## Eruvin Daf 30b

###### Eruvin 30b:1
[Eruvin 30b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:1)

שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין לְגָדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that one may establish an *eiruv* for an adult** even **on Yom Kippur,** despite the fact that he may not eat on Yom Kippur? It must be because eating is permitted to a minor.


###### Eruvin 30b:2
[Eruvin 30b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:2)

אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: אֲבָל! אָמְרוּ לָהֶן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּעָרְבִין לַגָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, כֵּן מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Beit Shammai **said to them: Indeed [*aval*],** it is so. Beit Hillel **said to them: Just as one may establish an *eiruv* for an adult on Yom Kippur, so** too, **one may establish an *eiruv* for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with *teruma*.**


###### Eruvin 30b:3
[Eruvin 30b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:3)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי: הָתָם — אִיכָּא סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, הָכָא — לֵיכָּא סְעוּדָה הָרְאוּיָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how do **Beit Shammai** explain the difference between these cases? The Gemara explains: **There,** with regard to Yom Kippur, **there is** at least **a meal that was fit** to be eaten by that person **while it was still day,** on the eve of Yom Kippur. **Here,** in the cases of wine for a nazirite and *teruma* for an Israelite, **there is no meal that was fit** to be eaten by them **while it was still day,** on Friday.


###### Eruvin 30b:4
[Eruvin 30b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:4)

כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָה. דְּתַנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עַצְמָן שֶׁל בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בְּעֵירוּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא מִטָּתוֹ וְכׇל כְּלֵי תַּשְׁמִישָׁיו לְשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion was that entire *baraita* stated? It was **not** taught **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥananya, as it was taught** in another *baraita* that **Ḥananya says: The whole** view **of Beit Shammai,** i.e., their fundamental position, was that **they did not concede to** the very possibility of **joining** Shabbat borders [*eiruv teḥumin*] by simply placing food in a particular location. Rather, they hold that one’s Shabbat residence remains the same **until** he literally moves his residence, such as if **he carries out his bed and his utensils to there,** to a new location.


###### Eruvin 30b:5
[Eruvin 30b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:5)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: עֵירַב בִּשְׁחוֹרִים לֹא יֵצֵא בִּלְבָנִים, בִּלְבָנִים לֹא יֵצֵא בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is** the ruling **that was taught** in the following *baraita*: If **one established an *eiruv* in black** clothing, and Shabbat commenced while he was still dressed those clothes, **he may not go out in white** clothing. If one established the *eiruv* while dressed **in white, he may not go out in black. According to whose** opinion is this *halakha*? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is** the opinion of **Ḥananya, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai.**


###### Eruvin 30b:6
[Eruvin 30b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:6)

וְלַחֲנַנְיָה, בִּשְׁחוֹרִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֵצֵא, הָא בִּלְבָנִים יֵצֵא? הָאָמַר עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא מִטָּתוֹ וּכְלֵי תַּשְׁמִישָׁיו לְשָׁם! הָכִי קָאָמַר: עֵירַב בִּלְבָנִים וְהוּצְרַךְ לִשְׁחוֹרִים, אַף בִּלְבָנִים לֹא יֵצֵא. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: חֲנַנְיָה הִיא, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Ḥananya,** is it **with black** clothing that **he may not go out, but in white** clothing **he may go out? Didn’t** Ḥananya **say** that according to Beit Shammai an *eiruv* is not effective at all **until one carries out his bed and his utensils** to the place he wishes to establish as his residence? The Gemara answers: The wording of the *baraita* must be emended and **this is what it said:** If **one established an *eiruv*** while dressed **in white** clothing, **and he needed black** clothing but did not have it with him, **he may not go out even in white** clothing. **In accordance with whose** opinion was this *baraita* taught? **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is** the opinion of **Ḥananya, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai.**


###### Eruvin 30b:7
[Eruvin 30b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:7)

סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר בְּחוּלִּין. וְאִילּוּ לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן לָא פְּלִיג, מַאי טַעְמָא — אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִתְּשִׁיל אַנְּזִירוּתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **Summakhos** disagrees and **says:** One may not establish an *eiruv* for an Israelite with *teruma*, but only **with** regular, **non-sacred** food items. The Gemara notes: **But** with regard to the mishna’s ruling that an *eiruv* may be established for **a nazirite with wine,** Summakhos **does not** appear to **disagree. What is the reason** for the distinction? The Gemara explains: A nazirite **can ask** a Sage to annul his vow and release him from **his nazirite status,** and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.


###### Eruvin 30b:8
[Eruvin 30b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:8)

אִי הָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִיתְּשִׁיל עִילָּוָיהּ? אִי מִתְּשִׁיל עֲלַהּ — הָדְרָא לְטִיבְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** in the case of ***teruma* as well, one can ask** a Sage to annul **its** status. *Teruma* is consecrated through a verbal declaration by the one separating it, and that declaration, like other consecrations and vows, can be nullified by a Sage. The Gemara answers: Such a course of action would not help. **If one asks** a Sage to annul his declaration that turned the produce into *teruma*, the produce **will return to** its status as ***tevel*,** produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated, and he will still be prohibited to consume it.


###### Eruvin 30b:9
[Eruvin 30b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:9)

וְלַיפְרוֹשׁ עֲלַהּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר? לָא נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵירִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let him separate** *teruma* **for** that produce **from** produce located **somewhere else** and thus permit it to be eaten. The Gemara answers: ***Ḥaverim*,** members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, **are not suspected of separating** *teruma* from produce that is **not** situated **near** the produce it comes to exempt, as this is prohibited *ab initio*.


###### Eruvin 30b:10
[Eruvin 30b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:10)

וְלַפְרוֹשׁ עֲלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ! דְּלֵית בַּהּ שִׁיעוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let him separate** *teruma* **from** the produce used for the *eiruv* **itself** and consequently permit the rest of the produce to be eaten. The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a case **where,** after removing *teruma*, **it would not contain the amount** required for an *eiruv*, i.e., one would be left with less than the quantity of food sufficient for two meals.


###### Eruvin 30b:11
[Eruvin 30b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:11)

וּמַאי פַּסְקָא? אֶלָּא, סוֹמְכוֹס סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** makes it **necessary** to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case? **Rather,** we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: **Summakhos agrees with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is** prohibited on Shabbat **due to a rabbinic decree [*shevut*],** the Sages **issued the decree** to apply even **during twilight.** Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself. Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate *teruma* on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well. Therefore, during twilight, when the *eiruv* would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.


###### Eruvin 30b:12
[Eruvin 30b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:12)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן: יֵשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַכֹּל לְפִי מַה שֶּׁהוּא אָדָם. מְלֹא קוּמְצוֹ מִנְחָה, וּמְלֹא חׇפְנָיו קְטֹרֶת, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מְלֹא לוּגְמָיו בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וּבִמְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְעֵירוּב. כְּמַאן? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: סוֹמְכוֹס הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַאי דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ בָּעִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion **is** the ruling **that we learned** in the following mishna: **There are** *halakhot* with regard to which **they stated** that measures **are all in accordance with the** particular **person** involved, e.g., **the handful of** flour that a priest scoops out from **a meal-offering, and the handfuls of incense** the High Priest would offer on Yom Kippur, **and one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the** measure of **two meals’** worth of **nourishment for an *eiruv*.** All these measures are determined by the particular individual involved. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *halakha*? **Rabbi Zeira said: It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Summakhos, who said: We require that which is fit for him,** the particular individual, and we do not follow a standard measure.


###### Eruvin 30b:13
[Eruvin 30b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:13)

לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מְעָרְבִין לְחוֹלֶה וּלְזָקֵן כְּדֵי מְזוֹנוֹ, וּלְרַעַבְתָן בִּסְעוּדָה בֵּינוֹנִית שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the aforementioned mishna **disagrees with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an *eiruv* for an ill or elderly** person **with** an amount of **food that is enough for him** for two meals; and if he eats less than the average amount due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is sufficient. **But for a glutton** we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him; we measure on the basis of **an average meal for the typical person.**


###### Eruvin 30b:14
[Eruvin 30b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:14)

תַּרְגּוּמָא, אַחוֹלֶה וְזָקֵן. אֲבָל רַעַבְתָן, בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: When the mishna says that the measure of food for two meals is determined by the particular person involved, **interpret** that as referring to **an ill or elderly** person. **But** with regard to **a glutton,** we do not determine the measure of food by his standard for a different reason, namely because **his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people.** Therefore, there is no reason to be stringent with him and determine the measure according to his particular needs.


###### Eruvin 30b:15
[Eruvin 30b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:15)

וְלַכֹּהֵן בְּבֵית הַפְּרָס. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְנַפֵּחַ אָדָם בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְהוֹלֵךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בֵּית הַפְּרָס שֶׁנִּידַּשׁ — טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: One may establish an *eiruv* **for a priest in a *beit haperas*,** an area in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave or a corpse. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** In a time of need **a person may blow** on the dust in a ***beit haperas*** before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it, **and** he may thus **walk** across the area. Similarly, **Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A *beit haperas* that has been trodden** underfoot, creating a path, **is pure,** as we assume that it no longer contains any bones as large as a kernel of barley. Both of these statements indicate that the ritual impurity of a *beit haperas* is a stringency decreed by the Sages. Therefore, since there is a way to avoid becoming ritually impure there, even a priest may place his *eiruv* in a *beit haperas*.


###### Eruvin 30b:16
[Eruvin 30b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:16)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. תָּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לָחוֹץ וְלֵילֵךְ בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל. קָא סָבַר: אֹהֶל זָרוּק שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** An *eiruv* may be established for a priest **even** in **a cemetery,** an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law. **It was taught:** This is permitted **because** the priest **can interpose and walk** between the graves inside **a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard.** These containers do not contract impurity because of their large size, and anything found inside of them remains pure. From here we see that **he holds** the following: **A moving tent is called a tent,** and therefore the carriage, box, or cupboard are also considered tents. They shield a person carried in them from the impurity imparted by the graves in a cemetery.


###### Eruvin 30b:17
[Eruvin 30b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:17)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל — רַבִּי מְטַמֵּא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that this matter is the subject of **a dispute between the following *tanna’im*, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who enters the land of the nations,** i.e., any territory outside Eretz Yisrael, not on foot, but **in a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **renders** him ritually **impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, renders** him **pure.**


###### Eruvin 30b:18
[Eruvin 30b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:18)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר אֹהֶל זָרוּק לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל, וּמָר סָבַר אֹהֶל זָרוּק שְׁמֵיהּ אֹהֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **a moving tent is not called a tent.** The principle is that only something fixed can shield against ritual impurity, but if one is situated inside a portable vessel, the vessel contracts impurity and he becomes impure along with it. **And** the other **Sage,** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that **a moving tent is called a tent,** and it shields the person inside from contracting ritual impurity.


###### Eruvin 30b:19
[Eruvin 30b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/30b:19)

וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **that which was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says:**