## Eruvin Daf 17a

###### Eruvin 17a:1
[Eruvin 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:1)

רֵישָׁא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that **the first clause** of Rav Naḥman’s ruling **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?**


###### Eruvin 17a:2
[Eruvin 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:2)

אִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי אֲבוּהּ בְּשִׁיטְתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, because his father,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds in accordance with his opinion** with regard to areas enclosed for the sake of an individual. This being the case, their opinion on this matter is that of the many.


###### Eruvin 17a:3
[Eruvin 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:3)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּחָמֵשׁ — אֲסוּרִין, בְּשֶׁבַע מוּתָּרִין. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אֲמַר רַב הָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אוֹרָיְיתָא נְבִיאֵי וּכְתִיבֵי דַּאֲמַר רַב הָכִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said:** At times, for **three** people it is **prohibited** to carry even **in** an area of **five** *beit se’a*; at times, it is **permitted** for them to carry even **in** an area of **seven** *beit se’a*. These statements appear irreconcilable, and his colleagues **said to him: Did Rav** actually **say that? He said to them:** I swear by **the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, that Rav said so.**


###### Eruvin 17a:4
[Eruvin 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קַשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: הוּצְרְכוּ לְשֵׁשׁ וְהִקִּיפוּ בְּשֶׁבַע — אֲפִילּוּ בְּשֶׁבַע מוּתָּרִין. לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ אֶלָּא לְחָמֵשׁ וְהִקִּיפוּ בְּשֶׁבַע — אֲפִילּוּ בְּחָמֵשׁ אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty** here? **Perhaps this is what he is saying:** If **they needed six** *beit se’a*, **and they enclosed seven, they are permitted** to carry **even in** all **seven,** as one empty *beit se’a* does not render it prohibited for one to carry in the rest of the area. If, however, **they needed only five** *beit se’a*, **and they enclosed seven,** carrying **even in five is prohibited,** as there is an unoccupied space of two *beit se’a*.


###### Eruvin 17a:5
[Eruvin 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:5)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּית סָאתַיִם פָּנוּי״ — מַאי לָאו, פָּנוּי מֵאָדָם? לָא, פָּנוּי מִכֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However,** with regard to **that which** the *baraita* **is teaching,** that the partition renders the area fit for one to carry within it **provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two *beit se’a*, what, is it not** in fact referring to **space unoccupied by people?** In other words, isn’t the *baraita* teaching that the enclosed area may not be two *beit se’a* larger than a measure of two *beit se’a* per person? Accordingly, if three people enclosed an area of seven *beit se’a*, it should always be permitted for them to carry there, as they are entitled to six *beit se’a* and only one *beit se’a* is unoccupied. The Gemara answers: **No,** it means **unoccupied by utensils.** Although they would be entitled to six *beit se’a* if needed, since they need only five in practice and a space of two *beit se’a* remains unoccupied, the effectiveness of the partitions is negated and carrying therein is prohibited.


###### Eruvin 17a:6
[Eruvin 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:6)

אִיתְּמַר: שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, שְׁנַיִם וְנִתּוֹסְפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן — רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, חַד אָמַר: שַׁבָּת גּוֹרֶמֶת, וְחַד אָמַר: דָּיוֹרִין גּוֹרְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is stated:** If there were **three** people in a caravan **and one of them died** on Shabbat, or if there were **two** people, **and** others **were added to them** on Shabbat, **Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak** disagree with regard to the area in which they are permitted to carry on Shabbat. **One said: Shabbat determines** the status of the area. The *halakha* is determined in accordance with the prevailing situation at the onset of Shabbat. **And one said** that **the residents,** i.e., the actual number of people present at any given moment, **determine** the status.


###### Eruvin 17a:7
[Eruvin 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:7)

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַב הוּנָא הוּא דְּאָמַר שַׁבָּת גּוֹרֶמֶת. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: בְּעַאי מֵרַב הוּנָא, וּבְעַאי מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: עֵירַב דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח וְנִסְתַּם הַפֶּתַח, דֶּרֶךְ הַחַלּוֹן וְנִסְתַּם הַחַלּוֹן, מַהוּ? וְאָמַר לִי: שַׁבָּת הוֹאִיל וְהוּתְרָה — הוּתְּרָה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Conclude that it is Rav Huna who said that Shabbat determines** the status, as **Rabba said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda** with regard to the following case: If one **established an *eiruv*** to join one courtyard to another **via** a certain **opening and that opening was sealed** on Shabbat, or if one established an *eiruv* **via** a certain **window and that window was sealed** on Shabbat, **what is** the *halakha*? Can one continue to rely on this *eiruv* and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? **And he said to me: Since** it **was permitted** to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of **Shabbat, it was permitted** and remains so until Shabbat’s conclusion. The Gemara comments: Indeed, **conclude** that it is Rav Huna who maintains the determining factor is Shabbat, not the residents.


###### Eruvin 17a:8
[Eruvin 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:8)

לֵימָא רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי? דִּתְנַן: חָצֵר שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתֶיהָ, וְכֵן בַּיִת שֶׁנִּפְרַץ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹתָיו, וְכֵן מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּיטְּלוּ קוֹרוֹתָיו אוֹ לְחָיָיו — מוּתָּרִין לְאוֹתָהּ שַׁבָּת וַאֲסוּרִין לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us say that Rav Huna and Rabbi Yitzḥak are disagreeing in the** earlier **dispute of** the *tanna’im* **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned** in a mishna: If during Shabbat **a courtyard was breached from two of its sides, or** if **a house was breached from two of its sides, or** if **an alleyway’s** cross **beams or side posts were removed,** it is **permitted** to carry within them **on that Shabbat, but** it is **prohibited** to do so **in the future;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Eruvin 17a:9
[Eruvin 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם מוּתָּרִין לְאוֹתָהּ שַׁבָּת — מוּתָּרִין לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְאִם אֲסוּרִין לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא — אֲסוּרִין לְאוֹתָהּ שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: If** it is **permitted** to carry there **on that Shabbat,** it is also **permitted** to do so **in the future. However, if** it is **prohibited** to carry there **in the future,** it is also **prohibited** to do so **on that Shabbat.** Since it is prohibited to carry there in the future, it is also prohibited to carry there on that Shabbat. This opinion disputes the principle that since it is permitted at the onset of Shabbat it remains permitted.


###### Eruvin 17a:10
[Eruvin 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:10)

לֵימָא רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us say** that it is **Rav Huna who stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and he held that the situation at the onset of Shabbat determines the halakhic status. **And** it is **Rabbi Yitzḥak who stated** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Eruvin 17a:11
[Eruvin 17a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:11)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם — אֶלָּא דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת, הָכָא — אִיתַנְהוּ לִמְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this explanation. **Rav Huna** could have **said to you:** It is **I who stated** my opinion **even in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yosei stated** his opinion **only there,** in a case **where there are no** longer **partitions** intact; however, **here there are partitions** intact. Since the status of the area is dependent upon the existence of partitions, he would also agree that carrying is permitted in this case.


###### Eruvin 17a:12
[Eruvin 17a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:12)

וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם — אֶלָּא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ לְדָיוֹרִין, הָכָא — לֵיתַנְהוּ לְדָיוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yitzḥak** could have **said** to you: It is **I who stated** my opinion **even in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda stated** his opinion **only there,** in a case **where there are residents.** However, **here, there are no** remaining **residents** that are alive, so he too would prohibit carrying.


###### Eruvin 17a:13
[Eruvin 17a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי דְּבָרִים. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements,** either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient. The Gemara asks: **This is** identical to the opinion of **the first *tanna*** of the mishna. What did the Rabbis add?


###### Eruvin 17a:14
[Eruvin 17a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:14)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ יָחִיד בַּיִּישּׁוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical halakhic difference **between them** with regard to **an individual** in **a settlement.** The first *tanna* does not allow one to rely on a partition of this type *ab initio*, whereas the Rabbis permit doing so in all cases.


###### Eruvin 17a:15
[Eruvin 17a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים פָּטְרוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה: מְבִיאִין עֵצִים מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, וּפְטוּרִין מֵרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם, וּמִדְּמַאי, וּמִלְּעָרֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The Sages **exempted** a soldier **in** a military **camp** in **four matters: One may bring wood** for kindling **from any place** with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; **and one is exempt from** ritual **washing** of the **hands** before eating; **and** one is exempt **from** the separation of tithes from **doubtfully tithed produce [*demai*],** i.e., produce purchased from an *am ha’aretz*, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; **and** one is exempt **from establishing an *eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 17a:16
[Eruvin 17a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַחֲנֶה הַיּוֹצֵאת לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת מוּתָּרִין בְּגֶזֶל עֵצִים יְבֵשִׁים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: אַף חוֹנִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגוּ שָׁם נִקְבָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *Tosefta*: With regard to a military **camp that goes out to** wage **an optional war, it is permitted** for the soldiers **to steal dry wood. Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any location,** even if they damage the field in which they are encamped. **And in the place where they were killed, there they are buried** and the owner of the site cannot object, as moving the corpse for burial elsewhere dishonors the dead.


###### Eruvin 17a:17
[Eruvin 17a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:17)

מוּתָּרִין בְּגֶזֶל עֵצִים יְבֵשִׁים. הַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא דִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲוָה? דְּאָמַר מָר, עֲשָׂרָה תְּנָאִים הִתְנָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שֶׁיְּהוּ מַרְעִין בָּחוֹרָשִׁין, וּמְלַקְּטִין עֵצִים מִשְּׂדוֹתֵיהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *Tosefta*. What is the novelty in the following statement: **They are permitted to steal dry wood? This was an ordinance** enacted **by Joshua,** as **the Master said** in a *baraita*: There is a tradition that **Joshua stipulated ten conditions** with the Jewish people as they entered Eretz Yisrael, among them **that** one **may graze** his animals **in woods** belonging to others without objection, and one may **gather wood** for his own use **from their fields.**


###### Eruvin 17a:18
[Eruvin 17a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:18)

הָתָם — בְּהִיזְמֵי וְהִיגֵי, הָכָא — בִּשְׁאָר עֵצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** Joshua’s ordinance permitted gathering various types of **shrubs [*hizmei*] and thorns [*higei*],** with regard to which people are not particular; **here,** the ordinance in the mishna pertaining to a military camp is referring to **other** types of **wood.**


###### Eruvin 17a:19
[Eruvin 17a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:19)

אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם — בִּמְחוּבָּרִין, הָכָא — בִּתְלוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively: There,** Joshua’s ordinance referred **to** gathering thorns still **attached** to the ground, as removing those thorns benefits the field’s owner. **Here,** however, the mishna is referring **to** gathering thorns that are already **detached.**


###### Eruvin 17a:20
[Eruvin 17a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:20)

אִי נָמֵי: הָתָם — בְּלַחִין, הָכָא — בִּיבֵשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively: There,** Joshua’s ordinance referred **to** gathering **moist** thorns. Owners are not particular about them because they are not immediately suitable for kindling. **Here,** the mishna is referring even **to dry** thorns.


###### Eruvin 17a:21
[Eruvin 17a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:21)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: אַף חוֹנִין בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּהֱרָגִים שָׁם נִקְבָּרִים. פְּשִׁיטָא, מֵת מִצְוָה הוּא, וּמֵת מִצְוָה קוֹנֶה מְקוֹמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the *Tosefta* that **Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: They may also encamp in any place, and in the place where they were killed, there they are buried.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is **obvious,** as a body of a dead soldier **is** considered to be **a corpse with no one to bury it [*met mitzva*],** and the principle is that **a *met mitzva* acquires its place.** In other words, the body must be interred where it is found, and the owner of the field cannot prevent burial.


###### Eruvin 17a:22
[Eruvin 17a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/17a:22)

לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** this ostensibly obvious statement is indeed **necessary** to teach that this principle applies in the case of a military camp, **even though**