## Eruvin Daf 34b

###### Eruvin 34b:1
[Eruvin 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:1)

פְּשִׁיטָא! רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד עוֹלָה עַד לָרָקִיעַ, וְכִי הֵיכִי דְּסָלְקָא לְעֵיל, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּנָחֲתָא לְתַחַת. וְאֶלָּא דְּקָאֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it is obvious,** for **the private domain ascends to the sky, and just as it ascends upward, so** too, **it descends downward** to the bottom of the pit, even if it is more than ten handbreadths deep. **Rather,** we must say **that** the pit **is situated in the public domain.**


###### Eruvin 34b:2
[Eruvin 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:2)

דְּנִתְכַּוֵּון לִשְׁבּוֹת הֵיכָא? אִי לְמַעְלָה — הוּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְעֵירוּבוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוּא. אִי לְמַטָּה, פְּשִׁיטָא — הוּא וְעֵירוּבוֹ בִּמְקוֹם אֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now clarifies: **Where** did one **intend to establish his Shabbat residence? If** he intended to establish his residence **above** the pit in the public domain, this is a case where **he is in one place and his *eiruv* is in another place,** i.e., in a private domain, and therefore his *eiruv* is not valid. Alternatively, **if** one intended to establish his Shabbat residence **below,** in the pit, **it is** also **obvious,** as **he and his *eiruv* are in one place.**


###### Eruvin 34b:3
[Eruvin 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּקָאֵי בְּכַרְמְלִית וְנִתְכַּוֵּון לִשְׁבּוֹת לְמַעְלָה, וְרַבִּי הִיא דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This ruling **is necessary only** in a case **where** the pit **is situated in a *karmelit*, and he intended to establish his Shabbat residence above** the pit in the *karmelit*. **And** with regard to the question of how this *eiruv* can be valid, as one cannot bring the *eiruv* from the pit to the *karmelit*, the answer is that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who said:** With regard to **anything that is** prohibited on Shabbat **due to rabbinic decree [*shevut*], they did not issue the decree** to apply **during twilight.** Since carrying from the pit to the *karmelit* is only prohibited as a *shevut*, a person may carry from the pit to the *karmelit* during twilight, the time when the *eiruv* establishes one’s Shabbat residence.


###### Eruvin 34b:4
[Eruvin 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** נְתָנוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַקָּנֶה אוֹ בְּרֹאשׁ הַקּוּנְדָּס, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא תָּלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ, אֲפִילּוּ גָּבוֹהַּ מֵאָה אַמָּה — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one placed** his *eiruv* **on top of a reed or on top of a pole [*kundas*], when** the reed or pole **is detached** from its original place **and stuck** into the ground, **even** if it is **a hundred cubits high, it is a** valid ***eiruv*,** as one can remove the reed or pole from the ground and take his *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 34b:5
[Eruvin 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:5)

**גְּמָ׳** רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא לְרָבָא: תָּלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ — אִין. לֹא תָּלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ — לָא. מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא רַבִּי! רֵישָׁא רַבִּי וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a contradiction before Rava** concerning two tannaitic rulings: The mishna states that if the reed **was detached** from its place of growth **and** then **stuck** into the ground, **yes,** the *eiruv* is valid. That indicates that if it **was not detached and** then **stuck** back into the ground, **no,** the *eiruv* is not valid. In accordance with **whose** opinion is this mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is** prohibited on Shabbat **due to rabbinic decree [*shevut*],** such as using a tree on Shabbat, **they issued the decree** to apply even **during twilight.** Therefore, if the *eiruv* was on top of a reed that was still attached to the ground in its original place of growth, since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to make use of trees on Shabbat, one cannot remove the *eiruv* from its place at the time that he must establish his Shabbat residence, and therefore his *eiruv* is invalid. But **didn’t you say** that **the first clause,** i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? How can you say that **the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?**


###### Eruvin 34b:6
[Eruvin 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר רָמֵי לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא, וְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: רֵישָׁא רַבִּי, וְסֵיפָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Adda: **Rami bar Ḥama already raised this contradiction before Rav Ḥisda, and** Rav Ḥisda **answered him:** Indeed, **the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Eruvin 34b:7
[Eruvin 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:7)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי הִיא, וְסֵיפָא גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** You can, in fact, say that **it is all Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and the latter clause,** i.e., the mishna that insists that the reed be detached and inserted, is not based upon the prohibition of utilizing trees on Shabbat. Rather, in that case there is a unique **decree lest he break** it **off** from the ground if the reed is relatively soft. Therefore, the mishna requires one to use something that has already been detached from the ground and reinserted. However, the previous mishna is referring to someone who placed his *eiruv* in a tree, where this concern is not relevant.


###### Eruvin 34b:8
[Eruvin 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:8)

הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: פּוּקוּ עֲבִידוּ כְּבוּשֵׁי כַּבְשֵׁי בְּאַגְמָא, וּלְמָחָר נֵיזִיל וְנִיתֵּיב עִלָּוַיְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates **that** a certain **army [*pulmosa*]** once **came to Neharde’a** and took quarters in the study hall, so that there was not enough room for the students. **Rav Naḥman said to** the students: **Go out and create** seats by **compressing** reeds **in the marshes, and tomorrow,** on Shabbat, **we will go and sit on them** and study there.


###### Eruvin 34b:9
[Eruvin 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב נַחְמָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן: תָּלוּשׁ וְנָעוּץ אִין, לֹא תָּלוּשׁ וְלֹא נָעוּץ לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Naḥman, and some say** that it was **Rav Ukva bar Abba** who raised the objection **to Rav Naḥman,** from the mishna that states that if the reed **was detached and** then **stuck** into the ground, **yes;** but if it **was not detached and not stuck** into the ground, **no.** This shows that it is not enough to compress the reeds, and they must actually be detached from the ground before they may be used on Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 34b:10
[Eruvin 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם בְּעוּזְרָדִין. וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין עוּזְרָדִין לְשֶׁאֵין עוּזְרָדִין — דְּתַנְיָא: הַקָּנִין וְהָאֲטָדִין וְהַהִגִּין — מִין אִילָן הֵן, וְאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַקָּנִים וְהַקִּידָן וְהָאוּרְבָּנִין — מִין יָרָק הֵן, וְהֵן כִּלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם. קַשְׁיָא אַהֲדָדֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: There,** in the mishna, we are dealing with **hard** reeds, which may not be bent and used on Shabbat, unlike soft reeds. He adds: **And from where do you say that we distinguish between hard** reeds **and** reeds **that are not hard? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Reeds, boxthorn, and thistles are species of trees, and** therefore they **are not** included in the prohibition of **food crops in a vineyard,** which applies only to herbs planted among vines. **And it was taught in another** *baraita*: **Reeds, cassia, and bulrushes are species of herbs, and** therefore **they are** included in the prohibition of **food crops in a vineyard.** These two *baraitot* **contradict one another,** as one states that reeds are trees, while the other says that they are considered herbs.


###### Eruvin 34b:11
[Eruvin 34b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:11)

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בְּעוּזְרָדִין, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵין עוּזְרָדִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, conclude from this** that we must distinguish between them as follows: **Here,** in the first *baraita*, it is referring **to hard** reeds, which are like trees; whereas **there,** in the second *baraita*, it is referring **to** reeds **that are not hard.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **conclude from this** that our resolution of the contradiction is correct.


###### Eruvin 34b:12
[Eruvin 34b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:12)

וְקִידָּה מִין יָרָק הוּא?! וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מַרְכִּיבִין פֵּגָם עַל גַּבֵּי קִידָּה לְבָנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָרָק בְּאִילָן! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קִידָּה לְחוּד, וְקִידָּה לְבָנָה לְחוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the previously cited *baraita*: **Is cassia a type of herb? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **One may not graft rue to white cassia, as this** involves the grafting of **herbs to a tree?** This proves that white cassia is a tree. **Rav Pappa said:** There is no difficulty, as **cassia is distinct** and is considered a type of herb, **and white cassia is distinct** and is considered a type of tree.


###### Eruvin 34b:13
[Eruvin 34b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** נְתָנוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵּחַ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **If one put** the *eiruv* **in a cupboard** and locked it, **and the key was lost,** so that he is now unable to open the cupboard and access the *eiruv*, **it is** nonetheless a valid ***eiruv*. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place, it is not** a valid ***eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 34b:14
[Eruvin 34b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאַמַּאי? הוּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְעֵירוּבוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And why** should the *eiruv* be valid if the key was lost? **He is in one place and his *eiruv* is in a different place,** since he cannot access the *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 34b:15
[Eruvin 34b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:15)

רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הָכָא בְּמִגְדָּל שֶׁל לְבֵנִים עָסְקִינַן וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: פּוֹחֵת לְכַתְּחִילָּה וְנוֹטֵל. דִּתְנַן: בַּיִת שֶׁמִּילְּאָהוּ פֵּירוֹת, סָתוּם וְנִפְחַת — נוֹטֵל מִמְּקוֹם הַפְּחָת, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פּוֹחֵת וְנוֹטֵל לְכַתְּחִילָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Here, we are dealing with a cupboard** made **of bricks, and** the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said: One may create a breach** in a brick wall on Shabbat ***ab initio*, and take** produce from the other side. **As we learned** in a mishna: If **a house filled with produce** had been **sealed and was** then **breached, one may take out** produce **from the place of the breach. Rabbi Meir** disagrees and **says: One may** even **create a breach** in the wall of the house **and take** produce ***ab initio*.** Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir it is permissible to make a hole in the cupboard in order to remove the produce found inside.


###### Eruvin 34b:16
[Eruvin 34b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:16)

וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר אַדָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּאַוֵּירָא דְלִיבְנֵי. הָכָא נָמֵי בַּאֲוֵירָא דְלִיבְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Didn’t Rav Naḥman bar Adda say that Shmuel said** that that very mishna cited as a proof is referring **to** a structure built from **layers of bricks** piled one atop the other without cement or mortar between them, in which case making a hole cannot be considered dismantling a bona fide structure? The Gemara answers: **Here too,** we are dealing with a cupboard made from **layers of bricks.**


###### Eruvin 34b:17
[Eruvin 34b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:17)

וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָמְרוּ, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say:** The Sages in the aforementioned mishna, who discussed the breaching of a wall, **spoke** only **with regard to a Festival, but not with regard to Shabbat?** Therefore, it cannot be derived from that mishna that it is permitted to breach the cupboard on Shabbat in order to access the food inside. The Gemara answers: **Here too,** the mishna is referring **to** a case where the person needed an *eiruv* for **a Festival** but not for Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 34b:18
[Eruvin 34b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/34b:18)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם בָּעִיר אָבַד — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, וְאִם בַּשָּׂדֶה אָבַד — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. וְאִי בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מָה לִי עִיר מָה לִי שָׂדֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is **so** that the mishna is referring only to a Festival, there is a difficulty with **that which was taught about it** in the following *Tosefta*: **Rabbi Eliezer says: If** the key **was lost in a city, his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*; and if it was lost in a field, his *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*,** for within a city it is possible to carry the key by way of courtyards that have joined together in an *eiruv* or the like, but in a field it is impossible to carry it, as the field has the status of a *karmelit*. **And if** the mishna is referring **to a Festival, what** is the difference **to me** whether the key was lost in a **city** or a **field?** On a Festival there is no prohibition against carrying from a private to a public domain, and therefore if the key was lost even in a field, the *eiruv* should still be valid.