## Eruvin Daf 35a

###### Eruvin 35a:1
[Eruvin 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:1)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: נְתָנוֹ בְּמִגְדָּל, וְנָעַל בְּפָנָיו וְאָבַד הַמַּפְתֵּחַ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֲבָל בְּשַׁבָּת — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. נִמְצָא הַמַּפְתֵּחַ, בֵּין בָּעִיר בֵּין בַּשָּׂדֶה — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בָּעִיר — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, בַּשָּׂדֶה — אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **is incomplete and it teaches the following:** If **one placed** the *eiruv* **in a cupboard and locked it, and the key is lost, it is** nonetheless a valid ***eiruv*. In what** case **is this statement said? On a Festival; however, on Shabbat, his *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*.** If **the key is found, whether in a city or in a field, his *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*. Rabbi Eliezer** disagrees and **says:** If it is found **in a city, his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv*;** but if it is found **in a field, his *eiruv* is not** a valid ***eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 35a:2
[Eruvin 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:2)

בָּעִיר — עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: אֶחָד גַּגּוֹת וְאֶחָד חֲצֵירוֹת וְאֶחָד קַרְפֵּיפוֹת — רְשׁוּת אַחַת הֵן לְכֵלִים שֶׁשָּׁבְתוּ בְּתוֹכָן. בַּשָּׂדֶה אֵין עֵירוּבוֹ עֵירוּב — כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now explains the difference: If the key is found **in a city, his *eiruv* is** a valid ***eiruv* in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who said: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosed fields [*karpeifot*] are all one domain** with regard **to utensils that began Shabbat in them.** Accordingly, a utensil that was left on a roof at the beginning of Shabbat may be carried into a courtyard or a *karpef*. It is possible to transfer anything located in a city from one place to another in a similar manner. If, however, the key is found **in a field, his *eiruv* is not a** valid ***eiruv*, in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** due to the prohibition to carry in a *karmelit*. Although carrying there is merely a *shevut*, the *eiruv* is not valid.


###### Eruvin 35a:3
[Eruvin 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:3)

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הָכָא בְּמִגְדָּל שֶׁל עֵץ עָסְקִינַן, דְּמָר סָבַר: כְּלִי הוּא, וְאֵין בִּנְיָן בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין סְתִירָה בְּכֵלִים. וּמָר סָבַר: אֹהֶל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The discussion above constitutes one understanding of the mishna. **Rabba and Rav Yosef,** however, **both said: Here, we are dealing with a wooden cupboard,** and the *tanna’im* disagree with regard to the following point: **The** first, anonymous **Sage,** who rules that the *eiruv* is valid, **holds** that the cupboard **is a utensil, and** that **there is no** prohibited labor of **building utensils, and** similarly, **there is no dismantling of utensils.** Since dismantling a utensil is not included in the prohibited labor of dismantling, one may make a hole in the cupboard in order to access the food used for the *eiruv*. **And** the other **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, who invalidates the *eiruv*, **holds** that the cupboard **is a tent.** A wooden implement of such a large size is no longer classified as a utensil; rather, it is considered a building, and therefore it is subject to the prohibitions against building and dismantling on Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 35a:4
[Eruvin 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:4)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקִּישׁ עַל גַּבֵּי שִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל — טְמֵאִין. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֲרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** their dispute is parallel to **the dispute between these *tanna’im*, as we learned** in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a *zav*: One of the unique laws of a *zav* is that he imparts impurity to an object simply by moving it, even if he does not touch it directly. If a *zav* **knocked on a carriage, crate, or cupboard,** even if he did not actually come into direct contact with them, **they are** nonetheless ritually **impure** because he caused them to move when he struck them. **Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Shimon** disagree and **render** them **pure.**


###### Eruvin 35a:5
[Eruvin 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:5)

מַאי לָאו, בְּהָא קָמִפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר — כְּלִי הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר — אֹהֶל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, are they not disagreeing about this** point: **The** first **Sage holds** that a carriage, crate, or cupboard **is** categorized as **a utensil,** and therefore it contracts ritual impurity when a *zav* causes it to move; **and the** other **Sage,** Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **it is a tent,** and a building does not contract ritual impurity in any way from a *zav*?


###### Eruvin 35a:6
[Eruvin 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְתִיסְבְּרָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֹהֶל וְנִיסָּט — טָמֵא, כְּלִי וְאֵינוֹ נִיסָּט — טָהוֹר. וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם הָיוּ נִיסּוֹטִין — טְמֵאִים, זֶה הַכְּלָל: נִיסָּט מֵחֲמַת כֹּחוֹ — טָמֵא, מֵחֲמַת רְעָדָה — טָהוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** in refutation of this proof: **And** do **you think** that this is a reasonable explanation of the mishna? **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If a *zav* shook a real **tent, and it moved, it is** ritually **impure;** and if he shook **a utensil and it did not move, it is** ritually **pure?** This indicates that the critical factor is not whether the article is classified as a tent or as a utensil but whether or not it actually moves when shaken. Furthermore, **it was taught in the latter clause** of that *baraita*: **And if they moved, they are** ritually **impure,** and **this is the principle:** If a utensil or a tent **moved due to the** direct **force** of the *zav*, **it is** ritually **impure.** But if it moved **due to vibrations,** e.g., if the *zav* knocked on the floor or on the platform upon which the object is located, and the vibrations of the floor or the platform caused the object to move, **it is** ritually **pure,** as it was not moved by the direct force of the *zav*. Once again, the determining factor is not the object’s classification as a tent or a utensil but whether it was actually moved by the *zav*.


###### Eruvin 35a:7
[Eruvin 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֶיסֵּט מֵחֲמַת כֹּחוֹ — טָמֵא, מֵחֲמַת רְעָדָה — טָהוֹר. וְהָכָא בִּרְעָדָה מֵחֲמַת כֹּחוֹ עָסְקִינַן, וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר — הָוֵי הֶיסֵּט, וּמָר סָבַר — לָא הָוֵי הֶיסֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** that the dispute between the first *tanna* and Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Shimon should be understood as follows: **All** agree that **movement due to** the direct **force** of the *zav* causes the object to become ritually **impure,** whether it is a tent or a utensil. Conversely, if the movement was **due to vibrations** of the floor or base, **it is** ritually **pure. And here, we are dealing with** a case where the object **vibrated because of** the direct **force** of the *zav*, i.e., where he banged upon the object itself, causing it to vibrate but not to move. **And** the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to the following** point: **The** first **Sage holds** that this, too, **is** considered **movement; and the** other **Sage,** Rabbi Neḥemya and Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that vibration **is not** considered **movement.** Therefore, Abaye rejects Rabba and Rav Yosef’s proof for their explanation of the mishna.


###### Eruvin 35a:8
[Eruvin 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:8)

וּמַתְנִיתִין בְּמַאי מוֹקְמִינַן לַהּ? אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בְּמַנְעוּל וּקְטִיר בְּמִתְנָא עָסְקִינַן, וּבָעֵי סַכִּינָא לְמִיפְסְקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara therefore proceeds to ask: If so, **how is the mishna** with regard to *eiruv* **to be interpreted?** The Gemara answers: **Abaye and Rava both said: We are dealing** here **with a lock** that is **tied with a leather strap, and a knife is required to cut it** if there is no key.


###### Eruvin 35a:9
[Eruvin 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:9)

תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: כָּל הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בְּשַׁבָּת, חוּץ מִמַּסָּר הַגָּדוֹל וְיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The** anonymous **first *tanna* holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said: All utensils may be moved on Shabbat, except for a large saw and the blade of a plow.** Consequently, one may take a knife, cut the strap, and remove his *eiruv* from the cupboard.


###### Eruvin 35a:10
[Eruvin 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:10)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ טַלִּית אֲפִילּוּ תַּרְווֹד — אֵין נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ תַּשְׁמִישָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, who said: Even a cloak,** and **even a spoon,** which are certainly used only for activities permitted on Shabbat, **may be moved** on Shabbat **only for the purpose of their** ordinary **use.** The same applies to a knife, which may be moved only in order to cut food, but not for any other purpose. Consequently, one cannot cut the strap around the lock of the cupboard, and therefore his *eiruv* is invalid unless the key is located in town and he can transport it via courtyards.


###### Eruvin 35a:11
[Eruvin 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִתְגַּלְגֵּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל אוֹ נִשְׂרַף, תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת, מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one’s *eiruv* **rolled beyond the** Shabbat **limit,** and he no longer has access to his *eiruv* since he may not go beyond his limit, or if **a pile** of stones **fell on it, or** if **it was burnt,** or if the *eiruv* was ***teruma* and it became** ritually **impure;** if any of these occurrences took place **while it was still day,** prior to the onset of Shabbat, **it is not** a valid ***eiruv*,** since one did not have an *eiruv* at twilight, which is the time one’s Shabbat residence is established. However, if any of these occurred **after dark,** when it was already Shabbat, **it is** a valid ***eiruv*,** as it was intact and accessible at the time one’s Shabbat residence is determined.


###### Eruvin 35a:12
[Eruvin 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:12)

אִם סָפֵק, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: הֲרֵי זֶה חַמָּר גַּמָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the matter is **in doubt,** i.e., if he does not know when one of the aforementioned incidents occurred, **Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This** person **is** in the position of both **a donkey driver,** who must prod the animal from behind, **and a camel driver,** who must lead the animal from the front, i.e., he is a person who is pulled in two opposite directions. Due to the uncertainty concerning his Shabbat border, he must act stringently, as though his resting place were both in his town and at the location where he placed the *eiruv*. He must restrict his Shabbat movement to those areas that are within two thousand cubits of both locations.


###### Eruvin 35a:13
[Eruvin 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:13)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: סְפֵק עֵירוּב כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַבְטוּלְמוֹס הֵעִיד מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה זְקֵנִים עַל סְפֵק עֵירוּב שֶׁכָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon** disagree and **say: An *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt is** nevertheless **valid. Rav Yosei said:** The Sage **Avtolemos testified in the name of five Elders that an *eiruv*** whose validity is **in doubt is valid.**


###### Eruvin 35a:14
[Eruvin 35a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** נִתְגַּלְגֵּל חוּץ לַתְּחוּם. אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְגַּלְגֵּל חוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֲבָל לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — הַנּוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ יֵשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** We learned in the mishna: If one’s *eiruv* **rolled beyond the** Shabbat **limit** prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid *eiruv*. **Rava said: They only taught** this in a case **where** one established his *eiruv* at the edge of his town’s Shabbat limit and the *eiruv* **rolled more than four cubits** outside that limit; **however,** if it remained **within four cubits** of the Shabbat limit, it is a valid *eiruv*. The principle is that **one who places his *eiruv*** in a particular location **has four cubits** around it, since he has established his Shabbat residence there.


###### Eruvin 35a:15
[Eruvin 35a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:15)

נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל וְכוּ׳. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מָצֵי שָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If **a pile** of stones **fell on** the *eiruv* prior to the onset of Shabbat, it is not a valid *eiruv*. **It** might **enter your mind** to say that the mishna is referring to a case **where if one wanted he could take** the *eiruv*, i.e., where it is physically possible to clear the stones and remove the *eiruv* from underneath them. The only reason he cannot do so is because of the rabbinic prohibition to handle items that are set-aside, such as stones, on Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 35a:16
[Eruvin 35a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:16)

לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי, הָאָמַר: כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת — לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As, if** you say that **it is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, there is a difficulty: **Didn’t he say** that with regard to **anything prohibited due to rabbinic decree, they did not issue the decree to apply during twilight?** The prohibition to handle items that are set-aside is also a rabbinic decree, and therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since the *eiruv* was accessible at twilight, it should be valid.


###### Eruvin 35a:17
[Eruvin 35a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:17)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא כְּרַבִּי, לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּבָעֵי מָרָא וַחֲצִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **Even if you say** that the mishna **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, we can say that this ruling **was necessary only** in a case **where a hoe or a spade would be required** in order to remove the *eiruv* from under the stones, i.e., one would have to dig, which is a Shabbat labor prohibited by Torah law, not only by rabbinic decree.


###### Eruvin 35a:18
[Eruvin 35a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:18)

וּצְרִיכִי. דְּאִי תְּנָא ״נִתְגַּלְגֵּל״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיתָא גַּבֵּיהּ. אֲבָל נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל, דְּאִיתֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ — אֵימָא לֶיהֱוֵי עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** both rulings, the ruling concerning an *eiruv* that rolled beyond the Shabbat limit and the ruling concerning an *eiruv* that became buried under a pile of rocks, **are necessary. As, if** the mishna had only **taught** the case of the *eiruv* that **rolled** away, we might have said that the *eiruv* is invalid **because it is not near him, but** if **a pile** of rocks **fell on** the *eiruv*, since **it is near him,** you might **say that it should be** a valid ***eiruv*,** as one does not actually have to eat the *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 35a:19
[Eruvin 35a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:19)

וְאִי תְּנָא ״נָפַל עָלָיו גַּל״ — מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיכַּסֵּי. אֲבָל נִתְגַּלְגֵּל, זִימְנִין דְּאָתֵי זִיקָא וּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ — אֵימָא לֶיהֱוֵי עֵירוּב צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** the mishna had only **taught** the case where **a pile** of rocks **fell on** the *eiruv*, we might have said that the *eiruv* is invalid **because it is covered, but** in the case where it **rolled** away, since **sometimes a wind comes and brings it** back, **you might say that it should be a** valid *eiruv*. Therefore, it was necessary to teach both cases.


###### Eruvin 35a:20
[Eruvin 35a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/35a:20)

אוֹ נִשְׂרַף, תְּרוּמָה וְנִטְמֵאת. לְמָה לִי? תְּנָא נִשְׂרַף —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further states: **Or** if the *eiruv* **was burnt,** or if the *eiruv* was ***teruma* that became** ritually **impure** before Shabbat, it is not a valid *eiruv*. The Gemara asks: **Why do I need** to teach these two cases? The essential point of both cases is the same: The *eiruv* is no longer fit to be eaten. The Gemara answers: The mishna **taught** the case where the *eiruv* **was burnt**