Komentarz do Eruwin 1:11

מבוי – which is not wide sixteen cubits, even though it is open from its two points into the public domain; alternatively, it is sixteen cubits wide but it is not open, but one head is open to the public domain and the other head is closed, but from the Torah, it is permitted to carry in it without any repair, but the Rabbis made a decree against it, lest they come to carry in full public domain and they permitted with an establishment of a stake fastened in the ground (by the side of a wall, serving as a mark or as a fictitious partition for the purpose of enabling those who live in an ally to move objects on the Sabbath) or a beam/post so that it will have recognition/a sign. But if he placed the beam above twenty cubits high, he should lower it, meaning to say, he should lower the beam so that it will be lower than twenty cubits high, for higher than twenty cubits, it is not discernible to the eye/the eye is attracted, and if [his] beam has a ceiling (see Talmud Eruvin 3a – for different opinions of the meaning of his word), which means drawings/embroidery and is open even higher than twenty cubits, he does not have to lower it, for through these drawings/embroidery, it is discernible to the eye/the eye is attracted.

Introduction The first mishnah in Eruvin deals with the entrance to a closed alley. As we mentioned in the introduction, Torah law allows one to carry within this alley. However, the sages forbade this unless there is either a side-post or a cross-beam on top of the entrance. The purpose of either the side-post or the cross-beam was so that people would recognize that the alley was not a public domain and they would realize that while it is permitted to carry in the alley, it is forbidden to carry in the public domain.

רבי יהודה אומר א"צ – for the reason of the beam is not because of recognition but because of a partition since we said, the mouth of the ceiling goes down and closes up, and since his is the case, what difference does it make within twenty [cubits] and/or higher than twenty [cubits], but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

[The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary. The crossbeam cannot be more than twenty cubits high, otherwise people will not notice it. This is the same rule as the sukkah the sukkah’s roof (skhakh) cannot be more than twenty cubits high because people should notice that they are sitting in a sukkah. In both cases, that of the crossbeam and the sukkah, Rabbi Judah rules that they may be more than twenty cubits high.

והרחב מעשר אמות ימעט – for more than ten cubits, it is not called an opening, but rather a breach, and we require an opening. Therefore, he should reduce the width of the entrance and reduce it to ten [cubits] or less.

And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width]. An entrance to an alley may not be more than ten cubits wide for it to be allowed to carry within the alley. If it is more than ten cubits, then it’s not truly an entranceway but a gap in the walls of the alley. If it is more than ten cubits wide he can reduce it in order to carry in the alley.

ואם יש לו צורת פתח – in every place where the Sages stated “a form of a doorway” (in width), even if his a reed from here and a reed from there ten handbreadths high or more, and a reed on top of them, even though it doesn’t touch them and even though it is higher than them more than three handbreadths. And all of the cubits that are taught in this Mishnah and in all of [Tractates] Eruvin, and Sukkah and Kilayim, a cubit is six handbreadths and each handbreadth is four fingers with the thumb, but sometimes one needs to measure a “sorrowful” (pressed together) handbreadth (i.e., four fingers closely joined), meaning to say, that one should not make a space in the fingers with the thumb between one to the other, but rather, they would be pressed against each other and touching each other, and sometimes, one must make a space between each digit so that they do not touch each other and this is called the liberal (or smiling) handbreadth. How is this the case? At the time when the measurement Is with the “sorrowful” (pressed together) handbreadth, it is stringent such as an alley entrance which is higher than twenty cubits, he should lower it, and a Sukkah which higher than twenty cubits is invalid, we measure with a “sorrowful” handbreadth, but at the time when the measurement is with a liberal (or “smiling”) handbreadth which is stringent, such as an alleyway entrance, its height cannot be less than ten handbreadths; a Sukkah which is higher than ten handbreadths, we measure with the liberal handbreadth.

But if it has the shape of a doorway there is no need to reduce it even though it is wider than ten cubits. If the opening has the shape of a doorway, meaning there are poles on both sides and a beam on top of it, then it looks like an entrance and it may be wider than ten cubits. According to the Rambam, if it has such an opening, the beam may even be more than twenty cubits high.

הכשר מבוי – its preparation and designation of the alley to carry within it through a combination of alleys.

Introduction In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one validates an alley such that it is permitted to carry within it.

ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה – both of them (i.e., a stake and a beam) are necessary and that they hold from the Torah that we require four complete partitions and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai) and the particular application is a square-block of a stake and a crossbeam.

There are two levels of debates in this mishnah. There is a debate between Bet Shammai, Bet Hillel and R. Eliezer about how one validates an alley. The second debate is between Rabbi Ishmael, as presented by one of his students, and Rabbi Akiva over what was the actual dispute between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.

ובה"א או לחי או קור – for from the Torah three [complete] partitions are required and further nothing else and it was brought as a traditional interpretation of a written law [dating back to Moses as delivered from Sinai] either a stake of some small size or a beam to be recognized as a partition. And the alley that we are speaking of here is a closed alley from three directions and the fourth direction is open to the public domain and its length is greater than its width, for it its length was like its width, it would be like a courtyard whose opening was breached to the public domain and one would need a board/bar of four handbreadths and a bit more (see Talmud Eruvin 5a) or two boards/bars of a bit of size and similarly, a courtyard which was breached into the public domain and its length was greater than its width, it is judged to be an alley which is permitted with a stake or a board. But an alley that was made valid with a stake is different than an alley made valid with a beam, for an alley which was made valid with a stake, it is as if it has four partitions and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is liable, but an alley made valid with a beam, even though it is permissible to carry within it through a combination, it is not like a completely private domain and a person who throws [something] from the public domain into it is exempt, for we hold that a beam is because of recognition and a stake because of a partition.

The validation of an alley: Bet Shammai says: a side-post and a crossbeam. And Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. R. Eliezer says: two side-posts. In this version, Bet Shammai says that the alley must have the side-post and a crossbeam in order to carry in it, whereas Bet Hillel says that either is sufficient. Rabbi Eliezer says that the crossbeam is irrelevant and that what are needed are two side-posts.

רבי אליעזר אומר לחיים – he holds like the School of Shammai that requires a stake from one side and the other, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

In the name of Rabbi Ishmael one student stated in front of Rabbi Akiva: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel did not disagree concerning an alley that was less than four cubits [in width], that it [may be validated] by either a side-post or a crossbeam. About what did they disagree? In the case of one that was wider than four, and narrower than ten cubits: Bet Shammai says: both a side-post and a crossbeam [are required] and Bet Hillel says: either a side-post or a crossbeam. Rabbi Akiva said they disagree about both cases. In this statement, a student of Rabbi Ishmael’s comes in front of Rabbi Akiva to present a more limited version of the debate. According to this version, both houses agree that if the alley is less than four cubits wide, either a side-post or crossbeam is sufficient. Probably the reason that Bet Shammai agrees in this case is that if the entrance is narrower it is clearer that this is not a public domain. The debate is only when the entrance is between four and ten cubits wide. Rabbi Akiva rejects this version and rules that in both cases, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai disagree. The first section of the mishnah is therefore representative of Rabbi Akiva’s position. As an aside, we can learn a fair amount of rabbinic history from this mishnah. Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael were the heads of competing academies, some time in the early part of the second century CE. Both academies produced midrashic compilations that while similar to each, have notable differences. This mishnah is one indicator that Rabbi Akiva’s academy became more dominant, perhaps especially so after Rabbi Ishmael’s demise. Rabbi Ishmael’s students come in front of Rabbi Akiva to see if their traditions are acceptable in his eyes. This is a sign of their turning to his authority, probably after their own master’s death. Rabbi Akiva rejects the Ishmaelian tradition and the anonymous piece which opens the mishnah is taught according to Rabbi Akiva. Indeed, the Mishnah is a work produced by the Akivan academy, a work in which Akiva’s students, most notably Rabbis Judah, Meir, Shimon and Yose dominate.

אמר תלמיד אחד – He is Rabbi Meir.

שהוא פחות מארבע אמות – the width of its opening.

אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו – The first Tanna/teacher also this is how it should be read: It does distinguish between wide and narrow and the Talmud explains that there is a difference between them: An alley that has less than four handbreadths in the width of its opening – one of them holds that it requires neither a stake nor a beam and the other one holds a stake or a beam but it is not made clear from their words which of them holds that it is required and which of them holds that it is not required.

רחבה כדי לקבל אריח – that it would be appropriate to build upon it a fixed, permanent building.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the size of the cross-beam about which Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai debated in yesterday’s mishnah.

והאריח חצי לבנה של שלשה טפחים – it is found that the אריח/small bricks/bond-timber is a handbreadth and-a-half wide.

The cross-beam of which they spoke must be wide enough to hold a small brick (, a small brick which is half of a regular brick, the size of three handbreadths. The width of the cross-beam must be one and half handbreadths, in order to support an “ariah”, a half-brick, which would, at least potentially, be placed on top of it.

דיה לקורה ברוחב טפח – this is how it should be read: since the crossbeam is a handbreadth wide, that one-half handbreadth that remains – since the small brick is one-and-one-half handbreadths wide, it is possible to rub a salve of plaster a finger [width] here and a finger [width] from there and through this it will be wide enough to hold the small bricks and this is how it is explained in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 14a).

It is enough for the cross-beam to be one handbreadth wide in order to hold the width of a small brick. The length of the cross-beam need only be one handbreadth. This way when the brick is placed on the cross-beam there will be a little space on each side (a finger on each side), where they can put the mortar to attach the brick to the beam. Even if the cross-beam is not actually attached to the brick, at least it looks as if it will be. This lends it more of an air of permanence.

בריאה לקבל אריח – strong [enough] to endure the weight of the small bricks that it wouldn’t break. And this is the Halakha.

Introduction This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, in which we learned that the cross-beam needs to be wide enough to support a half-brick.

Wide enough to hold a half-brick but also strong enough to support such a half-brick. Rabbi Judah says: wide enough, even though it is not strong enough. In this mishnah there is a debate whether or not the cross-beam must actually be strong enough to support the half-brick, or whether it is sufficient for it to merely look big enough. According to the first opinion, the cross-beam must actually be strong enough, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that is must only be wide enough, but not actually strong enough.

היתה של קש ושל קנים – Rabbi Yehuda stated this but the Halakha is not according to him.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Judah’s words from yesterday’s mishnah. Rabbi Judah held that the cross-beam need not actually be strong enough to support a half-brick.

עקומה – the small bricks are not able to rest upon it (when it is curved) and similarly when it is round, a small brick cannot rest upon it.

If [the cross-beam] was made of straw or reeds, we look at it as if it was of metal. If the cross-beam was made of a material which could not hold a half-brick, Rabbi Judah considers it nevertheless as if it was strong enough to do so.

if it has in its circumference: Which is to say, what is the round measurement required to render [the beam] proper? Anything that has in its circumference three handbreadths, which requires a string of three handbreadths to encircle it around, it is known that it has a width (diameter) of one handbreadth, if you divide [it]. As so do we find with the basin that Shlomo made (II Chronicles 4:2), "ten ells from its edge to its edge and five ells of height and a line of thirty ells encircling it around." Hence for every ell in width (diameter), there are three ells in circumference.

[If it was] curved we look at it as if it were straight. If it was curved, it also could not hold a half-brick. Nevertheless, Rabbi Judah holds that it is valid.

[If it was] round we look at it as if it were square. Whatever has a circumference of three handbreadths has a diameter of one handbreadth. Again, a round cross-beam could not hold a half-brick. However, it still must be wide enough to hold a one handbreadth half-brick. In order for this to be true, it must have a circumference of three handbreadths (the rabbis knew that pi was roughly three to one, and they knew that this was not exact).

לחיים שאמרו – the stakes that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disputed about; for according to Rabbi Eliezer, two are required, and the Rabbis require only one and this is its measurement.

Introduction The mishnah now begins to talk about side-posts (see mishnayot one and two) and their minimum measurements.

גבהן עשרה טפחים – like the measure of the height of he alley for its height cannot be less than ten handbreadths, and even if the alley was much higher, it is enough with a stake that is ten handbreadths high.

The side-posts of which they spoke [must be no less than] ten hand-breadths in height, but their width and thickness may be of any size whatsoever. Rabbi Yose says: their width [must be no less than] three handbreadths. The only size requirement for the side-posts is that they be at least ten handbreadths high (about a meter). This is the minimum measurement for most things that need to be a certain height. For instance a sukkah must be ten handbreadths high. The mishnah uses the plural form of “side-posts” even though Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel require only one side-post, to teach that even those who follow Rabbi Eliezer, who does require two side-posts must still make them ten handbreadths high. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, there is no minimum measurement for their width and thickness. Rabbi Yose holds that they must be at least three handbreadths wide, a size worthy of actually serving as doorposts.

ורבי יוסי אומר רחבן שלשה – and Rabbi Yosi states that its width is three [handbreadths] for it requires something important as a partition, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

ורבי יוסי פוסל – for we suspect lest it die, and it would not be ten [handbreadths] high, and doesn’t give his attention and relies upon it.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the material which can be used to make the side-posts.

ומטמא משום גולל – if they made it a stone placed on top of a burial cave it defiles forever and if a person or utensils came in physical contact with it, it is like the tent of the dead, even if he was removed from there, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “And in the open, anyone who touches a person [who was killed or who died naturally, or human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days].” But the Rabbis expound upon it to include the stone placed on top of the burial cave and the frame supporting the movable stone of a tomb. The "גולל"/the stone placed on top of a burial cave is the covering of the grave.

One may make the side-posts out of anything, even something that is alive. But Rabbi Yose prohibits this. According to the first opinion, one may use even an animal to make the side-post. The animal would have to be tied in place, so that it couldn’t wander away. Similarly, one can, according to some opinions, use an animal to make a wall of a sukkah. We have seen several similarities between the laws of setting up the cross-beam and side-post and the sukkah. Rabbi Yose prohibits using an animal, lest it dies and become less than the required ten handbreadths high.

ור"מ מטהר – the reason of Rabbi Meir is because he holds that any partition made of something living is not a partition, and it is not the Halakha.

It also causes defilement as the covering of a tomb, But Rabbi Meir makes pure. If one used an animal to cover a tomb, the animal will convey ritual defilement, as do all coverings of tombs. The tomb described here was not in the ground, as tombs usually are today, but a cave in the side of a hill. The animal must be tied to the tomb in order for it to be considered a tomb covering. Rabbi Meir holds that anything that is alive cannot transmit impurity if used as a tomb covering. Therefore, one who touches an animal used to cover a tomb is still pure.

ור"י הגלילי פוסל – as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:1): “”and he writes her a bill [of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house].” Just as a scroll lacks a living spirit/life, so too, anything that does not have a living spirit/life. And the Rabbis: If it (i.e., the Torah) had written “and he writes her in a bill,” it would be as you said, but now that it is written [in the Torah]: “and he writes her a bill” – it comes to count things, but the Halakha is according to the First Tanna/teacher, [and if he wrote] her a bill of divorce on the horn of the heifer, and he gave her the heifer, for now it does not require cutting after it had been written, it is valid. But, if he did not give her the heifer, but rather the horn, since it requires cutting, one does not divorce by it.

One may write on them gittin, But Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares it unfit. One can write a get on animal, for instance on the horn of a cow, and then divorce one’s wife by giving her the cow (see Gittin 2:3). Rabbi Yose the Galilean says that such a get is invalid because it is not like a scroll, specifically mentioned as the divorce document in Deuteronomy 24:3.

ולא יהיה פרצות יתרות על הבנין – and even if they are small breaches/gaps, less than ten [handbreadths], if the breach/gap is greater than the standing part, it is not a partition, and even if it corresponds to the standing part, it is prohibited.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the conditions under which members of a traveling caravan may carry.

כל פרצה שהיא בעשר אמות מותרת – as long as the standing part greater than it; alternatively, what is breached is like the standing part, it is a partition and even corresponding to the breach/gap, it is permitted.

If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by the instruments used for the cattle it is permissible to move objects within it, provided [the instruments] form a fence ten handbreadths high and the gaps do not exceed the built-up parts. Any gap which is wider than ten cubits it is permitted [to carry within], because it is like an entrance. If it is greater, it is forbidden [to carry within]. A valley is considered neither a public domain (since a true public domain is only one which is used as a public thoroughfare), nor is it a private domain. It is called by the rabbis a “karmelit” and it is forbidden by rabbinic ordinance (derabbanan) to carry within one. However, if the caravan which finds itself on Shabbat in a valley sets up there a makeshift fence by using the instruments used in caring for the cattle, they may carry within this area, if several conditions are met. First of all, the instruments must be ten handbreadths high to be considered a “fence.” This is because walls must be ten handbreadths high. Second, the gaps between the instruments cannot be greater than the area covered by the instruments. In other words, more must be closed than open. Thirdly, there can be no gap greater than ten cubits. A ten or less cubit gap can be considered an entrance to this enclosed area. More than that cannot be considered an entrance and thus turns the entire area into an unfenced area. This is true even if the total area closed by the instruments is greater than the gaps. However, if they put up two side-posts and a crossbeam over a more than ten cubit gap, this would turn the gap into an entrance and it would become permitted to carry within the area.

יתר מכאן אסור – even one breach/gap that is greater than ten [cubits] prohibits the entire circumference, and even if the standing part is greater than it, for people don’t make openings greater than ten [cubits] and it would be a breach, and especially if it lacks the form of an opening, but if it has the form of an opening, even greater than ten [cubits], it is an opening.

מקיפין שלשה חבלים – it refers to a caravan that camped in the valley

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a caravan that finds itself on Shabbat in a valley (which really just means any uninhabited area) may surround themselves with their cattle instruments to form a makeshift fence which allows them to carry within the fenced-in area. One condition for this fence to be effective was that the closed part would be larger than the open gaps in this “fence”. Our mishnah discusses another way of making a fence, one that requires even less material. In order to understand this mishnah we need to understand the principle of “levud”. This principle means that an open area of less than three handbreadths can be treated as if it was actually closed. We shall see below how this works in our context. When we learn Sukkah, we shall see that one can hang the sukkah’s walls down from the top and as long as they fall to within three handbreadths of the ground the sukkah is valid because a less than three handbreadth gap is treated as if it legally does not exist.

זה למעלה מזה – on top of pegs surrounding from the lowest rope to the ground less than three [handbreadths] and behold it is like all of it is standing, for everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered like a “labud” (something solid/compact)/a legal fiction of considering separate parts as united, if the gap is less than three handbreadths (see Talmud Sukkah 16b), and from it to the middle [rope] is less than three [handbreadths], you have it that it stands as six handbreadths less the two small amounts in the two airspaces, and from the middle [rope] to the upper [rope], which is less than three [handbreadths], you have nine handbreadths standing in three airspaces less than three small amounts.

They may surround [the caravan] by three ropes, this one above this one, and this one above this one, provided that [the space] between the one rope and the other is less than three handbreadths. The size of the ropes [must be such] that their [total] thickness is more than a handbreadth, so that the total height is ten handbreadths. The mishnah says that they may encircle their encampment with three ropes, one above the other, to form a fence. Each rope should not be more than three handbreadths apart from the rope on top of it. This way there is no gap in the fence of three handbreadths or more, and as we learned above, a gap of less than three handbreadths can legally be considered to be closed. The total thickness of the ropes must be greater than one handbreadth, so that the caravan is left with a “fence” ten handbreadths high. To summarize, the caravan has a ten handbreadths high wall, up to nine of which is in reality empty space and a little over one of which is made up of rope. Even though in this fence the gaps are certainly greater than the closed part, it is effective because all of gaps are less than three handbreadths and therefore don’t legally exist.

שיעור עובי החבלים יותר על טפח – three small amounts in orde that there can be between everything ten handbreadths.

מקיפין בקנים – wedged in and standing and this is a partition of warp but of ropes it would be a partition of woof.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with setting up a partition around an encampment so that one may carry within the encampment.

בשיירא דברו – they were lenient regarding them since they don’t need anything other either a warp such as reeds or a woof, such as ropes, but for an individual, they were not lenient , but rather until it has [both] warp and woof and three people [in it], they are like a caravan.

They may also surround [the camp] with reeds, provided there is no [gap of] three handbreadths between one reed and the next. Yesterday we learned that they can set up a partition around the encampment by encircling it with three ropes, so long as there are no more than three handbreadths between each rope. Today we see how a partition can be set up horizontally. This is done by setting up reeds (poles) around the encampment. Between each reed there can be no more than three handbreadths, for less than three handbreadths is an amount that is legally considered as if it doesn’t exist.

כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי וערב כו' - Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehuda disputes on that of his father, and states that even for a caravan, it requires warp and woof.

[The rabbis] spoke only of a caravan, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say that they only spoke of a caravan because it is a usual occurrence. So far these mishnayot have only been speaking about surrounding a caravan with a partition. The rabbis now debate whether the same type of partition may be used in other cases as well. According to Rabbi Judah, the previous mishnayot relate only to the situation of a caravan. An individual stuck out in an uninhabited place for Shabbat would have to make a partition of both horizontal and vertical pieces in order to carry within. The other sages disagree and rule that the previous mishnayot mentioned the encamped caravan only because that was a normal situation. The same rules would apply to other situations as well.

אחד משני דברים – either warp or woof and there is [a difference] between the earlier Rabbis and the latter Rabbis, for the earlier Rabbis did not permit for an individual other than something similar to a caravan on the way, since it cannot make an appropriate partition and it is not in a settlement, but the latter Rabbis stated that one of two things, whether for an individual or a group, whether on the road or in a settlement, and the Halakha is according to them, but that one person or two that dwelled in the wilderness are not able to make a partition larger than field requiring two Se’ah of seed which is one-hundred cubits long by fifty cubits wide like the courtyard of the Tabernacle and three people or ore are a caravan and they are able to make a large partition and even several miles according what they need and for the utensils that they use and for their animals, as long as there not remain a free space within the partition greater than the field requiring two Se’ah of seed.

Any partition that is not [made up of] both vertical and horizontal [pieces] is not a valid partition, the words of Rabbi Yose bar Judah. But the sages say: one of the two [is sufficient]. Rabbi Yose disagrees with his father who held that for the caravan a partition of either horizontal ropes or vertical reeds is sufficient. Rabbi Yose holds that a partition that does not have both is not a valid partition, neither for an individual nor for a caravan. The sages continue to rule that a partition can be set up with either vertical or horizontal pieces, as we learned in the previous mishnayot. Both are not necessary.

פטרו במחנה – for those who go out to war and even to an optional war [to gain territory outside the Land of Israel].

They exempted four obligations [to soldiers] in an encampment: They may bring wood from anywhere; they are exempt from the washing of the hands, and from [separating tithes from] doubtfully tithed produce ( and from the setting up an eruv. There are four ways in which the rabbis were lenient with regard to the rules governing soldiers in an encampment. Note that these rules do not apply specifically to Shabbat; only the last one refers to Shabbat. First of all, they may bring wood from anywhere they find it and it is not considered stealing. Second, they need not wash their hands before eating. Third, if they are eating doubtfully tithed produce (demai), they need not tithe it. Tithing demai is only a rabbinic obligation and hence there is space to be lenient. Fourth, to carry from tent to tent within the encampment, they do not need to set up an eruv (a communal meal). A partition surrounding the encampment is sufficient, as we have learned.

מביאין עצים – and we don’t suspect them of theft, and even if their owners cut them and made of them packages.

ופטורים מרחיצת ידים – [exempt from washing the hands] before the meal, but for the water [for washing] after the meal, they are obligated, since it was established on account of the danger of the Sodomite salt that blinds the eye, the danger is graver than the prohibition.

ומדמאי – that they don’t have to separate the tenth of a tenth of doubtfully tithed produce such as if they took grain from an ignoramus [who does not observe the laws of tithing properly].

ומלערב – The Eruvim of courtyards such as from tent to tent in the camp surrounded by partitions, but the Eruvim of borders/limits they are required to make [those Eruvim].