really Rosh Hashanah, then he can eat it on the second day because Rosh Hashanah is over. If the second day is Rosh Hashanah then he can eat it then because it was laid before Rosh Hashanah began.

תאכל בשני – for if the first [day] is holy, the second is a weekday, and the egg that was born on Yom Tov is permitted on a weekday, for there is no preparation for a weekday. But if the first [day] is a weekday and the second is a holy day, it is found that that thee weekday prepares for the Holy day, and that is all right.

But the sages did not agree with him. Again the other rabbis disagree with Rabbi Judah and claim that the two days are not distinct, one being the actual Rosh Hashanah and the other not being Rosh Hashanah at all, but rather are to be treated as one long day. Therefore, things cannot be permitted on the second day if they were prohibited on the first.

ולא הודו לו חכמים – on the two days of Rosh Hashanah alone, for they are one holiness. But on the rest of the Holy Days of the Diaspora, they (i.e., the Sages) agree with him.

והחליצנו – strengthen us and exchange our strength like (Numbers 32:17): “And we will hasten as shock-troops”; another interpretation: save us and rescue us like (Psalms 140:2): “Rescue me, O LORD from evil men.”

Introduction In the previous mishnayot we learned that the sages and Rabbi Judah debate whether or not one day of Rosh Hashanah is the real day and the other is only observed because we don’t know which day Rosh Hashanah really is, or whether both days of Rosh Hashanah are treated as one extended day, neither of which is considered to be of doubtful status. In the final mishnah of this chapter we see that this debate has ramifications for the prayers recited as well.

אם היום אם מחר – if today, he will strengthen us today, and if tomorrow, he will strengthen us tomorrow.

Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the person who goes in front of the ark on [the first day of] of Rosh Hashanah says: “Strengthen us, o Lord our God, on this first day of the month, whether it be today or tomorrow”; and on the following day he says: ‘[Strengthen us...] whether it be today or yesterday.” But the sages did not agree with him. According to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, in the prayers themselves one must include a mention of the fact that it is uncertain which day Rosh Hashanah really is. The prayer to which the mishnah refers is the Amidah, also called the Shmonah Esrei (the Eighteen). On the first day he must mention “whether it be today or tomorrow” and on the second day “whether it be today or yesterday.” Again, the sages disagree because they hold that we don’t treat the two days as if one was certain and one was doubtful but rather we treat them as one long extended holiday. In the Talmud it teaches that this debate is not only about Rosh Hashanah but Rosh Hodesh (the first of the new month) as well. The sages hold that prayer is not the time for making legal stipulations. While the status of these two days may indeed be somewhat doubtful, at least to certain sages, it doesn’t seem appropriate to mention this doubt in prayer, at the point where a person is pouring one’s heart out to God and asking for strength. The expression of such doubts during prayer might lead to doubts concerning the rabbis’ ability in general to dictate when holidays are, or at least lead to doubts concerning the efficacy of the community’s prayers.

ולא הודו לו חכמים – not to mention that of the New Moon/Rosh Hodesh on Rosh Hashanah/the New Year, and not to make the condition, if today, or if tomorrow, but rather, he says, strengthen us undefined on the two days and he doesn’t mention the New Moon at all. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.